#is that not the definition of involuntary manslaughter.

[florida3exclamationpoints]

I didn't realize Alec Baldwin was on trial already but if he doesn't get found guilty .........

[petri808]

What our news looks like right now 😵‍💫

Maui County says Hawaiian Electric is at fault for starting the fires that destroyed Lahaina

Hawaiian Electric says Maui County is at fault for Lahaina for not acting fast enough

At least one class action lawsuit representing multiple citizens: BOTH you fuckers are at fault

[kyeomkuppie]

Rooftop.

Pairing: Wonwoo x gn!reader

Genre: I honestly don't know but let's just say crack and a pinch of angst

Warnings: Wonwoo thinks reader is about to commit suicide

Synopsis: You were just trying to get a better look at the sky, but someone misunderstood and tried to save you.

You valued your peace of mind and the best way (in your opinion) to clear your mind was to look at the stars. At the edge of a rooftop.

Yeah, not the smartest idea but who cares!

Technically, anyone was bound to see a random person standing at a rooftop, misunderstand the situation, then call for help. Something you didn't exactly take into account.

And bingo as you had guessed, not only did someone see you, someone was at the same rooftop thinking you were about to jump, and you being at the edge didn't exactly help either.

Out of nowhere, you felt yourself being pulled backwards. Your back was now against the chest of a random stranger, and to make matters worse, on top of him.

"Uh, excuse me?" You were baffled and you didn't really know how to explain without him thinking you were lying "Can you let me go, please?"

No answer.

Oh shit. Is he dead? I don't think I'm that heavy though. You were thinking of the endless possibilities of you being charged for involuntary manslaughter. Great.

You finally feel the person who you thought you murdered move. "Are you okay? Why did you pull me like that? You could've been hurt!" You turned around only to be left awestruck. At least he was handsome.

His eyebrows were furrowed and his breathing was heavy, yeah it isn't the time for flirting. "How could you treat your life like it's something to be toyed with! You can't simply choose to end it because things are getting rough." His tone was stern and angry— but wait.

What? Your mind short-circuited for second. He thought you were doing what!

"What about your loved ones and the people who would blame themselves for your death? At least think about all those variables before treating your life like-"

"Excuse me?! I was just standing like a normal person, looking at the damn sky. I wasn't toying with my life, I was enjoying it!" You were starting to get riled up as well, couldn't he at least wait to hear what you had to say about yourself— and wait, what does he even have to do with it?!

"You shouldn't lie about things like this! If you need help, say it."

There's was no convincing this man. "Listen here stranger, if I needed help I would in fact ask for it. But can't a person watch the fucking sky in peace." You huffed "Why are you even making a big deal out of it? It's not like we know each other."

You pushed his hands which were gripping you away. "At least try to understand, I mean it's not the smartest thing to do, to stand at the edge of a rooftop I mean, but I assure I wasn't trying to do anything you were thinking of."

You had an idea! Not the smartest either but good enough "Want to grab a meal?" If he didn't say yes, you'd bury yourself alive, but you wouldn't have to see him again. If he said yes, you'd resolve that misunderstanding and you could go your separate ways.

He suddenly realized that his body was so tense and his body was still on the ground.

You gulped as he proceeded to get up. His features became more clear. His face had a soft expression but his eyes were sharp, so was his jaw. Yeah, you were right, he was one handsome fellow.

He was weirded out by your spontaneous personality. One moment you were all angry, and the next you were asking him to grab dinner? Yeah, not normal.

"Fine. I'll pretend that I believe you, and we'll go grab dinner. But for the love of god go stargaze anywhere but at the edge. I had the ambulance ready." He scratched his neck.

"Okay Mr. Overdramatic." You laughed, it was a peculiar day, not the peaceful kind you usually preferred, but definitely a day to remember.

"Wonwoo."

"Hm?" You tilted your head in confusion.

"If we're going out for a meal, you might as well know my name." He shrugged.

Yeah, he had split personalities, you were sure of it.

