Comparison Of Talker And Lensman's Murder

Mr. Tom Talker and Mr. Larry Lensman, the local TV station’s Live crew, were charged with murder after streaming live Dave Doleful (the deceased) setting himself on fire at a local bar. Did Talker and Lensman’s actions lead to the charges of criminal homicide? Probably no. Both Talker and Lensman did not hold the intention to kill the deceased, and their action can deemed as neither reckless nor aiding suicide.

The prosecutor would connect Talker and Lensman’s action to murder because Doleful specifically asked that the streaming should start beforehand him setting himself on fire. Out of the bar, right before Doleful flicking the lighter, Doleful was well aware that the camera was on, and requested that the camera not be shut during the whole

The show is watched by thousands of viewers, and the death is certainly not pitied in this case. In terms of the Mens Rea of Talker and Lensman, the prosecutor would define the start of the streaming as the necessary condition that practically certainly lead to the consequence as death of the deceased. Meanwhile, this knowing decision to stream show that the death could be an intended objective of the crew so that the TV program would have an attractive content. All of the causal links can be used by the prosecutor to prove the knowing nature of the crew to murder the

The spectators played a major role here. To begin with, unidentified person shouted “Do it!” persuading the deceased to set fire. Next, another unidentified spectator threw a cigarette lighter at the deceased’s foot, becoming the tool of igniting the gasoline. Without the lighter, the self killing would not have been achieved. However, neither Talker nor Lensman offered such tools of killings, nor did they persuade the action of the deceased. Essentially, it was Doleful himself who decide to pour gasoline on his cloth and light the lighter to generate the fatal flame. The detachment of the job of the crew and the initiation of the fire setting breaks the chain of logic. In State v. Pelham, 824 A.2d 1082 (N.J. 2003), Pelham was convicted second-degree murder because there was no sufficient intervening event that explain the death of the deceased in a new way. Pelham, a reckless drunk driver, fatally hit the deceased and the family members of the deceased stopped ventilation equipment according to the wish of the deceased. The Pelham case implied that if there do exists possible intervening causes of the death, then the defendant may not be convicted with murder, such is the case for Talker and