1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[kalvano]

Basically, if the murder results from you beating someone up, they can't really charge felony murder because that would be a manslaughter or murder case anyway. They can't "merge" what would be manslaughter anyway into felony murder just to really screw you over. There has to be another predicate felony going on.

Like, if you go rob a bank and your accomplice kills a security guard, you're on the hook since the murder was committed in furtherance of another felony.

There has to be some other felony going on at the time, or that you're escaping from.

[beach_terror]

To elaborate on Kalvano's post a bit... the policy rationale behind FM is for it to be a deterrent. If people are going to be committing felonies, the legislature wants them to commit them in a way that's safe, because if they don't and somebody dies as a result, they could get slapped with a more serious charge. Example: if you're gonna rob a bank, don't bring guns or other deadly weapons.

Dressler's Understand Criminal Law does a great job at explaining felony murder, so if you're still lost it'd be worth the buy.

[kalvano]

Example: if you're gonna rob a bank, don't bring guns or other deadly weapons.

Even if you don't, if the security guard accidentally shoots someone, or the cops do, then you could still get hit with a felony murder. Proximate cause and such.

Hell, if one cop accidentally shoots another cop while you're escaping with no weapon, you can get hit with felony murder.

It's so awesome. I love it.

[stayway]

Example: if you're gonna rob a bank, don't bring guns or other deadly weapons.

Even if you don't, if the security guard accidentally shoots someone, or the cops do, then you could still get hit with a felony murder. Proximate cause and such.

Hell, if one cop accidentally shoots another cop while you're escaping with no weapon, you can get hit with felony murder.

It's so awesome. I love it.

only if that jurisdiction allows proximate causation/"cone of violence"

[beach_terror]

Example: if you're gonna rob a bank, don't bring guns or other deadly weapons.

Even if you don't, if the security guard accidentally shoots someone, or the cops do, then you could still get hit with a felony murder. Proximate cause and such.

Hell, if one cop accidentally shoots another cop while you're escaping with no weapon, you can get hit with felony murder.

It's so awesome. I love it.

As nooyyllib said, they'd have to apply proximate causation to bring killings by non-felons in. Furthermore, the cops wouldn't be shooting robbers if they weren't carrying deadly weapons or trying to hurt people (commit your felonies safely people!).

[kalvano]

Example: if you're gonna rob a bank, don't bring guns or other deadly weapons.

Even if you don't, if the security guard accidentally shoots someone, or the cops do, then you could still get hit with a felony murder. Proximate cause and such.

Hell, if one cop accidentally shoots another cop while you're escaping with no weapon, you can get hit with felony murder.

It's so awesome. I love it.

As nooyyllib said, they'd have to apply proximate causation to bring killings by non-felons in. Furthermore, the cops wouldn't be shooting robbers if they weren't carrying deadly weapons or trying to hurt people (commit your felonies safely people!).

Not entirely true. We had a case where a cop shot another cop in pursuit of a suspect who wasn't putting anyone in danger, he was fleeing.

But yeah, rules are different state to state. I just love how much they can screw you with felony murder.

[slider]

Paichka, helpful posts, thanks for sharing!

[bmontminy]

Okay, as requested:

My Criminal Law Attack Sheet (LinkRemoved)
My List of Contracts Defenses -- First Semester (LinkRemoved) (common law) -- Second Semester (LinkRemoved) (UCC)

Hope I did that right. One of the things I found most helpful was to write down in my outline or attack sheet all of the claims that a party might have, and all of the defenses to those claims, along with any responses to the defenses. You'll see where I did that (hopefully) in the above documents. Hope this helps.

DISCLAIMER: I still recommend HIGHLY making your own outlines and associated materials. My materials were extremely successful FOR ME, but that's largely because I made them. I think the most effective outline you can have is the one that you make.

<3...Now i just have to figure out how to expand the chart to incorporate multiple jurisdictions =-/

[beach_terror]

So this week has been torts week for my review. All of my outlines are up to date (intentional, privileges, negligence, factual causation) - I think it's time for a hypo tomorrow or Friday. Anyone with torts related questions, fire away. I'm feeling pretty good on the material.

As a side note, definitely read Glannon's guide to taking law school exams. It's in the back of his E&E, some seriously good advice. It's starting to seem like creative writing ability (and thinking) will play a large part in your ability to write an A answer.

[irie]

So this week has been torts week for my review. All of my outlines are up to date (intentional, privileges, negligence, factual causation) - I think it's time for a hypo tomorrow or Friday. Anyone with torts related questions, fire away. I'm feeling pretty good on the material.

As a side note, definitely read Glannon's guide to taking law school exams. It's in the back of his E&E, some seriously good advice. It's starting to seem like creative writing ability (and thinking) will play a large part in your ability to write an A answer.

Did you use the 3rd or 4th edition of Glannon's torts e&e? I have the 3rd and was wondering if there was a big difference (enough to go and buy the 4th one).

[beach_terror]

So this week has been torts week for my review. All of my outlines are up to date (intentional, privileges, negligence, factual causation) - I think it's time for a hypo tomorrow or Friday. Anyone with torts related questions, fire away. I'm feeling pretty good on the material.

As a side note, definitely read Glannon's guide to taking law school exams. It's in the back of his E&E, some seriously good advice. It's starting to seem like creative writing ability (and thinking) will play a large part in your ability to write an A answer.

Did you use the 3rd or 4th edition of Glannon's torts e&e? I have the 3rd and was wondering if there was a big difference (enough to go and buy the 4th one).

I ended up buying the 4th, returning it and getting the 3rd, then ended up buying the 4th again anyway. The 4th does a better job explaining all of the intentional torts (false imprisonment, IIED, trespass, conversion, etc.) whereas the 3rd just touches on assault and battery, IIRC. Your library might have the 4th on reserve, so it might be worth checking.