"[name]." You extended your hand "It was nice meeting you here— wait what were you doing up here?!" Your eyes widenened.

"I was stargazing."

"Yeah, no shit. I'll pretend that I believe you." You mimicked him from earlier.

Inspired by that one scene in true beauty.

Reblogs and comments are appreciated!

[ninyard]

I've been thinking about the Aaron trial a LOT and kinda fell into a rabbit hole about it and thing is. Aaron is guilty. Like 100% guilty. The prosecution can't prove first degree murder but they don't need to because they can charge him with 2nd degree, aka "murder of passion". It was a charged moment and Aaron responded by killing the dude. Yes he deserved it and yes it's still murder, with considerable jail time.

There are 3 ways for Aaron to get off here (not including Moriyama interference). One, jury nullification. The jury basically decides that yes he did it BUT he shouldn't go to jail for it so we're gonna vote as if we're not convinced he did it. Incredibly rare but legal. Two, Aaron's lawyer successfully argues that Aaron was acting in self defense on Andrew's behalf. They could potentially try to have Drake charged with SA and CSA posthumously, and use the details of that trial as evidence in Aaron's. Three, and this ties into 2, JAG (military legal branch) tells the SC courts they don't want a public trial. From here it becomes internal politics, and might result in a plea deal in exchange for the whole thing getting shoved under the rug.

it seems to me like jury nullification is one of those old laws that don't really hold up in a modern setting, like if you suggested it now, i don't know if they'd actually go forward with it?

the best i've come up with is that he's aquitted for accidental death or self defence and the jury are swayed by andrew, neil and higgins' testimonies, or he's found either guilty or not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. just throwing some random thoughts out into the world. (let's disregard first degree murder.)

voluntary manslaughter in SC can't be given without "heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation" present. "The heat of passion refers to the defendant experiencing some type of uncontrollable emotion, such as rage or terror. The heat of passion does not excuse a homicide, but it does remove malice. Legal provocation refers to circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control."

IM NOT A LAWYER but i think it might be hard to prove this - it happened SO quickly that there's not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove that it was an intentional act of passion with reasonable provocation.

involuntary manslaughter can't be given without "criminal negligence" or essentially a reckless or hazardous disregard for safety etcetc. in SC code of laws it says "criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section."

AGAIN IM NOT A LAWYER but i think there's probably ways to argue that there was no criminal negligence on aarons behalf because it wasn't technically reckless. i think aarons lawyers would argue that it wasn't a homicide at all but was an accident because aarons behaviour wasn't technically reckless (in some ways). regardless even if he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter there's no minimum sentence for it in SC so it's possible he'd avoid going to jail at all because of his character/how unlikely it is he'll reoffend/his prospects in life/his clean record and all that. he'd have parole terms and probably some community service and a fine or something but i think he'd easily avoid jail time even if he was found guilty.

he could still possibly be aquitted on the question of whether ANY category of murder happened beyond a reasonable doubt. the prosecution would have to prove that aaron intentionally swung the racquet with or without intent to kill. i think there's an argument there for an accidental death - which would definitely make this ask even longer so i won't get into my NOT LAWYER thoughts on how/why.

i'm not saying andrew and neil WOULD commit perjury. but they WERE the only people in the room when it happened, and if they can't say that for certain aaron swung the racquet at drake then there's a doubt there about whether it was homicide or not. nobody is denying the murder occured - but the prosecution HAVE to prove that aaron was WILLFULLY negligent and that led to drake's death. just a thought.

[thelocalweird]

Update: i have fidgeted too close to the sun

So i recently acquired one of those 3d printed fidget slugs and

I love him so much his name is Blobbit and he can glow in the dark :)

[novlr]

i'm writing a character who is a serial killer but not willingly if that makes sense. like, she kills once she finds that she finds herself in a murder or be murdered type of situation.

like in one scene, her mother's ex boyfriend comes back to try and get back together with her, but finds her daughter instead so he tries to s/a her but she stabs him and he bleeds out.

then in another scene she get's jumped by two guys and she stabs them both to death as well.

so i'm just wondering if you have any tips for writing such a complex character who kills but feels bad about it before, during and after the fact.

she doesn't enjoy the act of murder. she doesn't get off on it. she simply on kills so she can survive.

thanks so much!

