A conversation with a Los Angeles Homicide Detective

[TinaG]

Thanks for sharing all this information. It makes sense...but doesn't make it easy to accept. And I still have my doubts as to whether Murray will ever spend time behind bars. Would love to see him stripped of his medical license, and get the maximum sentence possible. We'll see if that happens, I guess.

 

[Autumn II]

HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnZpcwm0FM

Thank YOU! I want everyone to watch this. It was a terrible fall. He could have been killed. He finished the show, and went directly to the hospital. His back was badly injured and he suffered severe pain from it ever since. I've had back-pain, too, and I know what that is like and how it can affect quality of life. I do not want ANYONE to talk about Michael being a "drug addict," ever again. I'm sure he did the very best he could.

Next?

Vic

 

[asandra]

HERE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnZpcwm0FM

OMG, I watched in the very morning... my tears started as it would be the most natural thing... like breathing... This message is gorgeous, it touches the deepest level of senses... It became ultimate music and sense! like the song of a swan... like a perle, birth from extreme sufferings! :angel:

 

[asandra]

i wanna ask this again, one more time.

All right. I received your message only today, after one week when I did not come on MJJC. :cheeky:
I gave it to Catherine, she said she may find this detective on sunday meetings, on their church.
See you soon than!

 

[Autumn II]

OMG, I watched in the very morning... my tears started as it would be the most natural thing... like breathing... This message is gorgeous, it touches the deepest level of senses... It became ultimate music and sense! like the song of a swan... like a perle, birth from extreme sufferings! :angel:

Yes. Thank you for understanding. He was SO brave, for all of his life. I will defend him, for as long as I breathe.

 

[asandra]

At first, media reported that "Michael was an addict." These reports ranged from so-called "friends," to those who speculated. The toxicology report proved this not to be the case, so I hope this issue can be closed now?

Michael had genuine pain for a lot of his adult-life, and that he used painkillers sometimes was only reasonable, given his situation. They are highly addictive, and I'm sure he tried to strike a balance between managing his pain, and physical addiction. He was NOT a "junkie," as some on media tried to portray. The tox report showed that he was "clean," and there was no organ damage as one might expect from a drug-abuser.

No way we may think as Michael as being an addict. I remember clearly in July when I read the interview with Cory Rooney and Chris Apostle; here is what they pointed very straight: unk:

CR: “I know for a fact he had health issues. That’s number one. Michael Jackson had other health issues that never were discussed like what is called dancer’s feet. Dancer’s feet is when your feet over years of dancing, a dancer wraps their feet to dance. You wrap them in tape and things like that. But of course because you don’t get enough oxygen skin dries up. Your skin starts to crack and splint, almost like paper cuts and Michael suffered bad with that.

What would happen is sometimes it be so bad he’d have to wrap his feet in a cast. That’s why sometimes you would see him with a cast on. The pains of that was excruciating. And yeah, was he on the painkillers for that? Yeah. I’m sure he was. I never physically seen him take a pill or a painkiller, but I’ve definitely spoken to him about it. Now whatever the autopsy shows, whatever the true factor on how this man has gone from here becomes it’s all still a result of what this business has done to him period. It’s all a result of what the business did to him.”

http://thesportsinterview.com/mjackson.html

And for God's sake, we love him. I am in love with him. How could I even imagine to see him as an addict? I do my best to understand the truth and to protect him.:wub:

 

[Autumn II]

No way we may think as Michael as being an addict. I remember clearly in July when I read the interview with Cory Rooney and Chris Apostle; here is what they pointed very straight: unk:

CR: “I know for a fact he had health issues. That’s number one. Michael Jackson had other health issues that never were discussed like what is called dancer’s feet. Dancer’s feet is when your feet over years of dancing, a dancer wraps their feet to dance. You wrap them in tape and things like that. But of course because you don’t get enough oxygen skin dries up. Your skin starts to crack and splint, almost like paper cuts and Michael suffered bad with that.

