1.Olive should face murder charges. She could also face lesser charges. Murder would be an offence that resulted after the court considers several circumstances. Bluto was the initial aggressor according to the evidence. He even refused to withdraw from the fight, even after Olive begged him to stop. Therefore, Olive may not be guilty of murder. However, but she is guilty of a lesser charge. She was criminally liable for conduct of her boyfriend who agreed to a fist fight with Bluto. According to article 25, when one person engages in an act which constitutes offense, he is criminally liable for such behavior when he solicits needs, instructs, importunes, or deliberately aids such persons to engage in unlawful conduct. This will be a criminal offence if the person is sane. Olive had requested her boyfriend to first fight Bluto. Olive turns to Popeye and angrily asks him whether he was going to let Bluto talk to her like that. She asked Popeye to teach Bluto a lesson! Olive had made her boyfriend agree to a fight that resulted to murder. However, Olive should be charged with the offence of fighting. This is because she was criminally liable for her boyfriend’s actions. After she sees that Bluto is going to injure her boyfriend, she retreats from the fight. Therefore, the charge of murder is harsh to her, but she is still guilty of Popeye’s act of fighting. Olive had incited Popeye toward engaging into unlawful act. Therefore, she could be charged with inciting a person to engage in violence act. This is a punishable action.
2.According to the law, Olive is justified for the use of physical force in defense of Popeye. According to the article 35, a person may use physical force upon another person. This can be when he or she realistically believes that it is necessary to defend oneself or another person from the unlawful physical force used by the other person. This should be applied in Olive’s case. Popeye was not the initial aggressor. However, Olive had told that they wanted to withdraw from the fight after Popeye looked to be unconscious. In such case, the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable. The actor had withdrawn from the fight and had effectively communicated such withdrawal to the other person, but Bluto persisted on continuing the incident by the use of unlawful physical force.
The fact that the physical force involved is the product of a combat by the agreement, should not be considered in this case, because Popeye had withdrawn from the fight and Olive communicated it to Bluto. During the incident, Olive tries to break up the fight. She steps between combatants and begs Bluto, one of the combatants to stop. Bluto pushes her too roughly to the ground and continues his onslaught on Popeye.
Olive may use deadly physical force upon Bluto under circumstances in this case. Olive reasonably believes that Bluto is using or is about to use fatal physical force. Olive fears that Popeye is about to be killed or brain-damaged by Bluto’s powerful fists. Bluto was so energetic that Olive could not have stopped him, unless through the use of force.
The rule of “no dutt to keteeat” does not apply to Olive’s case. The rule states that a person can use fatal force. In such a case, a person does not have a duty to retreat. This is if he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or muscular body harm to himself or herself or another person. Olive cannot retreat and watch Bluto killing Popeye, or even suffering significant harm in Bluto's hands.
According to the castle doctrine, a person is held to have reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or complete body harm to himself or herself or another person when using defensive force that intends or is likely to cause death or body harm to another person (David & James, 2011). This is if the person, against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle. It may also apply if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible was occurring or had occurred (David & James, 2011). This rule applies in the case of Olive. Bluto was trying to remove them from a dwelling where they have a right to stay. Olive was aware that Bluto used unlawful force.
3.This verdict will be the same to that of the Olive’s Jury of trying to justify the action of Olive as defense. The “stand your ground rule” states that a person who is not engaging in any unlawful activity and whose physical force is used on people on a place they have right to be; such people should not retreat. The person has the right to stand for his or her right and face the force by stopping the force. The person may use force including dangerous force if he or she believes it prevents death or total body harm to himself or herself or another person. Olive and Popeye were walking in a central park. They were not engaging in any unlawful activity. Bluto had no right to attack them. They had applied the stand on your ground rule. Popeye had the right to stand on the ground, just in case Bluto challenged them to a fight. The rule that states that a person can use dangerous force and does not have to retreat from the incident if he believes that force is essential to prevent death that may be caused, or complete body harm to oneself or another person, as applied to Olive’s case. Olive could not retreat and watch Bluto kill Popeye or even harm him substantially.
As the attorney for the county, I feel that Ernest is guilty of vehicular manslaughter on the second degree. Ernest was driving a car with worn-out breaks. According to the New York Penal law, all drivers should ensure that their vehicles are road-worthy. Ernest was driving a vehicle that was not road- worthy. Moreover, it is something that he had to know considering that he was driving the car at the time of the accident. Ernest’s car lacked breaks. The vehicle led to an accident that made a police officer lose his life. The death of the young police officer was entirely the fault of Ernest negligence. When Ernest found out that his breaks were worn out he would have repaired his breaks or used other means of transport. Ernest was trying to stop from causing an accident by turning to the right because his breaks were not working. However, another accident happens. It results to death of a police officer. Ernest could not be charged with first degree vehicular manslaughter because he did not cause the accident intentionally. His effort of trying to stop from causing the accident does not make him free of charge. Good breaks could have stopped the accident, but he showed negligence by driving a vehicle with worn-out breaks. Ernest was being ignorant of the law that clearly states that vehicles should be in proper condition always. His negligence for not fixing the breaks caused a fatal accident.
Ernest vs State
The accident that Ernest caused happened in the morning. The brakes on Ernest’s old Chevy were worn out, and he knew it. He was on his way to work one morning, driving well below the speed limit on a long, quiet stretch of the road, when the traffic light ahead turned green. As he approached the intersection, a speeding red convertible runs through a red light into his path. Then he heard a siren from a police car that was chasing the red car. Ernest applied his brakes, but his car continues forward. The breaks of his car were not working. He applied the brakes again and swerves to the right to avoid hitting the red car from behind. He narrowly missed the red convertible, but he hit a police car that was directly behind it in pursuit.
The driver, who was a young police officer died on the spot. Ernest admits to the dead officer’s partner that his brakes were worn-out. An accident reconstruction expert examines the brakes, the skid marks and the wreckage, and concludes that Ernest’s car could have stopped in time if it had adequate brakes. The New York penal law and the traffic law say the divers should exercise good care when driving. It is their duty to ensure that they do not accidentally hit another car, a pedestrian or even an animal. This is to ensure that unnecessary accidents do not happen. The drivers should inspect their vehicles constantly to ensure that they are road- worthy. A vehicle is road-worthy if it is in a good condition. Any driver that drives the un-road-worthy vehicle would be risking the life of the people or even animals on the way. Such a driver can be charged with negligence on the road.
Ernest was ignorant of the damage that may be caused by the vehicle that had no breaks. Ernest’s vehicle caused an accident that resulted to an accident. In that accident, a police officer loses his life. The incident of Ernest can, therefore, be regarded as that of being negligent: the accident could be avoided if he had fixed his breaks. Therefore, Ernest is guilty of breaking the traffic law. The accident resulted to death of a person. Therefore, Ernest is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree. He committed the crime of criminally negligent homicide. His negligence caused the death of the police officer. Negligence is under the law of torts. If somebody is negligent, and this puts other people in danger, the court has a right to punish him or her for this. Ernest received a sentence proportional to a class D felony; the jail term shall be one year, minimum, and a maximum of more than2.5 years. The driving license of Ernest was to be suspended for some time. This would prevent Ernest from driving his car for some time. Earnest may also pay a fine. The fine will not exceed $5,000. It should also not exceed the double the amount of the defendant's gain.