This is a topic very close to my heart! I have a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and a master’s degree in forensic psychology, both from accredited U.S. institutions. No fictional murder best-sellers under my belt, but it’s a topic I know a lot about. 

Sometimes, people kill for reasons that aren’t nefarious. There’s the cut-and-dry self defense (“it’s me or them”), the culmination of years of abuse, or sometimes it’s completely an accident (which is called “involuntary manslaughter”). 

Murder mysteries and thrillers are top-notch reads and go hand-in-hand with pop culture’s fascination with true crime. But what goes into writing an accidental serial killer, or one that’s more upstanding than you’d think? 

Define your morals

In order to establish morally gray, you’ve got to set the good and evil boundaries within the world you’re writing. Is it a modern-day story, where a cold-blooded killer is the evil one and a person defending themselves against an attacker is the good one? Or is it a more intricate fantasy or science fiction setting, where the laws and morals aren’t quite the same? 

The important part of writing a morally gray character, in general, is establishing the normal bounds of morality in your story world and then placing the character’s values somewhere in the middle. They’re not looking to hunt other people for fun, but the act also wasn’t a noble defense or socially acceptable resolution to the problem. I think that’s the hardest part, building enough plausibility and setting up empathy for the character’s actions while still writing them as a ‘villain’.

The vigilante

The easiest example of a morally gray killer is the vigilante. Typically, their motive comes from a righteous or judicial point of view, and they’re killing the “evil” ones. These types are taking out drug dealers, abusers, or anyone committing what they consider to be egregious or immoral acts. They perform bad actions to do good. 

Doing bad things for good reasons is often considered “lawful evil”, wherein a character is still following rules but they’re doing so in a ‘bad’ way. That circles us back to the beginning; there should still be a compelling reason for their actions. That’s what pushes their assigned morality back from ‘black’ into the ‘gray zone’. 

Crossing the lines

Consider what factors or events‌ would persuade a character to act in a worse or better way as a one-off circumstance, or a trigger that sways their actions. Perhaps they won’t kill parents, no matter what brought them into that position; maybe violence against women will often trigger a violent episode. 

Gray, on the moral scale, has the obligation to be interesting — so don’t think too hard about staying within neutral territory. Swing one way or the other occasionally with good narrative build-up and support to really bring out the character’s individuality. 

What if it’s always an accident?

Maybe your character is frequently caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but they always manage to come out on top. What do you do then?

It’s first necessary to define a serial killer. Definitionally, a serial killer is a person that commits multiple murders. Murder being the key word — it must be on purpose for the act to fall on that definition. Otherwise it’s manslaughter (which is an incidental death where even if harm was meant, death was not). I can’t stress this enough: by definition, you can’t have a serial killer whose only kills were in self-defense or accidental. Your character must progress to proactive murder on more than one occasion for them to be considered a serial killer. 

Of course, that’s not to say you can’t have other characters (or even their inner monologue) refer to them as a serial killer. Social knowledge rarely sees eye-to-eye with legal or academic terms and definitions. I just caution you against using ‘serial killer’ in marketing material or descriptive collateral, if this is the case. It is a technically inaccurate descriptor, and someone waiting for that switch from accidental to purposeful is going to be sorely disappointed when it never happens. 

It could, however, be a great plot device to start there and explore the character’s evolution from unfortunate events to intentional murder. Maybe they were targeted for multiple violent crimes, and one day decided to be proactive and preemptively solve their problem (via murder, of course). 