What would happen is sometimes it be so bad he’d have to wrap his feet in a cast. That’s why sometimes you would see him with a cast on. The pains of that was excruciating. And yeah, was he on the painkillers for that? Yeah. I’m sure he was. I never physically seen him take a pill or a painkiller, but I’ve definitely spoken to him about it. Now whatever the autopsy shows, whatever the true factor on how this man has gone from here becomes it’s all still a result of what this business has done to him period. It’s all a result of what the business did to him.”

http://thesportsinterview.com/mjackson.html

And for God's sake, we love him. I am in love with him. How could I even imagine to see him as an addict? I do my best to understand the truth and to protect him.:wub:

Thank you. That is beautiful :wub:

 

[CatherineNZ]

Thank YOU! I want everyone to watch this. It was a terrible fall. He could have been killed. He finished the show, and went directly to the hospital. His back was badly injured and he suffered severe pain from it ever since. I've had back-pain, too, and I know what that is like and how it can affect quality of life. I do not want ANYONE to talk about Michael being a "drug addict," ever again. I'm sure he did the very best he could.

Next?

Vic

thank you for that. it's so upsetting that people keep calling him like that. I think he was extremely strong and he really did the best.
The fall is terrible. I have back pains myself that can leave me without movement for some days and know how it feels.
God, Michael is so professional. You're not able to say that he's suffering.

 

[Autumn II]

thank you for that. it's so upsetting that people keep calling him like that. I think he was extremely strong and he really did the best.
The fall is terrible. I have back pains myself that can leave me without movement for some days and know how it feels.
God, Michael is so professional. You're not able to say that he's suffering.

Michael was such a professional, that he never showed any signs of pain on-stage. Yet after that fall, he went directly to the hospital. His back was badly damaged, and he suffered severe pain, ever since.

I, too, have had horrible back-pain. It's hard to describe, if you've never felt that? It's like the nerve-pain of a toothache, but a thousand times worse. I'm sure his life was a balance of managing his pain with medications, and toughing it out. The meds he took were highly addictive, so I'm sure that was always a struggle for him. I do not blame him in the slightest for resorting to that, at times. He wanted to be able to play with his children and relate to them, and I'm sure there were times that without the meds, it just was not possible. None of us here can really understand the challenges he faced? I really, really do not want to hear anyone here, again, on this Michael Jackson board, say the word "junkie" AGAIN. Please?

 

[MicHil]

All right. I received your message only today, after one week when I did not come on MJJC. :cheeky:
I gave it to Catherine, she said she may find this detective on sunday meetings, on their church.
See you soon than!

okay thanks

 

[MicHil]

I would be very worried if they made these charges harsher. I think he would walk away totally. It is one thing for all of us to want it, but it is quite another to ask an impartial jury who would hear all the facts and all the evidence and all of Michaels dirty laundry being paraded around to convict if it looks like a considerable doubt that it was actually murder.

Then what will everyone say? Oops?

dirty laundry? his dirty underwear? yea... the one with the lipstick stain was my fault.

but really :mello: nothing, whether lies or truth can change what we feel for him. but on the other hand i do see the reason with 'lack of evidence' there may be if made higher charges against murray, but i still think murder 2 is a very possibility.

and no 'Oops', we'll just say "at least we try".
i don't worry about Murray walking away... but that's a total different story. hmm... :cheers:

 

[Beachlover]

dirty laundry? his dirty underwear? yea... the one with the lipstick stain was my fault.

but really :mello: nothing, whether lies or truth can change what we feel for him. but on the other hand i do see the reason with 'lack of evidence' there may be if made higher charges against murray, but i still think murder 2 is a very possibility.

and no 'Oops', we'll just say "at least we try".
i don't worry about Murray walking away... but that's a total different story. hmm... :cheers:

I stand by my original argument that if the DA feels this is what they have the evidence to convict for, I am not going to push them or harass them into higher charges they obviouslyyyy don't feel they have evidence for. If they do that and Murray gets off that would be worse to me.

