This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
I have a question on extreme provocation, prompted by the example above.
I recently saw a tv show, where a con artist misrepresented himself as a baseball coach, and took a large sum of money in exchange for his services teaching 8 or so kids (about 4 grand total).
Instead of coaching them. He removed them from the premises without their parents knowledge or consent, took them to a separate location, and during a disagreement with a third party, incited the children to damage the third parties property with baseball bats, telling them that it was for training purposes.
The parents of one of the children arrived and busted the con artist, who then managed to drive off in the confusion after a shouting match.
My reaction was essentially that I probably would have started beating the con artist with the bat, if in that situation. He had just abducted children and used them as accessories in a crime. My wife figured I would get in more trouble than he did, for the assault.
Would this offer a valid provocation defence? How about if he were trying to flee the scene, and violent force was used to prevent that?
I get that this would likely depend on the jury, but curious as to your impression. Just how far does someone have to go, messing with a kid, before a parent has a reasonable defence for putting them in the hospital?
The provocation defense only applies to homicide. Unless you killed the con artist, then the provocation defense would not apply.
If provocation only applies to homocide, why is the example above of indecent liberties with a child
He means homicide of the target – i.e. if Bob killed Joe for fondling his kid he’d have an excuse defense, but if Bob only beat seven shades of crap out of Joe for fondling his kid he wouldn’t have that excuse.
Which sounds a little odd, but keep in mind that in the latter case Bob wouldn’t be tried for the very serious crime of homicide but the lesser crime of assault instead, and thus it isn’t as critical to establish that he had a valid excuse.
I love the illustration for entrapment.
Thanks!