Encouragement and good luck thread Forum

[stinger35]

i think it's just those who do well are more apt to talk/post about it and those that don't do well are not apt to post/talk about it

I mean... what else do we have going for ourselves?

Yup.

[apper123]

i think it's just those who do well are more apt to talk/post about it and those that don't do well are not apt to post/talk about it

I mean... what else do we have going for ourselves?

i got a nice haircut yesterday

...

yeah that's all i could really come up with

[stinger35]

i think it's just those who do well are more apt to talk/post about it and those that don't do well are not apt to post/talk about it

I mean... what else do we have going for ourselves?

i got a nice haircut yesterday

...

yeah that's all i could really come up with

My hair is ridiculously long - but I am waiting till after exams since i refuse to do the "playoff beard" as many others do.

[Unemployed]

i think it's just those who do well are more apt to talk/post about it and those that don't do well are not apt to post/talk about it

I mean... what else do we have going for ourselves?

i got a nice haircut yesterday

...

yeah that's all i could really come up with

My hair is ridiculously long - but I am waiting till after exams since i refuse to do the "playoff beard" as many others do.

I haven't gone outside in 3 days... wait, going on day 4 now.

Guess that's what happens when you try to learn a semester's worth of stuff in two weeks.

[stinger35]

My hair is ridiculously long - but I am waiting till after exams since i refuse to do the "playoff beard" as many others do.[/quote]

I haven't gone outside in 3 days... wait, going on day 4 now.

Guess that's what happens when you try to learn a semester's worth of stuff in two weeks.[/quote]

I would for sure be the same way if it weren't for the fact that I live with 3 college buddies who have jobs and aren't in law school. I can't get a thing done here when everyones around.

[stinger35]

Random thought: whatever happened to JayCutlersCombover? I still see Arrow around (obviously) but no Jay. I liked his post as well.

[apper123]

I mean... what else do we have going for ourselves?

i got a nice haircut yesterday

...

yeah that's all i could really come up with

My hair is ridiculously long - but I am waiting till after exams since i refuse to do the "playoff beard" as many others do.

I haven't gone outside in 3 days... wait, going on day 4 now.

Guess that's what happens when you try to learn a semester's worth of stuff in two days.

fixed

[A'nold]

I have horribly long hair and an enormous "playoff beard." Oh yeah.

[rbgrocio]

I am fricking out about finals. I didn't learn anything in two of my classes.... so I am just going to go with what I taught myself. The ones were they actually taught us something, they taught us soooo much that each outline is almost 100 pages long and for one of the classes she wants us to remember the cases we went over (a bunch) to draw comparisons in the final... I'm exhausted.

[A'nold]

For two classes, most of the class didn't read anything and since there was no socratic and no attendance everybody skipped or just jotted down notes here or there and went on facebook (TLS for me).

[OperaSoprano]

I am fricking out about finals. I didn't learn anything in two of my classes.... so I am just going to go with what I taught myself. The ones were they actually taught us something, they taught us soooo much that each outline is almost 100 pages long and for one of the classes she wants us to remember the cases we went over (a bunch) to draw comparisons in the final... I'm exhausted.

That sounds like my torts class... Wishing you the best luck!

As for me, my fashion sense has taken a dreadful hit. I've been wearing jeans and ballet flats all week, and I've barely done my hair or makeup.

[D. H2Oman]

That sounds like my torts class... Wishing you the best luck!

As for me, my fashion sense has taken a dreadful hit. I've been wearing jeans and ballet flats all week, and I've barely done my hair or makeup.

I think even a fashion major gets a pass on hair and makeup during finals week.

[apper123]

I am fricking out about finals. I didn't learn anything in two of my classes.... so I am just going to go with what I taught myself. The ones were they actually taught us something, they taught us soooo much that each outline is almost 100 pages long and for one of the classes she wants us to remember the cases we went over (a bunch) to draw comparisons in the final... I'm exhausted.