I tend to look at these things from both sides. The defense is going to try to discredit Michael because thats their job. If they have the evidence, great...they should do it. But to ask them to do it when they don't think they have the evidence? Sorry. I am not willing to take that chance, but thats just me.

 

[MicHil]

I stand by my original argument that if the DA feels this is what they have the evidence to convict for, I am not going to push them or harass them into higher charges they obviouslyyyy don't feel they have evidence for. If they do that and Murray gets off that would be worse to me.

I tend to look at these things from both sides. The defense is going to try to discredit Michael because thats their job. If they have the evidence, great...they should do it. But to ask them to do it when they don't think they have the evidence? Sorry. I am not willing to take that chance, but thats just me.

well the thing is, my kind friend (how youuu dooooin'? btw), the D.A... well we pretty much do NOT trust them. it's not hard to figure out why, i'm sure i do not need to explain more to you about that.

if only the justice system is 100% efficient... that it is not.
I just want them suckers to know we're watching them. we got our eyes and our ears on them, they're not screwing this one up.

Don't you worry about Murray walking away, I'm sure he will be taken care off... :yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

 

[Maria MJ]

It's a whole different thing for a doctor to misjudge in a diagnosis for example. There I can accept the factor "mistake".
But in regular standardized procedures, how can gross negligence be involuntary? It requires a lot of "what the heck I'll do it!"s and this is far from lack of will.
It's exactly lack of interest for his patience welfare. As good as voluntary manslaughter.

 

[Beachlover]

It's a whole different thing for a doctor to misjudge in a diagnosis for example. There I can accept the factor "mistake".
But in regular standardized procedures, how can gross negligence be involuntary? It requires a lot of "what the heck I'll do it!"s and this is far from lack of will.
It's exactly lack of interest for his patience welfare. As good as voluntary manslaughter.

Because the law is what it is. They can not prove he intended to kill Michael. I do not think they can PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Murrays actions after the fact would have changed the outcome here. That is why the charge is what it is.

 

[Moulin Rouge]

Because the law is what it is. They can not prove he intended to kill Michael. I do not think they can PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Murrays actions after the fact would have changed the outcome here. That is why the charge is what it is.

If they wanted they could prove 2nd degree murder. They are just platying it safe to send out a message, they need to go for it and add some more charges because murray gave michael worse treatment than animals receive at the vet.

 

[djstat]

And that is the one thing that keeps popping up in my head: if someone wanted to harm him- this would be a convenient way to go about it.

i agree.

 

[djstat]

Thank you for this.

I have heard though that in California at least, not sure if its the same elsewhere.. that for murder 2 'intent' is not necessary.. gross negligence shows malice..?

I said nobody will listen to fans who write in, I even worry that it will do damage.

why damage?

 

[Beachlover]

If they wanted they could prove 2nd degree murder. They are just platying it safe to send out a message, they need to go for it and add some more charges because murray gave michael worse treatment than animals receive at the vet.

I don't think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and have 12 neutral jurors come back and say GUILTY of 2nd degree murder.

The defense will prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not that and then Murray will walk.

In some ways I think a lot of the fans really have no clue how the court system works and they are willing to take this gamble for reasons I have yet to figure out. Maybe everyone really wants Murray to walk?

 

[StaceyMJ]

I don't think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and have 12 neutral jurors come back and say GUILTY of 2nd degree murder.

The defense will prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not that and then Murray will walk.

In some ways I think a lot of the fans really have no clue how the court system works and they are willing to take this gamble for reasons I have yet to figure out. Maybe everyone really wants Murray to walk?

That's ridiculous, you know very well why. Please don't start down that road.

 

[bgz]

Could someone with legal knowledge of Calif/US law clarify this for me? It's my understanding that all 12 jurors must come to a conclusive guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of murder (be it "2" or otherwise). If the jurors are sent back to re-deliberate because it is not unanimous, and they still don't reach a complete unanimous agreement, then it is considered a "hung jury" and the defendent walks free.

What I'm not sure about is whether there can be another whole new murder trial initiated. Seems like the Phil Specter case was "hung" in the first trial, then after what seems like several years, another jury did convict him.