[irie]

So this week has been torts week for my review. All of my outlines are up to date (intentional, privileges, negligence, factual causation) - I think it's time for a hypo tomorrow or Friday. Anyone with torts related questions, fire away. I'm feeling pretty good on the material.

As a side note, definitely read Glannon's guide to taking law school exams. It's in the back of his E&E, some seriously good advice. It's starting to seem like creative writing ability (and thinking) will play a large part in your ability to write an A answer.

Did you use the 3rd or 4th edition of Glannon's torts e&e? I have the 3rd and was wondering if there was a big difference (enough to go and buy the 4th one).

I ended up buying the 4th, returning it and getting the 3rd, then ended up buying the 4th again anyway. The 4th does a better job explaining all of the intentional torts (false imprisonment, IIED, trespass, conversion, etc.) whereas the 3rd just touches on assault and battery, IIRC. Your library might have the 4th on reserve, so it might be worth checking.

This is really helpful to know, did you get a chance to look at the 3rd's coverage of negligence/SL? I only ask because my professor spent *very* little time on intentional torts, so I'm wondering if it's worth it to go and get the 4th if that is the bulk of the difference.

[beach_terror]

So this week has been torts week for my review. All of my outlines are up to date (intentional, privileges, negligence, factual causation) - I think it's time for a hypo tomorrow or Friday. Anyone with torts related questions, fire away. I'm feeling pretty good on the material.

As a side note, definitely read Glannon's guide to taking law school exams. It's in the back of his E&E, some seriously good advice. It's starting to seem like creative writing ability (and thinking) will play a large part in your ability to write an A answer.

Did you use the 3rd or 4th edition of Glannon's torts e&e? I have the 3rd and was wondering if there was a big difference (enough to go and buy the 4th one).

I ended up buying the 4th, returning it and getting the 3rd, then ended up buying the 4th again anyway. The 4th does a better job explaining all of the intentional torts (false imprisonment, IIED, trespass, conversion, etc.) whereas the 3rd just touches on assault and battery, IIRC. Your library might have the 4th on reserve, so it might be worth checking.

This is really helpful to know, did you get a chance to look at the 3rd's coverage of negligence/SL? I only ask because my professor spent *very* little time on intentional torts, so I'm wondering if it's worth it to go and get the 4th if that is the bulk of the difference.

I'm at school right now, when I get home in a few hours I can skim through the 3rd's negligence section and give you an idea of the differences. Right now, I can say that the 4th's treatment of negligence is quite good (reasonable care duty and breach, negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, factual causation and proximate causation all have their own comprehensive section).

[irie]

I'm at school right now, when I get home in a few hours I can skim through the 3rd's negligence section and give you an idea of the differences. Right now, I can say that the 4th's treatment of negligence is quite good (reasonable care duty and breach, negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, factual causation and proximate causation all have their own comprehensive section).

don't sweat it if you are busy, although that'd be awesome if you have time. it sounds like you are ahead of the pack if you already have your outlining done.

[Helmholtz]

Rule against perpetuities is a bitch. That is all.

[corporatelaw87]

Is self defense a possible defense to 1st degree murder? I would think it would be hard to pull of because of the premeditated element of 1st degree, but just want to make sure.

[vanwinkle]

Is self defense a possible defense to 1st degree murder? I would think it would be hard to pull of because of the premeditated element of 1st degree, but just want to make sure.

If you shoot someone, and you've had enough time to think about the fact that shooting them will kill them, that could be the premeditation element. It depends on the state, but I think in some states even having a moment to realize that your actions will result in death is enough to qualify as "premeditated".

So it's possible to pull a gun on someone who's robbing you at knifepoint, think about the fact that shooting them would kill them, and then shoot them when they lunge at you. You've done enough to qualify as being "premeditated" but you're also acting in self-defense when you pull the trigger.

If I remember things right, anyway. It's been a year since I took crim law. Hopefully someone can verify/refute this.

[grrrstick]

Last night I had a near meltdown thinking about how unprepared for exams I am. It's going to be a long month.

[beach_terror]

I'm at school right now, when I get home in a few hours I can skim through the 3rd's negligence section and give you an idea of the differences. Right now, I can say that the 4th's treatment of negligence is quite good (reasonable care duty and breach, negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, factual causation and proximate causation all have their own comprehensive section).

don't sweat it if you are busy, although that'd be awesome if you have time. it sounds like you are ahead of the pack if you already have your outlining done.

The 4th's negligence section is stronger than the 3rd's as well.

[Helmholtz]

Last night I had a near meltdown thinking about how unprepared for exams I am. It's going to be a long month.

+1 to all

[slider]

Last night I had a near meltdown thinking about how unprepared for exams I am. It's going to be a long month.

+1 to all

+1,000!

[kalvano]

Rule against perpetuities is a bitch. That is all.

Glannon Guide To Property is a sanity-saver.

[solotee]

Last night I had a near meltdown thinking about how unprepared for exams I am. It's going to be a long month.

+1 to all

+1,000!

count me in. feeling down, as expected in the last month. Nevertheless, we must bulldoze through all this bullshit.

[beach_terror]

Last night I had a near meltdown thinking about how unprepared for exams I am. It's going to be a long month.

+1 to all

+1,000!

count me in. feeling down, as expected in the last month. Nevertheless, we must bulldoze through all this bullshit.

Was feeling great, but a negligence/privileges hypo cut me down hard last night. I understand negligence, but I guess I have some serious work to do in applying it in an organized fashion. Anyone have any suggestions

[Stanford4Me]

Oh, hai.