Avoid the Angel of Death

While a vigilante may be a good character type for the morally gray serial killer, the Angel of Death is not. This type of killer is looking for personal gratification by taking someone’s life into their own hands. More often than not, the Angel of Death is looking to make themselves a hero by saving the day, and the deaths are secondary (and a sign of their failure). I’ll admit that the line between “personal gratification” and “justice” can be a thin one.

 The important distinction to keep in mind here are the moral definitions you’ve created: I can’t argue that an Angel of Death is serving any higher purpose than their own desire to cause situations where they might be a hero. It’s like hiring a hitman to take out a target, but intercepting the hitman just in time to save the target. The entire situation is at the mercy of the character; there’s no justice in the actions, no redeeming qualities. They don’t feel bad for sending the hitman — the outcome was planned from the start. And if they can’t beat the hitman? Oh well, better luck next time. 

Convincing the reader that the protagonist has a good (“enough”) reason for their actions is key to achieving the moral middle ground. A reasonable, morally upstanding person probably won’t resort to the character’s actions, but they understand how the thought process could bring them where they are. The Angel of Death is fabricating the entire situation; a morally gray killer should be working towards a goal, or acting on a strong reason. 

The morally gray serial killer isn’t looking to win anyone over, or get a standing ovation for their good deeds. They’re killing for a reason — a reason that wouldn’t normally drive someone to kill, but the reader can see how they got from point A to point B in the thought process. 

written by S.K. Eleteon

[nayru-s-clay-tablet]

Comic Retrospective: Minish Mafia Christmas

What is it about?

Minish Mafia Christmas is a heartwarming holiday comic, in which Link has to pay recompense for the crime of involuntary manslaughter.

Taking place the night before the Hylian holiday of Eventide, he works for the Picori -- who deliver presents for Hylian children on that holiday.

So... do you remember that thing that I said in the first post in this series? About how character-focused stories should do something with the main characters, such as:

Exploring an aspect of their personalities

Looking at something new about them

Playing with their weird dynamic

Well... I kind of forgot that with this comic >_>

Where did the idea come from?

I honestly don't know. Picori basically being Christmas elves is an idea I totally stole from @vilyaluna. And the main goal was to just do a holiday special-esque comic. Which isn't a bad thing... except that it doesn't do any of the three things discussed above.

I was just too focused on the idea of a holiday comic. And the mafia Picori.

I also get distracted by making everything rhyme (which I do NOT regret).

Favorite things about it?

It's kind of sad that I worked really hard on this... but I don't actually have that much to say about it. But that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy rereading it or that I think it's a bad comic per se.

I love how the visuals turned out:

I also enjoyed the little visual details and jokes, which I honestly hadn't experimented with much before.

^ I might be the only one in the world who finds the hat having an expression funny, but the eeriness of it is exactly what I want out of a bunny on a hat.

Would I make it again?

......Um.

Only if I could change the story some.

The basic premise of Link slaving away for revenge-driven Picori is a good idea, but it definitely needed a little bit more from Ganondorf. He really doesn't do much except chill and drink hot toddies (though I guess that is rather Christmassy in its own way).

But is this story canon?

The biggest problem is the timeline. I absolutely could see the Picori coming back for vengeance. But this story takes place in the upcoming winter -- and I honestly just don't know how/why Link & Gan would be traveling alone together at that point.

So... in an alternate timeline, it could be canon?

Considering it is told through a framing device, I guess that makes sense.

[squishmallow36]

(1) After seeing the Fintan murder post, it made me wonder what the actual definition for murder within the Lost Cities could potentially be, and instead of attaching my ramblings there, I decided to contain myself here.

(2) The first consideration for trying to define how the law works in the Lost Cities is to find an analog in the Forbidden Cities. As laws vary by jurisdiction, I felt that as Shannon is from California, any law system that she would potentially apply to the worldbuilding would be based on the California laws regarding murder. As such, Part 1, Title 8, Chapter 1 and Part 1, Title 13, Chapter 1 of the California Penal Code will be used for this analysis. See section (9) for a TL;DR

(3) (a) Section 187 defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or fetus, with malice aforethought."