That sounds like my torts class... Wishing you the best luck!

As for me, my fashion sense has taken a dreadful hit. I've been wearing jeans and ballet flats all week, and I've barely done my hair or makeup.

ive never worn make up to class if that makes you feel any better

also, im male (in case this is relevant)

[prezidentv8]

Back from drinking. It was legit. We also got late night take out. I got a chicken sandwich, chicken nuggets, and onion rings. It was delicious. Back to studying tomorrow. Huzzah!

[A'nold]

Back from drinking. It was legit. We also got late night take out. I got a chicken sandwich, chicken nuggets, and onion rings. It was delicious. Back to studying tomorrow. Huzzah!

Congrats. Not on exams, but on late night drunkery.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Here's my understanding of the sovereign immunity <--> discretion relationship

Basically, if in ruling against the government, the courts would be, in effect, telling the government how to spend its resources, it falls under sovereign immunity. On the other hand, if the government spends its resources in a negligent way or sets out to do something, and does it negligently, then it is liable.

[270910]

Random thought: whatever happened to JayCutlersCombover? I still see Arrow around (obviously) but no Jay. I liked his post as well.

JCC's first post in that blog implies that he/she/it was and alt. JCC might still walk amongst us! *shifty eyes*

[rbgrocio]

I am fricking out about finals. I didn't learn anything in two of my classes.... so I am just going to go with what I taught myself. The ones were they actually taught us something, they taught us soooo much that each outline is almost 100 pages long and for one of the classes she wants us to remember the cases we went over (a bunch) to draw comparisons in the final... I'm exhausted.

That sounds like my torts class... Wishing you the best luck!

As for me, my fashion sense has taken a dreadful hit. I've been wearing jeans and ballet flats all week, and I've barely done my hair or makeup.

lol. My torts outline last year was about 25 pages, and I did very well on the exam. This year my outlines are sooooo long, and on top of that we have two open-book exams, which I hate! To make things worse there is someone in my class who gets unlimited time for finals, so all he has to do is crack the book open for those open book exams and have some fun with it while we all struggle to do everything within the allotted time.

[OperaSoprano]

I am fricking out about finals. I didn't learn anything in two of my classes.... so I am just going to go with what I taught myself. The ones were they actually taught us something, they taught us soooo much that each outline is almost 100 pages long and for one of the classes she wants us to remember the cases we went over (a bunch) to draw comparisons in the final... I'm exhausted.

That sounds like my torts class... Wishing you the best luck!

As for me, my fashion sense has taken a dreadful hit. I've been wearing jeans and ballet flats all week, and I've barely done my hair or makeup.

lol. My torts outline last year was about 25 pages, and I did very well on the exam. This year my outlines are sooooo long, and on top of that we have two open-book exams, which I hate! To make things worse there is someone in my class who gets unlimited time for finals, so all he has to do is crack the book open for those open book exams and have some fun with it while we all struggle to do everything within the allotted time.

At least your outlines are finished! Granted I have a two week reading period with nothing else to do before my first final, but mine are very much not. I wouldn't worry too much about your classmate, though. One person can't screw up your curve. If they could, every single person who goes to school with the people posting in this thread would be f****d. Except for my classmates. I am not the 1L valedictorian of Fordham.

[OperaSoprano]

Here's my understanding of the sovereign immunity <--> discretion relationship

Basically, if in ruling against the government, the courts would be, in effect, telling the government how to spend its resources, it falls under sovereign immunity. On the other hand, if the government spends its resources in a negligent way or sets out to do something, and does it negligently, then it is liable.

My understanding was that there were broad policy based categories within negligence where the government did not consent to be sued, but they could do with better definition in my notes. I need to get on it. Torts is on the 19th, so I don't have much time.

[Unemployed]

Can a crimlaw expert help me with self-defense under the MPC (and the reasonableness standard)?

