503.060 Improper use of physical force in self-protection.<quoted text>
True. But this case is different than some because they know who did it, and how it happened and what happened as a result.(TB shot BB and as a result BB died) I don't think there was ever any doubt that TB did it.(I'm saying that tongue in cheek).
What was in dispute was why and what events led up to it. And that led TB to the claim of self defense. The evidence and the law, according to the grand jury, supported his claim.
To address your other statement, the prosecuting office knew of TB's claim of self defense and knew that the law and the evidence and impartial witness testimony would probably support that claim.
Should it had gone to trial, the prosecutor knew it was an uphill loosing battle because the jury is instructed on the application of the laws and probably figured the majority of the evidence they had to present would support that.
Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:
(1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or
(3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:
(a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or
(b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 31, effective January
A seasoned prosecutor could prove several of the above offenses.
And to wit: Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being in a manner considered less culpable than murder. The culpability is based on the mens rea (state of mind). Where murder requires either the intent to kill or malice aforethought, manslaughter usually involves an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.
While manslaughter is usually broken down into two categories (voluntary and involuntary), Kentucky law distinguishes these by assigning a degree:
Manslaughter in the first degree
(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
(a) With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
(b) With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.
(2) Manslaughter in the first degree is a Class B felony.
Considering less included offenses could have proven crucial.