(b) In terms of the , it seems likely that instead of "human," "elf" would likely be used. However, this encounters a bit of ambiguity. Drawing from the case Dimitar v. Foster (Everblaze), we can see that even if an alleged crime is committed on Elvin soil, the Ogres still have a right to punish that criminal as they see fit. As such, "elf" is a far too restrictive term. Instead, I propose murder being defined as the unlawful killing of "a member of an intelligent species."

(c) The realm of the elves' opinions on abortion is not a place where this discussion was intended to go, but given that they use inception date instead of the human concept of a birthday implies that the most likely solution here would be simply dropping the term "fetus" from the law, and unborn elves would be considered as a member of an intelligent species.

(d) Now, as for malice, this is where things may get interesting within the Elvin world. Malice is a precursor to guilt, so if this were in the law, only defendants whose minds are broken due to that guilt could be convicted as a murderer under Elvin law. That may not directly follow, but the concept of there being case law where it is established, even if it is not directly stated in the law, seems quite likely.

(4) (a) The interesting consequence of the malice requirement for murder is that under Section 192, Manslaughter is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice," which is further broken down into voluntary, involuntary, and vehicular manslaughter.

(b) The same arguments apply to the use of the word "human" in the definition, again leading to the replacement with "a member of an intelligent species."

(c) Many types of manslaughter may result in guilt in the offending party, which makes it potentially difficult to determine the difference between the guilt of killing a person on purpose and feeling bad about one's actions (i.e. derived from murder) and the guilt of killing a person by accident and feeling bad about one's actions (i.e. derived from manslaughter)

(5) This leaves the question: under this entirely hypothetical law that I have almost arbitrarily established, would Fintan be considered a murderer?

(6) If we consider the Everblaze incident that resulted in the deaths of five (5) pyrokinetics, I find that the most likely application of the law would be involuntary manslaughter. This is defined as "in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection." Essentially, this is saying that Fintan was not careful enough in making sure that the other five pyrokinetics would be safe, which resulted in their deaths, but it was not malicious. (Exile 158-160) That being said, he did go out with the intention of summoning the Everblaze, so I would not consider it as occurring under "accident and misfortune" (PEN 195).

(7) Kenric's death, however, is a bit more of an issue. When Sophie is healing his mind, Fintan says, "And now everyone will pay" (Everblaze 195). This is difficult to parse as to what, specifically, he means to do in order to get this revenge, but if he was sound enough mind for this to be a coherent thought (as opposed to a memory), it follows that he would know that by calling the Everblaze down into Oblivimyre, people could justifiably die, just like the above section (6). In my opinion, this would be enough to establish malice aforethought in a charge of first-degree murder.

(8) (a) And, just as a bit more bonus content, California Penal Code Section 190.2(a) discusses special circumstances that may result in a defendant being sentenced to "death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole." The Elves do not believe in capital punishment, but the latter is absolutely a possibility.

(b) The first that applies is 190.2 (a)(5) "The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or perfecting or attempting to perfect, an escape from lawful custody." Fintan was trying to escape from prision. That was the whole idea behind summoning the Everblaze.

(c) One that surprisingly does not apply: 190.2(a)(13) "The victim was an elected or appointed official or former official of the federal government, or of any local or state government of this or any other state, and the killing was intentionally carried out in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance of, the victim’s official duties." The first half absolutely applies, but the second half does not. Fintan had no significant ideological difference with Kenric any more than the rest of the Council, so this would not apply.

(d) (1) 190.2(a)(17): "The murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in, or was an accomplice in, the commission of, attempted commission of, or the immediate flight after committing, or attempting to commit, the following felonies:" 190.2(a)(17)(H): "Arson in violation of subdivision (b) of Section 451." That sounds promising, but it begs the question: what does subdivision (b) of Section 451 say?

(2) 451(b): "Arson that causes an inhabited structure or inhabited property to burn is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or eight years." Well then, what does inhabited mean? Luckily, 450(d) answers this question: ""Inhabited” means currently being used for dwelling purposes whether occupied or not. “Inhabited structure” and “inhabited property” do not include the real property on which an inhabited structure or an inhabited property is located." And, in a roundabout way, by Fintan being imprisoned there, he is, quite arguably, living (i.e. dwelling) there, and, as such, 190.2(a)(17)(H) would apply.

(3) As an additional note, Section 451 is the one that states "A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property," which made its rounds here a while ago for its specific wording of "he or she," implying that nonbinary people can commit arson. Fintan consistently uses he/him within the canon, and I find that to supercede any headcanons that may conflict with that for the purposes of this analysis.

(9)(a) In conclusion, is Fintan a murderer?

(b) Most importantly, he was not convicted by a jury, and he is innocent until proven guilty, unless the Lost Cities does not ascribe to that notion or the notion of a jury trial, and, as such, he, legally, has done nothing wrong.

(c) I find that the events in the Everblaze incident resulting in the deaths of five (5) pyrokinetics would most likely be charged as involuntary manslaughter due to the lack of malice and caution in the defendant's actions.

(d) I also find that the events during Fintan's mind healing and escape from prison would most likely be charged as first-degree murder, enhanced due to its motivation as being a way to escape imprisonment as well as doing it in the course of arson.

(10) If I missed anything horrifically obvious, just, like, keep in mind that I am not actually a lawyer.

[skyfallscotland]

hi! this is a really random question to ask but i love hearing your opinions book wise and wanted to know your thoughts on a question. i just watched the new show monsters: lyle and erik menendez's story and then had to watch the documentary too. if you know about them (which im assuming you do bc mostly everyone does) do you believe they should be out of jail or smth? i just have no one to ask about this sorry, but you definitely dont have to answer this if you dont want to bc it is personal 💗

Hi!

I haven’t actually seen the Netflix series or any documentaries on them. I got rid of Netflix this month to save money haha, but I do know the general story.

I don’t really have an opinion, not knowing the intricacies of it all, I think it really depends on what you think of criminal reform and whether people can change.

As an autistic person I’m probably not the best to ask because I tend to see things very black and white, but to me I don’t see the point in life in prison without the possibility of parole. If they change they’re not getting out to do anything with their lives and either way you’re just wasting resources holding them. Not sure that I agree with the death penalty in general—mostly because the legal system can and does get things wrong—but it also seems dumb for taxpayers to pay to house and feed the worst of the worst for 50+ years, you know?

One thing I do find interesting though (or ironic) is the circumstances of the first mistrial and how the verdicts were divided by gender—the women all called for involuntary manslaughter, and the men for first degree murder. Says a lot about how the different genders view rape and sexual assault, in my opinion.

In short (or long lol) I actually don’t really know much about them specifically so I couldn’t say 🫡

[lucky-clover-gazette]

Just posted a new chapter of my Zelda-inspired original writing project! Here's a link and little excerpt:

2: A Call to Adventure

“Like, I don’t think you understand how screwed I am,” I say in the general direction of my phone. “Not just fired-screwed. I’ll definitely be fined for the damage, probably also arrested. There are cameras in that parking lot—I have no idea if Worldovre actually pays to keep them on, but video footage would serve as damning evidence that I have at least committed negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter, I'm not sure. The courts are in shambles, so I think I'll be waiting on that distinction for a while anyway.”

You seem like a very unhappy person.

"And you seem like you're new here."

[strawberrus0da]

Because manslaughter is involuntary by definition. If it’s voluntary, it’s called murder.

[sldlovescartoons]

Look, I’m not holding my breath that anything will come from getting further information on Nex Benedict’s full report. Or even to see if they’ll get independent work done. The parents aren’t even trying to dispute the suicide story. Maybe they got unlucky with a drug reaction in combination with their injuries. Maybe they just took a bit extra to try and sleep the headache off and just not feel depressed and it lowered their seizure threshold enough that with the head injury, the act of standing up and walking to the living room caused enough stimulation that it triggered a massive seizure. Maybe they did try to kill themself.

