Oh no I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying I am right either! Law isn't as black and white as I'm sure you know It could well be mentioned, but with the details of the event it's going to be difficult to suggest it was loss of controlWell, don't blame me for getting it wrong. Blame my teacher who got great grades in law at uni! If I'm going on what I've ben taught, loss of control could be used, but as I said earlier its unlikely that it would be allowed.
Obviously he has the actus reus as the woman is dead due to his actions, whether it be through intent or recklessness.
LEFT
FOM & FOW
If you need me, feel free to PM me here for contact details.
I do see your point. Also, apologies if it seems snappy, didn't mean it to be!
Yeah, I completely see where you're coming from now I've read it over a few times.
Last edited by Cerys; 14-02-2013 at 11:20 PM.
No worries. The whole point of law seems to be to snap at each other, and see who is the most convincing.
It would be interesting to see what comes of this case. The details of what may have happened seem rather vague at the moment.
LEFT
FOM & FOW
If you need me, feel free to PM me here for contact details.
Haha yes I suppose so!
I think I would go for unlawful act manslaughter as it would be hard to prove that he had intended to kill her - where did he actually shoot her? As I guess what will prove intent or not.
Manslaughter does seem likely. He's charged with murder and if there is strong evidence against him he could only try and reduce the conviction to voluntary manslaughter if they can prove he intended to hurt her but not kill her. As you said, loss of control would make it voluntary manslaughter (provocation). If he was waving the gun around and accidentally shot her, he could try for involuntary manslaughter but he will have to try hard to fight for that
LEFT
FOM & FOW
If you need me, feel free to PM me here for contact details.
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!