The trial of the case : “Gay panic” defence Aaron McKinney alleged that Shepard had made a pass at him was sufficient grounds to justify joining with friend Russell Henderson in savagely beating Shepard, clubbing him with a handgun, lashing him to a wooden fence and leaving him to die. McKinney’s attorney wanted the jury to accept that because McKinney has a homosexual encounter when he was younger and that he was under the influence of both drugs and alcohol when he alleges Shepard made a pass at him, that he was therefore not responsible for
Blake could not stop in time or avoid hitting him, therefore, Stafford was hit by Blake’s car and died. Issue: Did Kibbe and Krall legally cause the death of Stafford? Holding: Yes Reasoning: Kibbe’s and Krall’s action of leaving a helplessly intoxicated man without his eyeglasses, where he could not protect himself from the elements, are the proximity cause of the death of George Stafford. It was reasonably foreseeable that leaving Stafford, a drunk and blind man, on a highway could get hit by a car. Blake had his low beam on as two cars approached and there was no
The Crown reported that Pickton told the officer that he wanted to kill another woman to make it an even 50, and that he was caught because he was "sloppy". Background On February 6, 2002, police executed a search warrant for illegal firearms at the property owned by Pickton and his two siblings. He was taken into custody and police then obtained a second court order to search the farm as part of the BC Missing Women Investigation, when personal items (including a prescription asthma inhaler) belonging to one of the missing women were found. The farm was sealed off by members of the joint RCMP–Vancouver Police Department task force. The following day Pickton was charged with storing a firearm contrary to regulations, possession of a firearm while not being holder of a licence and possession of a loaded restricted firearm without a licence.
The gunman was nowhere in sight. He had sped away in the BMW to a Micro Center computer store in Tustin. Soon thereafter, workers at a nearby Fairfield Inn construction site heard gunfire. Tom Van Schindel, a project superintendent, said a plumbing supervisor spotted one of his co-workers being chased through an overflow parking lot and drove over to help him. The co-worker, Jeremy Lewis, 26, of Fullerton, had just arrived for his 6 a.m. shift when, authorities said, Syed shot and killed him.
He may be using it to take out a criminal, or to take down one of his old enemies. The police do not need to carry guns when they are off duty because there are police who are on duty who can take out criminals. There was a case in a federal court where a retired police officer was carrying a gun and was shot and killed by a gang. This is an example of why off-duty police should not carry guns, because it promotes gang violence. In another case occurring at Santa High School in Santee, California in 2001.
This is because a deadly weapon was actually used. First, even if her husband did threaten her, it was only verbal and was not accompanied by any physical action. There is little perceived fear that we can attach to Sharon and no reasonable basis why she should have been scared. She also had the chance to leave the table and retreat away from her husband but actually chose to hit him over his head with a bottle. In addition, majority of jurisdictions consider force that can lead to serious bodily harm; for example, a bloodied head, as being equivalent to the use of a deadly weapon (Siegel & Senna, 2008).
In 2007, I was a passenger in a vehicle that was initially pulled over for speeding. After the officer, noticed an open container (broken seal) of alcohol. Immediately the officer wrote two tickets, one for the driver and one for the passenger, even though the privately owned vehicle didn’t belong to me. I didn’t argue with the officer due to lack of knowledge with that particular law and didn’t want any extra trouble. The officer neglected to write an additional ticket to the driver for speeding.
The ones who use the guns for protection feel that the gun control laws can take away a person’s right to protect themselves and loved ones. Those who own guns and know that they have protection if they need it feel a sense of security. For example, if someone is breaking in your house you don’t know if that person is breaking in to steal something or to cause harm to you or your family; that is when you need a gun for protection. If someone is breaking in and sees that you have a gun they will ultimately run away whereas if you are unarmed the intruder knows you have no way to defend yourself. The use of guns by responsible people can and does reduce violent crimes.
Those are the people who are careless and don’t want any assists from anybody. Drunk drivers like that take it upon their self to drive home anyway not aware of the danger their putting themselves into. People who drink and drive under the influence hear about all the deaths and injuries and are aware of all the risk and penalties but still chose to drink and drive. Maybe they are the ones who do it all the time and never been in a accident before. Even if you never been in a car accident before while being drunk doesn't mean you should take the risk of driving while intoxicated, because it will be just your luck when that day will come when you kill someone.
Police officers were permitted to briefly stop any individuals but only upon reasonable suspicion that he or she is committing a crime. Not to breed fear in the people of the community. What is that going to solve? Or positively affect the crime rate. United States Constitution Amendment IV states the people have rights from unreasonable search and seizure of one’s person, house, papers, effects, without government interference, and shall not be violated without probable cause or a warrant.