Have I got this right?

 

[Autumn II]

I don't think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and have 12 neutral jurors come back and say GUILTY of 2nd degree murder.

The defense will prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not that and then Murray will walk.

In some ways I think a lot of the fans really have no clue how the court system works and they are willing to take this gamble for reasons I have yet to figure out. Maybe everyone really wants Murray to walk?

That last sentence is really problematic on a Michael Jackson board.

Don't be so sure about the "cluelessness" of fans? The motivation for justice is very, very high.

Given the information that's already out there, Involuntary Manslaughter is an outrageous charge. An "impartial" jury heard the evidence against Michael (was there ever really any that was credible?) and made the right decision. Sure, the charges were different. The POINT is, that a jury sorted through it in Michael's case, and I think they could do that concerning Murray as well. I think they would be capable of making the right decision. Agree-to-disagree.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Could someone with legal knowledge of Calif/US law clarify this for me? It's my understanding that all 12 jurors must come to a conclusive guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of murder (be it "2" or otherwise). If the jurors are sent back to re-deliberate because it is not unanimous, and they still don't reach a complete unanimous agreement, then it is considered a "hung jury" and the defendent walks free.

What I'm not sure about is whether there can be another whole new murder trial initiated. Seems like the Phil Specter case was "hung" in the first trial, then after what seems like several years, another jury did convict him.

Have I got this right?

yes u can have another trial. its upto the d.a to decide . i think the spector case was something like 11-1 or 10-2 guilty so obviously the d.s will go for a re trial.the only time u cant have another trial is if the defendent is found not guilty

 

[elusive moonwalker]

he POINT is, that a jury sorted through it in Michael's case, and I think they could do that concerning Murray as well. I think they would be capable of making the right decision. Agree-to-disagree.

agree. mjs case was pretty complicated with sneddons conspiracy rubbish. this case isnt rocket science

 

[Beachlover]

That last sentence is really problematic on a Michael Jackson board.

Don't be so sure about the "cluelessness" of fans? The motivation for justice is very, very high.

First of all, I never said the fans were clueless anywhere. Yeah, the last sentence is problematic for me as well.

There is a lot of information that the police and the DA have that we do not. This is their job and what they do for a living. They know the law. They understand juries. Thats what they DO. T Mez already said the same thing and agreed with them in that you go for the lesser charge to be sure you have a conviction.

I really do think if the fan base is going to push for this they should have all the facts and then be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the DA is wrong and then prove it.

To me it just looks like a bunch of angry fans wanting revenge. I guess I do not see 'justice' in the same way. So, no, I see pushing the DA to do something just because we want it without proof they don't have now, or without just cause as nothing more than a bunch of angry people; plain and simple. You don't have to agree with me. This is exactly how I see it.

I see it as "Well, Michael had to suffer when he was arrested and so should Murray." One has nothing to do with the other in my eyes.

 

[Autumn II]

First of all, I never said the fans were clueless anywhere. Yeah, the last sentence is problematic for me as well.

Quote from your text: "In some ways I think a lot of the fans really have no clue how the court system works . . . "

And I think they DO, more than you might imagine? Agree-to-disagree.

I see it as "Well, Michael had to suffer when he was arrested and so should Murray." One has nothing to do with the other in my eyes.

I didn't ever say that. Justice under the law. Equal applications of same.

Agree-to-disagree, and we move on?

 

[bowen9999]

To me it just looks like a bunch of angry fans wanting revenge. I guess I do not see 'justice' in the same way. So, no, I see pushing the DA to do something just because we want it without proof they don't have now, or without just cause as nothing more than a bunch of angry people; plain and simple. You don't have to agree with me. This is exactly how I see it.

I see it as "Well, Michael had to suffer when he was arrested and so should Murray." One has nothing to do with the other in my eyes.

