APA format. 200 words each. 1 reference per response.
After reviewing the scenario and presented facts, under Illinois law one of the charges I would bring forth on Mayo would be for firing the gun inside the establishment among other patrons. Illinois Code 720 ILCS 5/24-1.5 Sec. 24-1.5. Reckless discharge of a firearm. Under this code subsection (a) A person commits reckless discharge of a firearm by discharging a firearm in a reckless manner which endangers the bodily safety of an individual.
Secondly, I would bring the charge of Second Degree Murder. Based on the fact that there was a mutual argument and threat that provoked the reaction. It could be considered, in Illinois, First degree murder can be considered if the defendant intentionally shoots a person with the intent to kill them, or shooting the person knowing that there is a strong chance the act will cause death or great bodily injury. Under Illinois Statutes Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses §-2. Second degree murder is warrantied if at the time of the killing, he/she was acting under a sudden and intense passion due to being seriously provoked by either the victim or another person whom the defendant tried to kill but negligently ended up killing the victim instead; or at the time of the killing, he/she believed that the killing would have been lawfully justified but the belief was unreasonable.
Tuite, P., Arons, G., & Mark, N. (1994). Ignorance of the law is no excuse: what you need to know about the tough new laws to stay out of trouble. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.
Illinois Second Degree Murder Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://statelaws.findlaw.com/illinois-law/illinois-second-degree-murder-laws.html.
Brandon Wyckoff, forum2
This case has more moving parts in it than most think. Definition of deadly force from what I was taught as a law enforcement professional should only be used when all lesser means have failed to preserve life which the suspects actions would result in loss of life to that person or persons. There are three main components of deadly force which the criminal justice system will look at.
First is the Capability meaning was the person capable to inflict death or serious bodily harm to others.
Second is the Opportunity stating was there a weapon or was the person skilled enough to inflict death or serious bodily harm with their body.
Third is the Intent of the individual which deadly force was used against. The intent describes the willingness to cause death or serious bodily harm demonstrated through an aggressive action or lack of compliance.
In this situation Scowen did pick up a beer bottle and stated “I’m going to kill you” but it takes much more than Scowen to threaten Mayo with a beer bottle for him to use a firearm to take life. Per Colorado state statue where I reside deadly force was not warranted in this scenario. Going off the facts of the situation for week 1 forum it says nothing of the beer bottle was broken and could be used as a shank. We have to take the facts straight from the reading. In a situation such as this there are countless times an intoxicated person may take a beer bottle to inflict harm to another person. Majority of the time it will not cause death. The three elements of the use of deadly force are lacking thereof.
Was Scowen capable of causing death with the beer bottle it could happen but most likely no. Did Scowen have the opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm to Mayo? We do not know. The distance from where one another was would be a factor. If Scowen was across the watering hole and picked up a beer bottle he was drinking at his table and Mayo was behind the bar no the Opportunity was not there. If Scowen was within arms reach of Mayo possibly but most likely no. Finally, was the intent there? I would say yes, Scowen clearly picked up a foreign object to inflect harm to Mayo and stated “I am going to kill you”.
As the prosecutor I would charge Mayo with Second degree murder because Mayo pulled a firearm which a reasonable person would agree if he shot Scowen it would kill him or cause seriously bodily harm in result of his actions. Mayo would not meet the elements of offense for first degree murder because from what we read there was no proof premeditation and deliberation.
Th fact that the police did not advise Mayo of his rights is fine IF they did not question him at the scene. This is a misconception that law enforcement NEED to advise rights to a suspect. If the police do not question the suspect, they do not need to advise them of their rights on the flip side the police or any law enforcement officer HAS to advise the suspect of their rights if they are inquiring about the crime where the suspect could self-incriminate.
As a prosecutor for the state of Illinois I believe in observing a case on both sides before making a decision. Gathering information from the witnesses will allow me to better understand what took place leading up to the crime. It is obvious that Scott Mayo felt the need to protect himself when Basil Scowen present a beer bottle as a weapon. I believe that Mayo did not have intentions of killing someone as he went to work that night. It can be said that the weapon that was present at the bar was primarily there as a means for protection. The charge of murder can be removed due to Mayo not having intentions to kill Scowen. Involuntary manslaughter statue can be a result of this case under the state of Illinois. This crime is when one commits the offense when he or she recklessly performs acts, whether lawful or unlawful, which are likely to cause death or great bodily harm, and which do cause the death of an individual (Reuters, 2020). The actions performed by Mayo were reckless and likely to cause a great amount of harm. I am sure that Mayo has knowledge of guns and know that they cause extreme harm along with death. However, I do believe that Mayo will have a good chance fighting this charge due to the facts surrounding the case.
Reuters, T. (2020). Illinois Involuntary Manslaughter Laws. Retrieved from FindLaw: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/illinois-law/illinoi…
For this week’s second forum post, we are asked to determine which charges (as they apply to the state that which we reside in) are applicable to this case in regard to the defendant, Mr. Mayo. Under Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statues (P.A.C.S) Mr. May could in fact be absconded and to be determined to act accordingly in his particular situation as thus provided under section 505, Title 18, P.A.C.S.) so long as his defense would sustain his actions. However, as the prosecutor in this scenario, he would be charged with the following.
Section 2501 — Criminal Homicide. Mr. Mayo knowingly did cause the death of another individual regardless of intent. As the prosecutor, Mr. Mayo discharged his firearm in to another person and did cause their death as a result of the amount of force utilized.
Section 2504 — Involuntary Manslaughter. In this particular incident, the details are unknown. It would be assumed that Mr. Mayo did not start out his day and plan to kill Mr. Scowen. However, when Mr. Mayo discharged his firearm, he did strike Mr. Scowen fatally.
Section 2705 — Reckless Endangerment of Another Person. In this scenario, the actions carried out by Mr. Mayo would lead one to believe that the discharge of the firearm was negligent and may have endangered the lives of fellow citizens who occupied the area at the time. Depending on how many individuals were present in the building and surrounding area at the time would determine the number of offenses that occurred.
As with most homicides, there needs to be more information collected. Considering the information provided, these are the charges applicable according to Pennsylvania State Statutes.
P.A.C.S. Title 18. (n.d.). Title 18 — Crimes and Offenses. Retrieved from https://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/li/li/ct/htm/18/18.htm.