format_quote Originally Posted by
Ninth_Scribe
I'm not happy with this ruling. I would have charged them with premeditated murder, first degree, and obstruction of justice. How would you define the killing of an unarmed man?
Wilberhum is quite right. Whether the victim was armed or not does not "define" whether the killing was premeditated or not. It can be relevant, but there are many cases you can think of where it would clearly be absurd. For example, say a fist-fight gets out of hand, and an unarmed person is killed - is that premeditated? Or say an armed robber lies in wait and shoots the (armed) police officer attempting to catch him - is that NOT premeditated?
The Prosecution will, as always, charge with the most severe offence that they think
a Jury is actually likely to convict on. Clearly there was insufficient evidence to convince a jury that the killing was premeditated even if, of course, it actually was.