🚀 go-pugleaf

"sharon" <sharon@home.com> wrote in message 
news:Rx%Oe.342$Rc.219586@news20.bellglobal.com...
> sticks wrote:
>
>>whadja think about the part where his "heart goes out to her," yet he 
>>feels
> no remorse for the pain and death >he's caused.  creepy?
>
>
> I don't know how to break it to you: there are people who kill for 
> pleasure
> and there are people who kill in self defense. Do you believe that a wife
> who kills an abusive husband should feel a lot of remorse after that?

There are a lot more reasons that people kill.
And killing is not necessarily homocide, but could include it.
Soldier  who kills may get a medal.
A person who kills may be charged with manslaughter.
Some places the state executes, that is killing, but not murder.
None of these killings are murder.
Murder is homicide. Plain and simple.

Either you plan to kill somebody, and intend to kill, and commit homicide, 
or you did not intend to kill someone, but they are dead.
You may have been going the speed limit when your car hit an oil slick, 
skidded off the bridge, landed safely, but crushing a mother and her child.
That is not murder. That could be considered manslaughter. The big 
difference is for manslaughter, the judge can let you walk, suspend the 
sentence, perhaps even discharge it. But as soon as there is intent, it is 
murder, and if there is intent and premeditation, then it is murder, damn 
American Television! It is like murder in the first degree, which we don't 
have here, but that is the degree that Fabrikant has beeing tried on and 
convicted and sentenced to 25 years without parole. If you don't 
premeditate, then I think you can still get up to 25 years, but you can get 
less, and I believe you still can get parole. I think the charge is the 
same, but the sentencing is different here.

Now I just want go over the differences between killing, murder & homicide, 
and manslaughter.
Murder or homicide which is the legal definition for murder requires that 
the perpetrator had intent.
There must be intent. No intent, no crime. Intent has to be formed. So if a 
person cannot form intent,
and kills somebody, there has been no crime committed.  Some very mentally 
challenged people cannot
form intent. This also applies to certain forms of insanity. Including 
temporary insanity.

So defence number 1) The accused is unable to form intent.

Once there is intent to kill somebody and you do it then you have committed 
a homicide, or murdered a person.
People are emotional animals, sometimes rage can make a person blind to the 
consequences their actions.
Some guy in a bar has a disagreement with another, and he takes out a knife, 
and with malice, stabs him 27 times.
There was intent, that is not in question. But there was no premeditation.

The law is not as harsh when there is only intent. I guess it is not 
considered as heineous when premeditation is present in a murder.
That means first intent was formed, and then the murder was planned and then 
carried out. Premediation makes murder cold and calculating..

Which brings us to the second of the 3 defences for murder.

Defence number 2) The accused acted in self defence and had no other otption 
but to use deadly force.

Now there are two elements in that defence. One is it is not judged by what 
you did, but what a reasonable person would do in the same circumstances. 
The other, and this is where the burning bed defence piggy backs upon the 
second element, it actually doesn't matter if your life is in danger and 
deadly force is required to save it - it only matters if you actually 
believed it to be true.

So that was the defence that Fabrikant picked. He thought he could prove 
that he believed that his life was in immenant danger if he did not act with 
deadly force. Legal experts were suggesting insanity as the only viable 
defence. But it doesn't make sense that the secretary had any power on 
control or could harm him in anyway. Why shoot her? Fabrikant was playing 
the ploy that he was a battered professor, his very life being threatened, 
knowing it could be anyday, and unable to escape the control of the big bad 
college, he had to plan to kill everyone in the administration offices of 
his faculty. He planned it out. Though he clamimed he took the gun so he 
would be taken seriously, he actually took 3 loaded guns, and boxes of ammo.
He only has 2 hands. 3 guns, boxes of ammo? HE was not able to establish his 
life was in any danger nor that deadly force was required.
He picked the wrong defence.

But the crown, the were able to prove intnet and pre-meditation. He got the 
only sentence they can give when there is intent and pre-meditation.
It was not self defence, but cold, calculating murder. That was proved.

Defense number 3) The accused is innocent and can present evidence to 
support their assertion.

No other defences for murder. O.J. The glove didn't fit, as an example of 
proving innocence.