As the evidence in the case study implies, the murder of Scowen by Mayo cannot be deemed a planned one. The rationale behind such a stance is that Mayo claims that he acted in self-defense, meaning that he did not intend to kill Scowen. Yet, this situation raises major doubts regarding the rightfulness of Mayo’s course of action. From the case study, it is clear that Mayo demonstrated disregard of human life when he used a firearm. In the first place, he killed a human being who did not pose a major threat to him because verbally threatening someone and taking the actions to carry out those threats are not the same thing. Apart from that, the use of firearms is associated with a major risk to the lives of people around the area. That is to say that Mayo could have wounded or even killed others who were at the bar at that time. According to Mayo, the killing was premised on Scowen’s taking the beer bottle accompanied by the threat to kill him. That is not a sufficient ground to kill a person. The fact that Scowen did not break the bottle also indicates that he might have not implied any malice action toward Mayo, while verbal threats, as heard by Mayo, do not justify his actions either.

If I were a prosecutor, I would primarily present manslaughter charges against Mayo. That is justified by the Colorado Criminal Laws. Specifically, a person commits manslaughter if they take reckless actions that lead to a person’s death and if their intentional actions lead to another person’s suicide (Hemenway, 2016). Manslaughter is qualified as a Class 4 felony, meaning that an offender has caused major harm to society. Meanwhile, possible penalties range from 2-6 years in prison to a fine of up to $500,000.

respond to this discussion question in 100 words