Death at Burger King Ruled a Homicide

[ConHog]

Without having all the details I think a 67 year old homeless man would be in less than optimal condition. I think the employee of the burger king had help at his disposal and did not have to kill the man to subdue him. I think he should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Wrong charge Willow, to qualify as voluntary manslaughter the perpetrator would have had to have been trying to kill the man. Not the case here. He should be, and probably will be, charged with negligent homicide as he didn't intend to kill the man, but his actions clearly led to his death.

 

[goldcatt]

Without having all the details I think a 67 year old homeless man would be in less than optimal condition. I think the employee of the burger king had help at his disposal and did not have to kill the man to subdue him. I think he should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Wrong charge Willow, to qualify as voluntary manslaughter the perpetrator would have had to have been trying to kill the man. Not the case here. He should be, and probably will be, charged with negligent homicide as he didn't intend to kill the man, but his actions clearly led to his death.

Don't know Michigan's homicide statutes or the different levels of homicide they charge. Do they even have a voluntary manslaughter charge? I'd say negligent homicide - or equivalent. With the man's age and condition as a sentencing factor.

 

[ConHog]

Without having all the details I think a 67 year old homeless man would be in less than optimal condition. I think the employee of the burger king had help at his disposal and did not have to kill the man to subdue him. I think he should be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Wrong charge Willow, to qualify as voluntary manslaughter the perpetrator would have had to have been trying to kill the man. Not the case here. He should be, and probably will be, charged with negligent homicide as he didn't intend to kill the man, but his actions clearly led to his death.

Don't know Michigan's homicide statutes or the different levels of homicide they charge. Do they even have a voluntary manslaughter charge? I'd say negligent homicide - or equivalent. With the man's age and condition as a sentencing factor.

I'd bet money the feds step in and make this a hate crime.

 

[goldcatt]

Wrong charge Willow, to qualify as voluntary manslaughter the perpetrator would have had to have been trying to kill the man. Not the case here. He should be, and probably will be, charged with negligent homicide as he didn't intend to kill the man, but his actions clearly led to his death.

Don't know Michigan's homicide statutes or the different levels of homicide they charge. Do they even have a voluntary manslaughter charge? I'd say negligent homicide - or equivalent. With the man's age and condition as a sentencing factor.

I'd bet money the feds step in and make this a hate crime.

Never happen when the vic struck first, doesn't matter if he was a 10,000 year old hermaphrodite with purple and green spots. Even if they wanted to, which I doubt, they'd never get a conviction.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the act to be a crime, there must be intent; killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense when protecting oneself or to protect another when using reasonable force.

 

[ConHog]

For the act to be a crime, there must be intent; killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense when protecting oneself or to protect another when using reasonable force.

You're wrong. On ANY level of crime. Let's say you accidentally run a stop light, can you still get a ticket? Of course you can.

The man committed a crime when he swung back, the death compounds that crime.

 

[goldcatt]

For the act to be a crime, there must be intent; killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense when protecting oneself or to protect another when using reasonable force.

Not so.

There has to be intent to strike the blow. Intent to kill doesn't have to be present. And in negligent homicide, there doesn't even have to be that level of intent - only an action that could reasonably have been foreseen to cause death and the kid was criminally stupid and did it anyway.

Self-defense guidelines vary from state to state, according to what I know deadly force would not be in line with that in these circumstances but I don't know the MI rule on it. Either way, self-defense is what's known as an affirmative defense. If it's pretty clear he'd win on self-defense the DA won't charge him, but if charges are filed it's up to the defendant to prove he was acting in self-defense and the jury has to make that decision.

 

[ConHog]

For the act to be a crime, there must be intent; killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense when protecting oneself or to protect another when using reasonable force.

Not so.

There has to be intent to strike the blow. Intent to kill doesn't have to be present. And in negligent homicide, there doesn't even have to be that level of intent - only an action that could reasonably have been foreseen to cause death and the kid was criminally stupid and did it anyway.

