Replies

The park ranger was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

Which was an appropriate charge, rather than murder, which some are saying should have been the charge.

What are we missing from your comments?
Was he not found guilty?

Actually he pleaded guilty, rather than being found guilty.

Shooting him in the back of the neck shows something is wrong here.

Not necessarily, although the witnesses quoted by the reporter say the man was running away. As you've likely noticed, reporters don't always report the whole story.

Anyone wearing the uniform is held to a higher standard of trust than us regular citizens. They have authority they can abuse that we don’t.

And they are put in situations that us "regular citizens" are not, or at least are more likely to be put in them. But once they are in them, the legal standard for their behavior is the same as ours would be in a similar situation.

What you are missing, or not acknowledging is that the $14 fee and the drunk and disorderly camper only set the stage. Absent the fee part, it could just as well have been another camper that got crosswise with the belligerent drunk. If it had been, then the same "reasonable man" standard would apply, or at least it should.

As I pointed out before, just because the guy was shot in the back of the neck, by itself does not indicate a "bad shoot". In this case we can presume it was a degree of bad shoot, but not one with malice aforethought, which is what is required to make it a murder charge.

Yea, the Ranger screwed up, but the justice system (The Judge has to accept the plea) determined that it was voluntary manslaughter, not murder.

Because the ranger had a good reputatation in the community, and no previous criminal record, the judge gave him supervised probation, rather than jail time. It's still probation, and if he violates the terms, he'll go to jail and do the full 7 years.

From the Law Dictionary:

Manslaughter The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed. At common law, as well as under current statutes, the offense can be either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. The main difference between the two is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter. Some states have abandoned the use of adjectives to describe different forms of the offense and, instead, simply divide the offense into varying degrees. Voluntary Manslaughter In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice. If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period. Provocation is justifiable if areasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.

Certain forms of provocation that frequently arise have traditionally been considered reasonable or unreasonable by the courts. A killing that results from anger that is induced by a violent blow with a fist or weapon might constitute sufficient provocation, provided the accused did not incite the victim. It is not reasonable, however, to respond similarly to a light blow. A killing that results from mutual combat is often considered manslaughter, provided it was caused by the heat of passion aroused by the combat. An illegal arrest of one who knows of or believes in his or her innocence may provoke a reasonable person, although cases are in dispute on the issue of whether such an arrest would justify a killing. An attempt to make a legal arrest in an unlawful manner by the use of unnecessary violence might also constitute a heat of passion killing that will mitigate an intentional killing. Some cases have held that a reasonable belief that one's spouse is committing adultery will suffice. An injury to persons in a close relationship to the accused, such as a spouse, child, or parent, is often held to constitute reasonable provocation, particularly when the injury occurs in the accused's presence.

Mere words or gestures, although extremely offensive and insulting, have traditionally been viewed as insufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter. There is, however, a modern trend in some courts to hold that words alone will suffice under certain circumstances, such as instances in which a present intent and ability to cause harm is demonstrated.

The reasonable person standard is generally applied in a purely objective manner. Unusual mental or physical characteristics are not taken into consideration. The fact that a defendant was more susceptible to provocation than an average person because he or she had a previous head injury is not relevant to a determination of whether the person's conduct was reasonable. There has, however, been a recent trend in some cases that indicates a willingness to consider some subjective factors.

If a reasonable period of time passed between the provocation and the killing so that the defendant had sufficient time to cool off, a homicide will not be reduced to manslaughter. Most courts will reduce the charge if a reasonable person would not have cooled off. Some, however, look solely at the defendant's temperament and make a subjective decision as to whether the person had sufficient time to regain self-control.

In some states, there is a case-law trend in which a killing that is committed under a mistaken belief that one is justified constitutes voluntary manslaughter. It is reasoned that although the crime is not justifiable, it is not serious enough to be murder.

a It is a general rule that a defendant who acts in self-defense may only use force that is reasonably calculated to prevent harm to himself or herself. If the person honestly, but unreasonably, believes deadly force is necessary and, therefore, causes another's death, some courts will consider the crime voluntary manslaughter. Similarly when a defendant acts under an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she has a right to kill another to prevent a felony, some courts will find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Although it is generally considered a crime to kill another in order to save oneself, the justification of coercion or necessity may, likewise, reduce murder to manslaughter in some jurisdictions.

Apparently the guideline punishment for voluntary manslaughter is a maximum of 10 years, but NM is not a guidline state and I could not determine what the maximum penalty is there.