If I design a trap that will kill someone climbing thorough my window there's an argument for that to be 1st degree murder: it was pre-planned even if I didn't have a specific target.
Setting a trap wouldn't rise to the "intent to kill". You can set Booby traps all day and not kill anyone. So setting the trap itself isn't some overt act to kill. Setting a trap creates a situation that will likely result in the death of someone. That would probably be some form of manslaughter with terms like reckless or negligent depending on specifics. That's why drunk drivers get manslaughter charges. They intended to get drunk and killed someone, but they didn't drive drunk with the intent to kill someone. They created the dangerous situation (though that could carry the caveat if someone got drunk and intentionally drove into someone they intended to kill).
This is not some hypothetical, there is precedent for booby traps being murder. It's a common line of cases taught in law school.
That's in Illinois where a lot of what would constitute as manslaughter in other states gets grouped under second degree murder instead. So it depends a lot on the state.
You said it doesn't meet the "intent to kill" element. The Illinois first degree murder statute has an intent to kill element. He was not convicted of second degree murder which is a different charge.
I didn't say anything about intent to kill, I'm not the person you initially replied to. What I'm saying is that a murder charge in Illinois (or Florida) has nothing to do with Texas. Different states have different qualifications for murder vs manslaughter, in some states abortion is considered murder for example, so if you want to make an argument for why someone would or wouldn't be charged with murder for booby trapping in Texas you should use an example from Texas.
Sorry I didn't realize you weren't OP. But, I'm not sure whyyou're bringing up something irrelevant to the comment I was responding to. OP was talking about booby traps not meeting the "intent to kill" standard. I was providing a case where it met that standard.
Talking about the law in Texas isn't particularly beneficial anyway because there very likely isn't a booby trap case from Texas, these cases aren't particularly common (and based on my cursory research I haven't been able to find one). The Illinois case would be of use in a Texas case because it would be persuasive authority for Texas to interpret the law the same way. The equivalent to the Illinois first degree murder statue in Texas appears to be capital murder and second degree murder. Both have the intent requirement (Texas actually doesn't have something called first degree murder). So, if Texas follows Illinois's interpretation then one would similarly face murder charges in Texas.
Isn't this on federal property anyway as it's in the waterway? This would be felony murder if we're going down that route. Texas law would be moot.
If I design a trap that will kill someone climbing thorough my window there's an argument for that to be 1st degree murder: it was pre-planned even if I didn't have a specific target.
Setting a trap wouldn't rise to the "intent to kill". You can set Booby traps all day and not kill anyone. So setting the trap itself isn't some overt act to kill. Setting a trap creates a situation that will likely result in the death of someone. That would probably be some form of manslaughter with terms like reckless or negligent depending on specifics. That's why drunk drivers get manslaughter charges. They intended to get drunk and killed someone, but they didn't drive drunk with the intent to kill someone. They created the dangerous situation (though that could carry the caveat if someone got drunk and intentionally drove into someone they intended to kill).
This is not some hypothetical, there is precedent for booby traps being murder. It's a common line of cases taught in law school.
https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/murder-conviction-upheld-for-man-who-rigged-shotgun-booby-trap-to-guard-his-shed
Source: am a lawyer
You're a lawyer? Yeah right, name every law
*
That's in Illinois where a lot of what would constitute as manslaughter in other states gets grouped under second degree murder instead. So it depends a lot on the state.
You said it doesn't meet the "intent to kill" element. The Illinois first degree murder statute has an intent to kill element. He was not convicted of second degree murder which is a different charge.
I didn't say anything about intent to kill, I'm not the person you initially replied to. What I'm saying is that a murder charge in Illinois (or Florida) has nothing to do with Texas. Different states have different qualifications for murder vs manslaughter, in some states abortion is considered murder for example, so if you want to make an argument for why someone would or wouldn't be charged with murder for booby trapping in Texas you should use an example from Texas.
Sorry I didn't realize you weren't OP. But, I'm not sure whyyou're bringing up something irrelevant to the comment I was responding to. OP was talking about booby traps not meeting the "intent to kill" standard. I was providing a case where it met that standard.
Talking about the law in Texas isn't particularly beneficial anyway because there very likely isn't a booby trap case from Texas, these cases aren't particularly common (and based on my cursory research I haven't been able to find one). The Illinois case would be of use in a Texas case because it would be persuasive authority for Texas to interpret the law the same way. The equivalent to the Illinois first degree murder statue in Texas appears to be capital murder and second degree murder. Both have the intent requirement (Texas actually doesn't have something called first degree murder). So, if Texas follows Illinois's interpretation then one would similarly face murder charges in Texas.
Isn't this on federal property anyway as it's in the waterway? This would be felony murder if we're going down that route. Texas law would be moot.