Self-defense guidelines vary from state to state, according to what I know deadly force would not be in line with that in these circumstances but I don't know the MI rule on it. Either way, self-defense is what's known as an affirmative defense. If it's pretty clear he'd win on self-defense the DA won't charge him, but if charges are filed it's up to the defendant to prove he was acting in self-defense and the jury has to make that decision.

As I said, my wife says she would charge the man with negligent homicide based mostly on the fact that the victim was a 67 y/o man. If he had been another 20 something probably not. Of course both are crimes, but it comes down to what case she thinks she can make. Probably can't make the case when two 20 y/o get in a fight.

 

[goldcatt]

For the act to be a crime, there must be intent; killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense when protecting oneself or to protect another when using reasonable force.

Not so.

There has to be intent to strike the blow. Intent to kill doesn't have to be present. And in negligent homicide, there doesn't even have to be that level of intent - only an action that could reasonably have been foreseen to cause death and the kid was criminally stupid and did it anyway.

Self-defense guidelines vary from state to state, according to what I know deadly force would not be in line with that in these circumstances but I don't know the MI rule on it. Either way, self-defense is what's known as an affirmative defense. If it's pretty clear he'd win on self-defense the DA won't charge him, but if charges are filed it's up to the defendant to prove he was acting in self-defense and the jury has to make that decision.

As I said, my wife says she would charge the man with negligent homicide based mostly on the fact that the victim was a 67 y/o man. If he had been another 20 something probably not. Of course both are crimes, but it comes down to what case she thinks she can make. Probably can't make the case when two 20 y/o get in a fight.

That's what prosecutorial discretion is all about. From what I remember of the AR statutes that's where I'd go too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the act to be a crime, there must be intent; killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense when protecting oneself or to protect another when using reasonable force.

You're wrong. On ANY level of crime. Let's say you accidentally run a stop light, can you still get a ticket? Of course you can.

The man committed a crime when he swung back, the death compounds that crime.

The employee MY have committed a crime, it's a judgment call. Was the employee a large athletic male; was the punch a short jab or a well executed left or right hand? Was the victim frail and the punch thrown by the employee done with malice?
Too many unknowns in the OP.

There are many factors the investigating officer must believe to be true before s/he signs an affidavit for prosecution. Was the response to the threat reasonable? Did the employee fear for his life or have a history of violence? Had the employee been trained in defensive tactics?
Your analogy of a ticket, an infraction, is silly. Intent is defined as: Adjective, "With fixed purpose; earnest; determined; engrossed; as a noun, "the purpose to use a particular means to effect a certain result" (Quoted from Ballentine's Law Dictionary).
A constituent element of all criminal acts, but not necessarily conscious wrongdoing; an inference of law from facts proved.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I can understand the old guy being pissed off. I get mad when I order a large coke and they throw a paper cup at you and tell you to get it yourself at that stupid dispenser. I don't know if I consider it a lack of service or just plain old piss poor service.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I need to repeat my post, BBD posted another idiotgram (I guess he needs attention); my post is at least substantive.

The employee MY have committed a crime, it's a judgment call. Was the employee a large athletic male; was the punch a short jab or a well executed left or right hand? Was the victim frail and the punch thrown by the employee done with malice?
Too many unknowns in the OP.

There are many factors the investigating officer must believe to be true before s/he signs an affidavit for prosecution. Was the response to the threat reasonable? Did the employee fear for his life or have a history of violence? Had the employee been trained in defensive tactics?
Your analogy of a ticket, an infraction, is silly. Intent is defined as: Adjective, "With fixed purpose; earnest; determined; engrossed; as a noun, "the purpose to use a particular means to effect a certain result" (Quoted from Ballentine's Law Dictionary).
A constituent element of all criminal acts, but not necessarily conscious wrongdoing; an inference of law from facts proved.