Wow.... perhaps you should get your eyes checked then! I have never gotten the impression that Murray should suffer because Michael did. Murray should suffer because he murdered MJ! I fail to see why Murrays actions weren't classed as "a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life." This is the only reason the fans think the DA should push for Murder 2.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

i dont mind if murray suffers. heck ill admit it. yeap im bitter and twisted and full of hate for all those who hurt mj. can u blame me

 

[Beachlover]

California Involuntary Manslaughter Law

Penal Code 192 (b) pc

California Penal Code 192 defines "manslaughter" as the unlawful killing of another person without malice.1 "Involuntary Manslaughter," which is the least serious variant of manslaughter, gets charged when the killing occurs:

1. in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, OR


2. by way of a lawful though dangerous act, that is done in an unlawful manner or without due caution or circumspection.


Take, for example, the recent allegations against Michael Jackson’s personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office charged Dr. Murray with involuntary manslaughter for allegedly administering lethal doses of an anesthetic (propofol) to Jackson while treating him for insomnia. Dr. Murray has pled "not guilty" to the charges.

When someone dies under any kind of "suspicious" circumstances, law enforcement officers and prosecutors are bound to get involved. Police want to hold someone accountable. And often times, as a result, they jump to conclusions or rush investigations, leaving innocent people to defend against false accusations and wrongful arrests.

The good news is that we can help. As former prosecutors and police officers, we have inside knowledge that is invaluable to resolving your Penal Code 192 (b) "involuntary manslaughter" charges favorably.

In order better to understand California involuntary manslaughter law…and, more importantly, how to defend against involuntary manslaughter charges…our California criminal defense attorneys will address the following:
How Do Prosecutors Prove that I am Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter?
Penalties, Punishment, and Sentencing for Involuntary Manslaughter
How Do I Fight a Penal Code 192 (b) PC Involuntary Manslaughter Charge?

If, after reading this article, you would like more information, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.
How Do Prosecutors Prove that I am Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter?

The difference between other murder charges and involuntary manslaughter rests on whether the defendant was aware of the risk to life that his actions created, and whether he consciously disregarded the risk.

An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with complete knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering another's life, and done with conscious disregard of that risk, amounts to Penal Code 192 (a) "Voluntary Manslaughter" or Penal code 187 "Murder".2

An unlawful killing arising from a willful act done without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life amounts to involuntary manslaughter.

In order to convict someone of the crime of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following two facts (otherwise known as "elements of the crime"):

1. that someone was killed, and


2. that the killing was unlawful.3


Let’s take a closer look at this second element to better understand what constitutes an "unlawful" killing.

Unlawful killing

An "unlawful" killing can take place under two circumstances:

1. when you commit a crime that is dangerous to human life under the circumstances of its commission, or


2. when you commit an otherwise lawful act, but one that involves a high degree of risk of death or great bodily injury or harm to others, and you commit the act without due caution and circumspection.4


"Without due caution and circumspection" is equivalent to criminal negligence.5 "Criminal negligence" involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. You act with criminal negligence when:

1. you act in a reckless way and create a high risk of death or great bodily injury, and


2. a reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.6


Once again, referring to the Michael Jackson case, the Los Angeles D.A. stated in its complaint that Dr. Murray "did unlawfully and without malice kill Michael Joseph Jackson" by acting "without due caution and circumspection".

Prosecutors will attempt to prove that Dr. Murray acted with criminal negligence when he administered such a large dose of the anesthetic…an anesthetic that they contend is meant to be used in preparation for surgery, not as a sleeping aid. They will argue that a reasonable doctor in the same situation would not have administered this medication.
Penalties, Punishment, and Sentencing for Involuntary Manslaughter

California Penal Code 192 (b) PC involuntary manslaughter is a felony. A conviction subjects you to7

* formal probation,


* a two, three, or four-year California State Prison sentence,


* a maximum $10,000 fine, and


* possible professional repercussions (if you hold a professional license).


In addition, California involuntary manslaughter law also addresses civil wrongs. If, for example, you are found liable for unlawfully causing another’s death in a civil suit (in a medical malpractice case, for example), you could face substantial additional fines.
How Do I Fight a Penal Code 192 (b) PC Involuntary Manslaughter Charge?