MPC 3.04(2)(c) says an actor "may estimate the necessity [of using force to protect himself] under the circumstances as he believes them to be," but it says nothing about that belief's having to be reasonable.

MPC 3.09 does say that if the actor was reckless or negligent in holding such a belief, self-defense is not available for prosecution for reckless/negligent crimes. So that's where reasonableness comes in, I guess.

Now, if I am hypersensitive and unreasonably -but in good faith- believe that you are about to kill me, and I pull out my gun and shoot you, I could be convicted in MPC jurisdiction for involuntary manslaughter (reckless mental state) or negligent homicide (negligence mental state) under 3.09, right? What about murder (either purposeful/knowledge murder or "extreme disregard for human life" murder)?

On the other hand, if the same thing happened in a traditional common law jurisdiction, self-defense would not be available at all and I could be on the hook for murder right (especially in states where one can premeditate and deliberate in less than a second)?

[OperaSoprano]

Can a crimlaw expert help me with self-defense under the MPC (and the reasonableness standard)?

MPC 3.04(2)(c) says an actor "may estimate the necessity [of using force to protect himself] under the circumstances as he believes them to be," but it says nothing about that belief's having to be reasonable.

MPC 3.09 does say that if the actor was reckless or negligent in holding such a belief, self-defense is not available for prosecution for reckless/negligent crimes. So that's where reasonableness comes in, I guess.

Now, if I am hypersensitive and unreasonably -but in good faith- believe that you are about to kill me, and I pull out my gun and shoot you, I could be convicted in MPC jurisdiction for involuntary manslaughter (reckless mental state) or negligent homicide (negligence mental state) under 3.09, right? What about murder (either purposeful/knowledge murder or "extreme disregard for human life" murder)?

On the other hand, if the same thing happened in a traditional common law jurisdiction, self-defense would not be available at all and I could be on the hook for murder right (especially in states where one can premeditate and deliberate in less than a second)?

Summons: Vanwinkle. Crimlaw is his subject matter and particular expertise.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Can a crimlaw expert help me with self-defense under the MPC (and the reasonableness standard)?

MPC 3.04(2)(c) says an actor "may estimate the necessity [of using force to protect himself] under the circumstances as he believes them to be," but it says nothing about that belief's having to be reasonable.

MPC 3.09 does say that if the actor was reckless or negligent in holding such a belief, self-defense is not available for prosecution for reckless/negligent crimes. So that's where reasonableness comes in, I guess.

Now, if I am hypersensitive and unreasonably -but in good faith- believe that you are about to kill me, and I pull out my gun and shoot you, I could be convicted in MPC jurisdiction for involuntary manslaughter (reckless mental state) or negligent homicide (negligence mental state) under 3.09, right? What about murder (either purposeful/knowledge murder or "extreme disregard for human life" murder)?

On the other hand, if the same thing happened in a traditional common law jurisdiction, self-defense would not be available at all and I could be on the hook for murder right (especially in states where one can premeditate and deliberate in less than a second)?

Pretty much. The reason the MPC has that reckless/negligent self defense rule is to prevent murder convictions for people who thought they were acting out of self-defense but really shouldn't have jumped the gun. The only thing I find issue with is that I doubt a CL jurisdiction could sustain a conviction for first degree murder in that situation. There just isn't enough evidence to prove premeditation, unless the guy carried a gun out into the public and told his friends "i'm going to try to provoke a situation so I can kill someone in self-defense".

My understanding was that there were broad policy based categories within negligence where the government did not consent to be sued, but they could do with better definition in my notes. I need to get on it. Torts is on the 19th, so I don't have much time.

the 19th?? you have soooo much time. I got 6 days betwee my last day of class and my first final

[Unemployed]

Can a crimlaw expert help me with self-defense under the MPC (and the reasonableness standard)?

MPC 3.04(2)(c) says an actor "may estimate the necessity [of using force to protect himself] under the circumstances as he believes them to be," but it says nothing about that belief's having to be reasonable.

