Where did this guy get the idea it was okay to go into a girls restroom stall?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the prosecutors will probably be willing to accept manslaughter, but since he was in the commission of what IS, after all, a crime - assault - and it resulted in death, the law in Arizona says he's guilty of murder. I'm not seeing an actual defense here, just mitigating circumstances.

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

 

[Fang]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.



.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.



.

Depends on his criminal record if he even has one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

• First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime,[71] is typically first-degree.[72]
• Second-degree murder: any intentional murder without premeditation, but with malice aforethought. [73]
• Voluntary manslaughter: sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[74]
• Involuntary manslaughter: a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[75]

 

[Fang]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

• First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime,[71] is typically first-degree.[72]
• Second-degree murder: any intentional murder without premeditation, but with malice aforethought. [73]
• Voluntary manslaughter: sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[74]
• Involuntary manslaughter: a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[75]

Well, each state has a variation. It'll be interesting to see how Arizona approaches this.

His daughter wasn't actually sexually assaulted (doesn't make it any less infuriating I understand) and she was safe. At that point it was in the hands of the security guard. Just my opinion but I think they can prove he intended serious bodily harm after he knew she was safe and unharmed, therefore 2nd degree. Well see...

 

[Fang]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.



.

Then the jury is giving any parent whose child has a close call the right to take matters into their own hands. When does an enraged parent end up killing someone who's actually innocent but the parent didn't see it that way?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

• First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime,[71] is typically first-degree.[72]
• Second-degree murder: any intentional murder without premeditation, but with malice aforethought. [73]
• Voluntary manslaughter: sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[74]
• Involuntary manslaughter: a killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.[75]

Well, each state has a variation. It'll be interesting to see how Arizona approaches this.

His daughter wasn't actually sexually assaulted (doesn't make it any less infuriating I understand) and she was safe. At that point it was in the hands of the security guard. Just my opinion but I think they can prove he intended serious bodily harm after he knew she was safe and unharmed, therefore 2nd degree. Well see...

That is absolutely correct. It’s not a self-defense case or a case of protecting somebody else. But I think a jury would have consideration for how he felt at the time which is why I think he’ll get off on a manslaughter charge with minimum sentenced to be served. After all, chances are most of the jurors either have children or grandchildren.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe. But if he has no history of criminal activity or violence, I'm sure the judge will use that in consideration while handing down a sentence. Maybe 3 to 5 with time served and he'll get out in two years on good behavior.

Depends on what he's convicted of.

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

 

[Doc1]

Depends on what he's convicted of.

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

So you ran POGO off ehh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.

.

That is DEFINITELY going to depend on who's on the jury. And on how each attorney presents his case, assuming it gets to trial.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would love to be a member of the jury for his trial.

I'd vote Not Guilty on all counts. .....

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.



.

Depends on his criminal record if he even has one.

Not that I can find without a much more in-depth search. For myself, I'm bothered by him feeling that physical violence, especially to that extent, is appropriate after the fact. That seems to indicate a lack of self-control and civilization that would potentially make him a danger to society.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

So you ran POGO off ehh?

No idea. I started ignoring him after his ass was thoroughly tattooed with my boot print.

 

[Pogo]

If he's lucky the DA will charge Voluntary Manslaughter, to wit:

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

If he is not lucky, Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

So you ran POGO off ehh?

My points have been made, Sock.

Why would I hang after I got you told? What would be the point? Is that what you do when you have no life?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

So you ran POGO off ehh?

My points have been made, Sock.

Why would I hang after I got you told? What would be the point? Is that what you do when you have no life?

Then why respond now?

 

[Doc1]

Second degree murder is overreach. If the prosecutor goes for that, it'll probably be George Zimmerman all over again

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

So you ran POGO off ehh?

My points have been made, Sock.

Why would I hang after I got you told? What would be the point? Is that what you do when you have no life?

LOL, sock? You're an idiot.
You got your ass kicked by everyone in the thread kid. Butch up sally

 

[Doc1]

Pretty sure that's just his opening bargaining position.

It's probably what the cops charged him with, not the prosecutor.

No idea, actually. The attack took place two weeks ago or so, and I'm not clear on how soon afterward the guy died. I believe I read in one of the articles that Harris had initially been charged with aggravated assault, and it was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder, so my impression was that had been a prosecutorial decision by then.

So you ran POGO off ehh?

My points have been made, Sock.

Why would I hang after I got you told? What would be the point? Is that what you do when you have no life?

Then why respond now?

He/She is completely ego driven.

 

[Dschrute3]

It's why so may have stopped shopping at stores like Target. It's a frightening dangerous policy. Parents don't feel safe with their children at such places. This Father may have over-reacted, but i can understand where he was coming from.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you're for vigilante justice? That's a complete disaster waiting to happen. You're giving a free pass to kill to every parent who feels their child has been wronged. It appears the girl was never assaulted and we don't know why he was trying to get into the stall. No doubt as a father I'd be angry. But really? That gives him the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I don't think so.

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.



.

Depends on his criminal record if he even has one.

Not that I can find without a much more in-depth search. For myself, I'm bothered by him feeling that physical violence, especially to that extent, is appropriate after the fact. That seems to indicate a lack of self-control and civilization that would potentially make him a danger to society.

I think it's a little different when you're talking about somebody's daughter. If he has a history of assault and violence, then I would have to agree with you. But if this was an isolated incident, the reason has to be taken into consideration.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you really think it was his intent to kill the guy?

It doesn't matter. Clearly he intended to inflict great bodily harm this person because that's exactly what he did.

Second degree murder is defined as such:

• A killing done impulsively without premeditation, but with "malice aforethought"
• A killing that results from an act intended to cause serious bodily harm
• A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators "depraved indifference" to human life

This is clearly a 2nd degree murder case. He deserves the maximum IMO.

Yet the jury won't see it that way, 5 years probation max.



.

Depends on his criminal record if he even has one.

Not that I can find without a much more in-depth search. For myself, I'm bothered by him feeling that physical violence, especially to that extent, is appropriate after the fact. That seems to indicate a lack of self-control and civilization that would potentially make him a danger to society.

I think it's a little different when you're talking about somebody's daughter. If he has a history of assault and violence, then I would have to agree with you. But if this was an isolated incident, the reason has to be taken into consideration.

I certainly think there's a difference between one isolated incident and a pattern, and the law thinks so as well. However, "I talk to authorities, I walk away, and THEN I decide I have to pound him" is still a concerning thought pattern to me. Heat of the moment, actually defending your loved one from harm, okay; this wasn't that, and I'm much less comfortable with it.

As I've said, I don't know that I'd go for 2nd-degree murder on the jury (depending on what facts were brought to light in trial), but I also wouldn't go for letting him walk scot-free.