Fortunately, there are a variety of defenses to involuntary manslaughter charges that a skilled California defense lawyer could present on your behalf. The following is just a sample of some of the most popular.

False accusations

Sometimes people may falsely accuse others of this very serious offense. Accusers can range from an individual trying to cover up his/her own involvement in the victim’s death to overzealous law enforcement officers who conduct a shoddy investigation and simply need someone to present to the D.A.

Insufficient evidence

Similarly, sometimes in what seems like an "open and shut" case, the police make a snap decision regarding the death. They present their case to the prosecutor who simply buys into the cop’s account.

But as Van Nuys criminal defense attorney Darrell York explains8, "Good criminal defense lawyers conduct our own investigations. We interview witnesses, reexamine evidence, and routinely consult with independent forensic scientists to uncover what really happened. After we highlight the flaws in the prosecutor’s case, we explain why the victim’s death couldn’t possibly have been caused in the manner alleged."

Self-defense

If you reasonably believed that you were protecting yourself or another person from imminent harm, you may be entitled to an acquittal under the California law of self-defense or the defense of others.9 This defense applies so long as (1) you acted reasonably under the circumstances, and (2) used no more force than was necessary under the circumstances.

Your act wasn’t unreasonable

California involuntary manslaughter requires one of two types of acts: (1) a criminal act, or (2) an unreasonable act. If you didn’t commit a crime or act in an unreasonable manner, prosecutors can’t convict you of this offense.

If, under the circumstances, you acted as a "reasonable" person would have, then you did nothing wrong…at least not in the criminal sense. Accidents happen -- period. The unfortunate fact that they sometimes result in another person’s death doesn’t make the act any less accidental, and shouldn't make it criminal.

If you have additional questions about California involuntary manslaughter law or would like to discuss your case confidentially with one of our California criminal defense attorneys, please don’t hesitate to contact us at Shouse Law Group.

We have local criminal law offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Orange County, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Jose, the San Francisco Bay area, and several nearby cities to conveniently serve you.
Legal References:

1California Penal Code 192 PC -- Involuntary manslaughter. ("Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds: (a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. (b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle. (c) Vehicular…")

2California Penal Code 187 -- Murder. ("(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.")

3California Jury Instructions – Criminal. CALJIC 8.45 Involuntary manslaughter. ("In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved: [1] A human being was killed; and [2] The killing was unlawful.")

4See same. ("A killing is unlawful within the meaning of this instruction if it occurred: [1] During the commission of an unlawful act [not amounting to a felony] which is dangerous to human life under the circumstances of its commission; or [2] In the commission of an act, ordinarily lawful, which involves a high degree of risk of death or great bodily harm, without due caution and circumspection.")

See also California Penal Code 12022.7 -- Great bodily harm. ("(f) As used in this section "great bodily injury" means a significant or substantial physical injury.")

5See same -- use note for involuntary manslaughter instruction. (""Without due caution and circumspection" is defined in CALJIC 8.46 and is equivalent to gross or criminal negligence.")

6Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 581 -- Involuntary manslaughter. ("A person acts with criminal negligence when: [1] He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; AND [2] A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.]")

7California Penal Code 193 -- Involuntary manslaughter; punishment. ("(b) Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.")

See also California Penal Code 672 -- Offenses for which no fine prescribed; fine authorized in addition to imprisonment. ("Upon a conviction for any crime punishable by imprisonment in any jail or prison, in relation to which no fine is herein prescribed, the court may impose a fine on the offender not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) in cases of misdemeanors or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in cases of felonies, in addition to the imprisonment prescribed.")

8Van Nuys criminal defense attorney Darrell York is a former police officer who now defends clients charged with involuntary manslaughter and other crimes throughout Los Angeles and Ventura County.

9Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 505 -- Justifiable Homicide: California Self-Defense or Defense of Others. ("The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ )]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.")

http://www.shouselaw.com/involuntary_manslaughter.html

 

[ensleyave]

Thank you very much for the information and the defense rest.
:brush_teeth: