MarleneM
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,291
- Reaction score
- 2
Since it's being debated here, I'm confused about the term/act of premeditation as it's defined in our courts. Everyone playing devil's advocate on this board seems to suggest that one would have to be found guilty of (seemingly) extended and deliberate acts of planning an assault - and apparently be caught on tape or witnessed by another person - before the person could be found guilty of premeditated murder.
But both prosecution and defense talking heads on tv have stated that premeditation as it pertains to murder in our legal system can happen mere seconds before the crime. For example, NG listed an example as the act of raising a gun and pointing it at someone as premeditation and her panel agreed. When she stated that "premeditation can happen in the twinkling of an eye", it wasn't contested by even the defense lawyers she had on. They all agreed. With this definition, perhaps the simple act of ripping off a piece of duct tape (that the prosecution may intend to argue suffocated little Caylee), would be enough to constitute a charge that the State intends to argue was a premeditated crime.
I know a little about a lot, but I know nothing about legal jargon. Can someone straighten me out on how complicated premeditation is to prove? Because from what I've read and seen, there is a gulf of difference between what some posters on this board are saying and what lawyers on tv are supporting their reputations with. TIA.
But both prosecution and defense talking heads on tv have stated that premeditation as it pertains to murder in our legal system can happen mere seconds before the crime. For example, NG listed an example as the act of raising a gun and pointing it at someone as premeditation and her panel agreed. When she stated that "premeditation can happen in the twinkling of an eye", it wasn't contested by even the defense lawyers she had on. They all agreed. With this definition, perhaps the simple act of ripping off a piece of duct tape (that the prosecution may intend to argue suffocated little Caylee), would be enough to constitute a charge that the State intends to argue was a premeditated crime.
I know a little about a lot, but I know nothing about legal jargon. Can someone straighten me out on how complicated premeditation is to prove? Because from what I've read and seen, there is a gulf of difference between what some posters on this board are saying and what lawyers on tv are supporting their reputations with. TIA.