Crown prosecutor Russell Collins said the defendant and the victim were staying in a small cottage at a farm where his father worked.

The defendant, the victim and two other youths had been hunting on the farm with the 7.62mm semi-automatic.

The defendant was familiar with the weapon, said Mr Collins.

At 4.15pm the defendant, the victim and another youth were in the lounge of a cottage. The third person was playing on a PlayStation while the defendant sat behind the victim.

The firearm was under the table when the youths began discussing whether to go hunting again.

An argument began.

The victim called the defendant an arsehole.

“I’ll shoot you,” said the defendant.

The victim laughed and the defendant took the rifle from the table and loaded it with two bullets.

The victim told the defendant to get the gun out of the way.

The defendant swung the gun around towards the victim and told him he would no longer get cheeky.

The victim turned away and the firearm went off.

The father told his son and the other witness to tell police that the victim had the firearm and that it accidentally discharged as the accused tried to remove it from him, Mr Collins said.

I’m struggling with how this was reduced to manslaughter from murder. The article says:

The boy was originally charged with murder, but Justice Forrest Miller said an investigation by a police armourer could not exclude the possibility that the firearm was discharged accidentally.

Let us say that the discharge was accidental. But in the context of the defendant saying he would shoot him, loading the gun with bullets, threatening the victim with it, and then pointing it specifically towards the victim – does that really matter? The action of specifically putting bullets in the gun while saying I will shoot you, is very damning to my mind

A BORN-AGAIN Christian who said he killed a prominent US abortion doctor to save the lives of unborn babies has sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 50 years.

Scott Roeder, 52, was pulled out of the courtroom screaming “you have the blood of babies on your hands”‘ after the sentence was handed down.

Mr Roeder should be more concerned about his own blood. He is obviously totally unrepentant and would kill again if released, so it is good he will effectively never be freed.

In a move that critics feared could provide cover for acts of political violence, Roeder had sought to convince jurors he was only guilty of voluntary manslaughter.  Under Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter can apply when actions are taken based on an unreasonable but honest defence that he or she is preventing a greater harm.

Now does that sound familiar? Few things are more dangerous than someone who thinks their religious beliefs place them above the law.

Troy Newman, president of Wichita-based Operation Rescue, which organised protests against Tiller’s clinic, said “pro-life was not on trial. An insane man doing an insane thing was on trial”.

All religions have their fanatics. The good thing with Christianity is the religious leaders always condemn people who murder people in the name of God. In Islam, you often get shall we say a mixed message at best.

Roeder could be considered for parole after 25 years. But prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would seek to ensure that he serve at least 50 years before being eligible for parole. Sentencing was set for March 9.

I don’t think he can ever be let out, as someone convinced they have a right to kill people is always going to be dangerous.

Roeder, the sole defence witness, testified on Thursday that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him.

But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller’s church, put a gun to the doctor’s forehead and pull the trigger.

Tiller was wearing body armour, due to the threats against him – that in itself is a sad reality.

But then the article makes clear, it is far more yucky than that. Im not sure if one can say if rape is worse or better than necrophilia – both are evil and disgusting – but in somewhat different ways.

The Press reports:

‘House of horrors’ murderer Jason Somerville strangled his wife Rebecca Somerville and Tisha Lowry to death before having sex with them.

That’s the word I missed.

The statement said Somerville strangled Lowry until she was no longer breathing. He then stuffed a pair of his wife’s underpants in her mouth and had sex with her.

Somerville was due at a meeting early that afternoon so had no time to dispose of Lowry’s body, leaving her lying on the floor of a cupboard.

The following day, Somerville waited until his wife had gone out before again having sex with Lowry’s body, now hidden under the house.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say I hope Mr Somerville is not let out of jail in my lifetime.

The statement of facts raises real questions about how the Police did not catch him after the first murder.

HONEYMOON killer Gabe Watson could face the death penalty when he is released from an Australian jail and returns to the US.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King yesterday announced he would go after Watson for a capital murder, the worst category of murder in the state.

If he is convicted, Watson faces death by lethal injection or life without parole.

The 32-year-old bubble-wrap salesman has admitted to killing his new wife Tina Watson who drowned as they explored the Great Barrier Reef on their October 2003 honeymoon.

In June, he cut a deal with Queensland prosecutors and pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

He was sentenced to 4 1/2 years’ jail, to be suspended after a year, in a decision that devastated Tina’s family and provoked public outcry over its leniency.

Queensland Attorney General Cameron Dick appealed the sentence and the Court of Appeal on Friday ruled Watson should spend another six months in jail, which means he will be back in Alabama in December 2010.

I’d not heard of this case, so got curious. What made people think it was a deliberate killing, not an accident? Well as always, Wikipedia has the answers:

During an excursion to the site of the SS Yongala, a passenger ship that sank in 1911, Tina lost consciousness and sank to the bottom, 100 feet below the water’s surface. Gabe claimed that the currents were stronger than they expected and that he responded to a signal from her to return to the dive rope where he noted a look of worry on her face before she accidentally knocked his mask loose. When he recovered his sight, she was sinking too quickly for him to retrieve her and he surfaced to get help. He also stated there was nothing in his training as a rescue diver “about how to get somebody” in trouble to the surface.^[1] There were other divers nearby at the time, including one diver who saw Gabe engaged in an underwater “bear hug” with his wife, after which he headed for the surface while his wife fell to the ocean floor.

