I arrived at my conclusion of finding Marjorie Knoller guilty of second degree murder by analyzing the California Penal Code. I noticed that the code stated that second degree murder is the killing of a human being with malice aforethought. However, the code did mention aforethought, but without all of the additional elements such as premeditation, and deliberation. So, while analyzing the code, and the State v. Knoller case, I recognized that earlier in the case, Dr.Martin noticed Knoller and Noel of the dogs, and how huge they were. He told them that these dogs had no training or discipline what so ever.
After many appeals, in 2007, DNA evidence technology that was used proved that none of the DNA at the crime scene matched any of the three defendants. There was a hair found linked to the step father of one of the children, which was found in the knots of the rope used to bind one of the other boys (not even his own step son). Some of the country’s leading pathologists have presented evidence that the wounds found on the children were primarily the result of post mortem animal bites, and not knife wounds, as prosecutors originally believed. Juror misconduct was also uncovered in the case, which revealed that Jessie Misskelley was coerced into making a confession that was not
Such as R v Pittwood (1902) in which Pittwood was a gatekeeper at a railway crossing and left the gate open. When someone crossed the track they were killed, Pitwood was charged for manslaughter because he was contractually obliged to close the gate. You have a duty of care to each of your family members meaning a failure to safeguard a family members welfare could lead to criminal liability. Such as in R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918) where a child was starved to death by her parents. Gibbons made out that Proctor was in charge of the child and didn’t know about her condition but the court convicted him on the grounds that he was the father and lived in the same house and should of noticed the condition she was in and had therefore neglected her.
He and others like Gabrielle Giffords are even bringing the parents of the children who were lost in Sandy Hook to make tearful pleas to pass the amendment. Gabrielle Giffords is yet another example that proves my theory. She was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner in 2011 in the middle of a constituent meeting she held. Loughner was expelled from college for disruptive behavior and was showing many signs of mental distress prior to the shooting. So much so that his parents disabled his car at night and took his shot gun away from him.
Scott Hain Case Study Scott Hain was a 17 years old at the time he and his friend carjacked, robbed, stuffed the victims in the trunk and set fire to the vehicle subsequently killing both Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders in what started out as a carjacking on October 6, 1987. The issues of the case were the death penalty and if it was just for a juvenile to receive that sentence. The case was contrary to the “normal” standards of justice because society tends to view minors as unable to commit such crimes that would end up in an execution. Hain had a history of theft, trespassing, theft, etc during his juvenile years. The case had brought much attention to the issue of executing juvenile offenders and caused the Supreme Court to address raising the age for such punishment to 18.
Homeowners insurance generally excludes intentional torts. * More than a dozen states have enacted statutes imposing liability on non-negligent parents for the malicious or willful acts of their children Ranson v. Kitner 1889 Facts * Appellants were hunting for wolves and killed the appellee’s dog * The appellee wanted to recover the value of the dog killed by the appellant’s * The defense was that the appellants were hunting for wolves and that the appellee’s dog had a similar appearance to a wolf. The appellants believed the dog to be a wolf and killed it. * The jury held the appellants liable for the value of the dog * It was also found that no material error occurred to the prejudice of appellants * The judgment rendered for $50.00 to recover the value of the dog killed by the appellants Issue * Were the defendants liable for the value of the dog even though they acted in good faith and were mistaken that the dog appeared to be a wolf? * Why are we holding the defendant liable since this was an accident?
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 only reason that anyone had come to the scene was because someone heard a dog going crazy in the car and then the bodies were found and the cops were called. It is believed that the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre resulted from a plan devised by members of Capone gang to eliminate George “Bugs” Moran due to the rivalry between the two
This law is Megan’s Law. In 1995, seven-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and killed in Hamilton, New Jersey, by Jesse K. Timmendequas, her neighbor. This was done by a convicted child molester that lived right across the street from Megan and her family. The reason that the Kanka family had no prior knowledge of the molester’s background or history is because the Police Department was prohibited from disclosing the presence of this child molester. At the time, the law did not allow the release of sex offender information to the public.
The escapees were sex offenders that were previously sent to Texas from Oregon. The prisoners were with a group of over two hundred sex offenders that came from Oregon. When local police where notified of the escape they were not prepared. They had no knowledge of the influx of sex offenders to begin with. This became a hot issue and without hesitation the CCA obnoxiously declared that since they were a private prison they had no legal duty to release information about the prisoners from out of state.