Talk:Voluntary manslaughter

message: This page is basically composed of exerpts of a book I've never heard of. This is a common part of the traditional homicide progression and can be sourced with original sources no problem. Still I support the merge.
Manney 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly support the merge; I think you could delete almost all of the article and still have on to understand the concept.  Miss Dark 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Shouldn't this page be redirected to Manslaughter?
JasonCNJ 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to this? Or what happened to the merge? In the history it says "removing merge tags, no consensus" at some point. Where's the log of the discussion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scraimer (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: I have edited the page extensively to broaden the definition to include the two most common definitions of voluntary manslaughter.  I corrected the misconception that the killing has to be intentional.  I removed the repeated quotation that bordered on a copyright issue.  Source is California Penal Code Annotated Sec. 187 et Seq.  Veniceslug1 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed Plagarism Issues and Corrected some Errors 

message: This article seems to me to reflect U.S. law. I think that the solution is:
*Move this to Voluntary manslaughter (U.S.);
*Rewrite this article to identify:
**General issues;
**Which jurisdictions have the concept;
*Link to jurisdiction-specific articles (e.g. Voluntary manslaughter (England and Wales) which I will have a go at)
Any thoughts?Cutler 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a hat note that this was about U.S. law, and a link to the dab page - I don't know British law in detail, and it looks like the article you suggested is still a red link - if you do create the article ping me and we can move this one and summarize both jurisdictions here. Seraphim System (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurisdiction 

message: The section "Provocation" is a little confusing. It describes provovation, then says it makes the difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder. Then the last line says it's no longer a recognized defense. That's unclear to me. If it cannot be used, why would it make any sort of difference between levels of homocide? The element of provocation is irrelevant? I think it would be good for someone familiar with the topic to clear up that paragraph so it's clear to a commoner of middling intelligence (like me). Jbarta (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocation 

message: Was wondering if you could settle an argument? If a homicide is planned, but done under extreme emotional duress, is it manslaughter or murder? ✍ (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aforethought 

message: Under Voluntary manslaughter#Intent to Kill, it says: However, there are occasions when intent to kill is not present, although malice is, for example, when a person responds to oral provocation by engaging in physical altercation. The provocation is sufficient so that his response is justified.
It sounds wrong to me to say "his response is justified" - that sounds more like no crime was committed (e.g. on the grounds of self-defence). --Chriswaterguy talk 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intent to Kill 

message: The terminology used throughout this article (and related) APPEARS (to me a layman) to be US. I have no objection to that, but should the article not at least state in which jurisdictions the terminology and concepts apply? Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should state the jurisdiction is American law.Seraphim System (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  US centric? 

message: The article does not adequately explain the definitions in a language that is understandable by people that have not got a law degree
Aethalides (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the background links need improvement and more links can be added to the cases. I'm developing background and historical links for provocation - and it might be possible to summarize those issues briefly here also like what adequate provation is and what the reasonable person test is.Seraphim System (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too complex 

message: Is that really appropriate for this article? At the risk of introducing a bias against old testament believer? 
Aethalides (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition of Depiction of Moses