MPC 3.09 does say that if the actor was reckless or negligent in holding such a belief, self-defense is not available for prosecution for reckless/negligent crimes. So that's where reasonableness comes in, I guess.

Now, if I am hypersensitive and unreasonably -but in good faith- believe that you are about to kill me, and I pull out my gun and shoot you, I could be convicted in MPC jurisdiction for involuntary manslaughter (reckless mental state) or negligent homicide (negligence mental state) under 3.09, right? What about murder (either purposeful/knowledge murder or "extreme disregard for human life" murder)?

On the other hand, if the same thing happened in a traditional common law jurisdiction, self-defense would not be available at all and I could be on the hook for murder right (especially in states where one can premeditate and deliberate in less than a second)?

Pretty much. The reason the MPC has that reckless/negligent self defense rule is to prevent murder convictions for people who thought they were acting out of self-defense but really shouldn't have jumped the gun. The only thing I find issue with is that I doubt a CL jurisdiction could sustain a conviction for first degree murder.

Thank you...

About the bolded - Most likely not, but technically it's within the realm of possibilities?

Could mistaken/unreasonable self-defense count as the kind of "extreme emotional disturbance" that would bump murder down to voluntary manslaughter?

[270910]

Can a crimlaw expert help me with self-defense under the MPC (and the reasonableness standard)?

MPC 3.04(2)(c) says an actor "may estimate the necessity [of using force to protect himself] under the circumstances as he believes them to be," but it says nothing about that belief's having to be reasonable.

MPC 3.09 does say that if the actor was reckless or negligent in holding such a belief, self-defense is not available for prosecution for reckless/negligent crimes. So that's where reasonableness comes in, I guess.

Spot on. The language used creates a framework that operates a little differently, but the reasoanbleness standard absolutely exists under MPC self defense - they just wanted to use their fancy pants 4 mental state structure because lawyer's are egotistical like that, clarity be damned.

Now, if I am hypersensitive and unreasonably -but in good faith- believe that you are about to kill me, and I pull out my gun and shoot you, I could be convicted in MPC jurisdiction for involuntary manslaughter (reckless mental state) or negligent homicide (negligence mental state) under 3.09, right? What about murder (either purposeful/knowledge murder or "extreme disregard for human life" murder)?

On the other hand, if the same thing happened in a traditional common law jurisdiction, self-defense would not be available at all and I could be on the hook for murder right (especially in states where one can premeditate and deliberate in less than a second)?

The question is how we define reasonable, and there is a plethora of case law and literature. I confess from the getgo that I don't know precisely how the MPC falls out here, except for the general observation that to many professors "MPC jurisdiction" is an irrelevant fiction, since states usually adopt provisions ad-hoc and fuck everything up.

At common law, the reasonableness requirement basically ranges from objective reasonableness (a man of ordinary courage) through mild objective reasonableness (you take into account the life experiences of the putative self defender, i.e. would any reasonable version of THIS person have behaved this way) all the way to subjective reasonableness (did the shooter actually believe their actions were necessary in good faith). The latter is by far the least common.

Because the MPC turns the reasonableness distinction on its head, you're going to be looking at the action from the point of view of the belief that self defense was necessary. Was it negligent for them to believe it? Was it reckless for them to believe it? And you would pull in all relevant analytical tools from a bog-standard mens rea analysis under the MPC.

Because self defense is a defense to a charge, you are correct that in any purported case of self defense it is quite likely the charge will be for a negligent or reckless killing.

It's all very fact dependent, and no offense but "I am hypersensitive and unreasonable but shoot in good faith" is just throwing around jargon in an unhelpful manner. Creating hypos from legal buzzwords pollutes them, it searches for answers by combining abstract legal syllogisms when the cases and controversies you will deal with in practice and on exams will turn on the particularities of the circumstances.