Can murder be a misdemeanor?

kev: "Murder," by definition, is a felony. So murder can never be a misdemeanor.

"Homicide," on the other hand, can be either a misdemeanor or a felony (or not even a crime). In this case, it was "negligent homicide," which appears to be a misdemeanor in Ohio. It looks like the jury bought the defendant's story that he thought he was firing his shotgun into the air.

Hi Joe,

I always thought that "murder" and "homicide" were the same thing but just a case of we say toe-mah-toe you say tumayda.

Even accepting that that there is a difference in the terminology how can this man argue that his life was in imminent danger? You cannot be killed by someone throwing a tomato at you.

How could the jury accept that he "fired his shotgun in the air" since the young man is dead and since the dead man didn't have the power of levitation he must have been on the ground when shot.

Perhaps the defence team hired the jury of halfwits that cleared O.J. Simpson.

One definition of "murder" is "the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)." "Homicide," in contrast, is simply the killing of a human being. Consequently, we can always talk about "justifiable homicide," whereas there is no such thing as "justifiable murder." "Murder" is always a crime: "homicide" may or may not be unlawful.


As a rule, I don't speculate on court cases with which I am not familiar. I know quite well that many things go on during a trial that affect a verdict, far more than are typically included in post-verdict media accounts. From the brief newspaper story that you linked, I have no idea why the jury reached the verdict that it did. I presume that the jurors gave the defendant's version of events more credence than they gave the prosecution's case.

Joe, as a lawyer I understand that you can't be as outspoken as I am
(O the joys of being a layman) however, I thank you for your valued opinion.

I have an opinion on this! Throwing veges at cars is not reason to use lethal force in any state that I know of. We don't really know the complete circumstance.

Did this person mistake veges at a car as an attempt at their life? I am guessing, yes, this individual did think it was something more than what it was and taken by complete surprise. You never know how something like this can go down in court. It sounds to me that this individual had a clean criminal record or would never get a few months of jail for taking a life.

Last I heard, I am not allowed to use lethal force to protect property, only my life. The evaluation of threat is often very swift with judgment on issues like this. I cannot shoot to kill to protect my property from being stolen, but can if I feel my life is threatened. Take it from there!

Newspapers are trying to make money. The whole story is often not told. There are many states that allow concealed weapons to those who have no criminal record to protect themselves. I live in one of them.

I doubt the judge in this case is a moron. I believe that this sort of punishment was because the individual did feel a threat to their life, but overreacted. This is the only logical explanation I can come up with.

Buy the newspaper, but don't buy all of it!!

It's not that I have any kind of ethical or legal duty to refrain from commenting on cases; rather, it's simple common sense. I know that cases are often exceedingly complex, and those complexities are rarely captured in a three-paragraph news story written by a reporter with no legal training or background.

I have no idea what went on in that courtroom or why the defendant was not found guilty of murder, and I certainly don't know much more because of the newspaper account. So my reluctance to comment is not because I can't offer an opinion, but because I can't offer an informed opinion.

I have to completely agree with Joe on this one. No case like this would ever be taken lightly. No judge is usually some complete moron either. I also feel there is much more to this story than what a newspaper will print. You already heard my take on the subject!

hmmm
actually, discharging a firearm into the air is illegal, because it is dangerous, there's no accounting for that load when it falls to the ground. also, discharging a firearm while not in a hunting area, shooting range area, or any other area appropriate for discharging a weapon is illegal discharging of a weapon, which is also a felony, then there's homicide, which due to the circumstances couldnt possibly be a misdemeanor. that story must be false, or else its a reminder of how incredibly crappy the american justice system really is.

Interesting case though. Were I am from, we differ between murder, and negligent homicide, and violence leading to death (loose translation...). I suppose that the driver would be charged 'principalt' with muder and 'subsidiært' with negligent homicide. Depending on how good the prosection makes its case, he would be convicted. Also, even if convicyed of the lesser crime of negligent homicide (lesser compared to murder, whcih is min. 5 yrs imprisonment to life), he would go away for a lot longer than 5 months....

You mean he genuinely believed he was about to be tomatoed to death, whilst he was in a moving vehicle which within two seconds would have been out of range of the tomato threat to his life?

I can come up with a an explanation which may not be particularly logical but which is more than apparent in literally thousands of cases, and is simply this: the jury system is the stupidest system of deciding guilt or innocence that mankind has ever, or could ever, devise.