Okay I can see why it looked suspicious.

Tina’s father claimed that Gabe had asked Tina to increase her life insurance and make him the sole beneficiary shortly before their wedding. The insurance company confirmed that Gabe had twice emailed questions about the company’s dive insurance policies prior to the honeymoon and had asked about her insurance shortly after her death. Gabe also claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance money from her death until he was named as a possible murder suspect

And now alarm bells ringing big time. Not only is Watson probably a killer, he is a very stupid one to have left a paper trial of guilt behind.

Now the Watsons were on their honeymoon. This is when you realise how chilling this is. He presumably pretended to love her, and got married to her just so he could kill her to claim the insurance.

Tina Watson is buried in Pelham. Her remains were relocated in 2007 to a different lot purchased by Gabe.

After being informed by her family that flowers and gifts were repeatedly being vandalized or disappearing from the grave site, even when chained down, Sergeant Flinn investigated. On hidden surveillance videos, he witnessed Gabe Watson removing them with bolt cutters and angrily discarding them in trash receptacles.

It’s circumstantial evidence, but wow is this one dump fucker.

Gabe moved into the house that he had inherited from Tina after her death.^[7]

On August 15, 2008 Gabe married Kim Lewis. Reporters have described her as a “Tina Watson lookalike”.

Oh dear. Why would you marry someone who has been charged for killing his former wife? As much as I despise the evil sociopathic men who abuse and kill their partners, I also despair at the women who ignore the warning signs.

It is a pity the Australian authorities did a plea bargain for manslaughter rather than risk trying him for murder. Considering he had given 16 different versions of what happened, I think he was so stupid he would have destroyed himself on the stand if he testified. Mind you, he probably would not be allowed to testify, so maybe the manslaughter plea was better than nothing.

There is further info on Watson on this site.

This is no criticism of Mrs Elliott’s stoicism, but if I heard someone stabbing one of my daughters on the other side of a locked door, I hope I would react swiftly.

Proficient with firearms, I would fire through the door lock. Finding my daughter dead inside, I would shoot and kill the bastard.

I would re-load and shoot again to make sure he was dead – probably not 216 times.

I would call the police, I’d be arrested and charged with murder, and I’d throw myself on the mercy of the court.

Should this crime be treated on an equivalent basis as the crime committed by Clayton Weatherston? Is it comparable as that committed by him, or other crimes committed by, say, Paul Dally (the killer of Karla Cardno) or Jules Mikus (the killer of Teresa Cormack)?

And what about when it comes to sentencing – should there be any mitigating circumstances taken into account by the judge?

My response is that firstly she could claim self defence. It is reasonable to think that having killed her daughter, he may try and kill her.

But what if he had finished the job and was walking away from the house so there is no issue of self defence.

Well yes if you do shoot him then, you would be convicted of murder, not manslaughter if provocation goes. But there already is a huge degree of range in the brutality of murders. Being found guilty of the same crime does not mean you are the same of them.

And the key thing is the circumstances could be taken into account with sentencing. A Judge can give a lesser sentence than life under s102(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002.

In the conditions Deborah describes, a Judge could give a suspended sentence (no jail time unless you reoffend) for the killing.

The family of a man who was bashed to death with a banjo have angrily condemned the provocation law that allows a partial defence of murder after his killer was found guilty of manslaughter last night.

Ferdinand Ambach, a 31-year-old dive master from Hungary, had been accused of murdering Ronald James Brown, 69, after the pair got into a violent argument at Mr Brown’s Onehunga flat on December 7, 2007.

He claims that Mr Brown, who was gay, made unwanted sexual advances towards him. During the trial in the High Court at Auckland, his lawyer, Peter Kaye, raised the possibility Mr Brown may have attempted to rape Ambach which triggered “a monstrous rage” where the tourist temporarily lost his self-control.

As far as I know, there was no evidence submitted to prove this – it was just rasied as a possibility.

After three and a half days of deliberations, the verdict was delivered at 6.45pm. When Ambach was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, there were gasps from Mr Brown’s friends and family in the public gallery. Ambach was expressionless as he was remanded in custody until sentencing.

The family say:

Mr Brown’s niece Tracy Evans told the Herald her family were “deeply disgusted with the verdict”. She said the [provocation] law was “archaic” and had allowed a murderer to receive a reduced sentence for a “horrific crime”.

“It’s a sad indictment on our legal system that the defence can completely fabricate a case and slander a good man’s character in an attempt to defend a murderer.”

Indeed. Made worse by the fact the dead person can not defend themselves.

I do know of a couple of cases where provocation was exceptional, and a manslaughter verdict was (imo) justified.

But in recent years more and more I see the provocation defence being used to slander the dead, and especially used for “homosexual panic” claims. One case had a the accused get manslaughter only with this defence despite the fact he was a male callboy!

If unwanted sexual advances was legitimate provocation to kill someone, the population would be greatly reduced.