關於普通法的義憤殺人（on voluntary manslaughter at common law）

外行又可笑蠢蛋，自以為跟法律系室友住四年就自動懂英美法？
會拿provocation來說嘴很明顯只是一知半解。
Provocation is no ground for exempting one from criminal liability for one’s act, but only maybe ground for mitigating the punishment.
（義憤從來都不是阻卻違法事由，只能當做法官減刑的參考之一。）
如果連這點都不知道，還敢出來扯，就真只是丟自己跟法律系室友的臉。
關於義憤 provocation在英美法上的進一步討論，我就懶得翻譯成中文了：
At common law, provocation will sustain only if met four tests:
a. the provocation must have been one that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control;
b. the defendant must have in face been provoked;
c. there must have been no sufficient time between the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool; and
d. the defendant in fact did not cool off between the provocation and the killing.
Usually, the rule would be applied narrowly onto limited scenarios, such as " a personally serious battery," “a threat of deadly force," or “discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person."
In this case, the taxi driver may claim provocation for that he had been surrounded by angry riots with possible threats of deadly force. This was why I said that the taxi driver may be incriminated as murder or voluntary manslaughter.
People could claim self-defense on the behavior of dragging the driver out of the cab. However, these attackers can never successfully claim that they were defending themselves by using such brutal violence on the driver in a coma. Of course, the “provocation rule" does not apply here. Since once the driver had been out of the cab, there was no provocation at all. And the violence they used exceeded the necessary standard of self-defense.