So, in your eyes, it was necessary for Thompson to kill this man? Because unless your answer is "yes", then manslaughter still applies. And if you answer "yes", then that means you believe both of the following: 1) If unrestrained the man would have been an imminent threat to Thompson/other's well-being 2) It would be unreasonable to expect Thompson to be able to restrain the man without killing him I can buy #1, I cannot buy #2. Therefore, manslaughter.
It was necessary for him to restrain the drunk attacker and given that it was reasonable for him to think he could restrain thedrunk attacker without killing him, it makes it nothing more than self defense that unfortunately led to the drunk attackers accidental death. They even took measures attempting to prevent the drunk attackers death, but it didn't work
Absolutely, but there wouldn't be a thread to discuss it because there would be no charges and the story would barely be mentioned on the news. I, as a rule, don't support attackers when their victims or intended victims defend themselves....even if it leads to the attackers death.
That's not how this works. Just because I think I can do something without killing someone doesn't absolve me from responsibility if I actually DO kill them.
Seriously? It is more important to deter the reckless action of public urination than it is to deter reckless action that results in death. Only bobbythebullsh!tter.
He thinks this case is about color so he thinks the victim is the white guy for being white. Pure delusion I know but hey, that's bobby.
Funny. Just like you I had no idea the victim was a minority until Bobby came along screaming about it.
In a non self defense situation sure. This was a self defense situation because he was attacked by the drunk guy.
No, that's not the case. The victim is the guy who was attacked by the drunk. Just because the attacker ended up dead doesn't change anything.
Dude a choke hold isn't a gun. Thompson would have been better off shooting him but he wanted to test his BJJ skills in real life.
Of course you did. This wouldn't be a case and there would be no charges otherwise. When someone attacks another and that person defends themselves leading to the death of the attacker the ONLY way you heart about it is if the attacker was a minority and the victim is either white or someone with a lesser victim priority status than the attacker.
You are making my point, the act was not intended to kill, it was just intended to restrain.....but even if he had pulled out a gun and shot the drunk pisser it would have been legally justifiable under self defense. To prove a crime happened you have to prove there was specific intent to kill after the guy was no longer a threat.
I don't think you understand that a "self-defense situation" does not create a blank check wherein someone acting negligently (cutting off someone's air supply while restraining them qualifies quite nicely) is absolved of guilt. "Self defense" and "manslaughter/criminally negligent homocide" are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they frequently intersect.
If he pulled out a gun after the man was subdued then, no, he would be charged with 1st degree murder. Intent is not necessary for there to be a crime. That's the whole point of involuntary manslaughter (one of the charges Thompson faces).
Pulling a trigger takes about .5 of a second. Choking a guy to death took over 10 minutes. 10 minutes of people yelling that the guy is tapping out and turning purple. Good luck arguing heat of the moment.
Self defense is a legal defense for manslaughter, you'd have to prove that he went beyond defending himself and that's hard to do considering that the drunk pisser was trying to get up and continue the attack almost the entire time he was being subdued.
What you have to prove is that he went above and beyond defending himself to a point where a reasonable person would believe that their actions would lead to the drunk pisser's death...and again that had to have happened after he was no longer a threat. I just don't see you proving that.