Regardless, a crime still happened. Even if the fight and the suicide were entirely separate, which they aren’t, assault is still a fucking crime. And the parents weren’t going to press charges for that. They were asked at the hospital day of and they said no, which is absolutely wild. Yes, the school was negligent and should have a fire under their ass for not calling authorities or medical help, or even properly disciplining the girls involved, but we shouldn’t forget that before the death the parents had no intention of bringing real consequences to those girls. They had the chance, they said no. The parents also didn’t seem to be aware of their full pronoun situation. It sort of seems like they weren’t fully aware that Nex used he/him pronouns sometimes. His friends had to come forward with that information about them. That says a lot about the parents. Now, to be clear, I don’t think that they had anything to do with it or even that they deserve it. No parents deserve to outlive their children. They might have/had some subconscious biases that might cause them to just… let this go. Advocate to for anti-bullying instead trying to get justice. Even if it didn’t cause his/their death in any way, those girls still commited a serious assault and should catch the charges.

And in the reality where the two are linked, let’s all remember that when death and grievous harm is involved, intent or lack thereof only goes so far. Involuntary Manslaughter, Reckless Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide are good fits for the girls. The School could definitely catch Negligent Homicide charges between not calling for medical help when a student went unconscious during a fight if the suicide story is bullshit. And if it isn’t? Criminal Negligence and still Negligent Homicide because they either did or definetly should have known about the bullying and done literally anything about it. For anybody, but especially when regarding people of marginalized communities. Crimes happened here, no matter what happened. But my hopes that anything will happen aren’t high, though I hope I’m wrong. I want to be wrong.

RIP Nex.

[fionacle]

does NO ONE know the difference between involuntary manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree murder?????? apparently it’s defined differently in every state, but the definitions in each state don’t even seem to be distinct, and California doesn’t even HAVE 3rd degree murder! I just want a resource that tells me the general consensus with clear defined differences between the three 😭

[oc-aita]

WIBTA if I (F?27, she/her) didn’t take my ex (NB26, he/they) back in?

For context, this was less of a break up, more a fizzle out due to him going to jail for 6 years, on count of involuntary manslaughter (in self-defense.) Kept in touch though, but our interactions definitely dimmed, especially under surveillance.

Personally, I just don’t think we got together all that well. They need a lot of assurance a lot of the time and I’m just kind of a distant person in general.

When they got out they asked to stay with me. They can’t stay with their parents because they kicked him out when he transitioned. Siblings are out of the country. I don’t want to leave him on the street, but I’m also unsure of taking them into my new apartment for a variety of reasons.

I’ve moved into a new apartment, larger than the one we’ve had before, but I barely use it because I’m at the office so much. Programming crunch is something for sure. The block I use is… odd, though. Sometimes I swear the walls breathe, and at one point, the closet I hang my shirts in turned into a hallway.

The main issue is I’m not sure if he’ll pull enough money with ex-con status, and they’ve been increasingly cagey when talking to me. I’m worried they’re regressing into psychosis and I don’t know how to help.

I don’t know if I can take them in, but I also don’t know what’ll happen if I don’t support them. If anyone knows of any trans-supportive living groups in the [------- ] area I’d be glad to look into them.

[nine-fingered-entity]

this is the least rigged jury of all time. we have:

the husband of the woman we accused of involuntary manslaughter last trial

a juror from one of our old trials

former witness from old trial AND former juror from a different trial. also we (falsely) accused him of being involved in a murder conspiracy

another former juror

another former juror

man who is definitely a Russian terrorist here to blow up the Crystal Tower

[getlegalattorney]

Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person unintentionally causes another's death through reckless or negligent actions. Learn the legal definition, types of involuntary manslaughter, and the penalties that can follow a conviction for this serious offense.