WTF? Teen charged with murder...

#126
#126
LawVol13 said:
It absolutely works. If the person is caught in crossfire between the police and the perpetrators and is actually shot by the police, the perpetrators would still be charged with 1st degree murder.
Click to expand...

So in this analogy - what happens to the actual shooter, the hitman?
 
#127
#127
PandamoniumReigns said:
Bottomline - stupid teens getting a thrill out of robbing someone. One of them paid the ultimate price undeservedly. They should arrest the momma before the accomplice. If the copper rightfully felt threatened, then I can see firing her weapon.
Click to expand...

Don't rob people at gunpoint and you won't get shot in the back.
 
#128
#128
PandamoniumReigns said:
So in this analogy - what happens to the actual shooter, the hitman?
Click to expand...

I apologize. I misread your post. I thought you were talking about my other post where I said if it was an armed robbery and an innocent third party was killed (even accidentally by police) that the perpetrators would be charged with 1st degree murder.
 
#129
#129
I still do not see the Murder charge as applicable. I could see this law being used, not in this situation though, to charge criminals with manslaughter; that said, without malice aforethought, there cannot be murder. Murder is pretty much in the intent. Manslaughter, by definition, has much more to do with the consequence of actions.
 
Last edited:
#130
#130
therealUT said:
I still do not see the Murder charge as applicable. I could this law being used, not in this situation though, to charge criminals with manslaughter; that said, without malice aforethought, there cannot be murder. Murder is pretty much in the intent. Manslaughter, by definition, has much more to do with the consequence of actions.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Do you think perhaps they are pushing murder to better facilitate a manslaughter plea?
 
#131
#131
hndog609 said:
Agreed.

Do you think perhaps they are pushing murder to better facilitate a manslaughter plea?
Click to expand...

As far as this case goes, I do no even see a manslaughter charge as justifiable. If the prosecutor is pushing the murder charge for that plea, it is still a very petty tactic and reminds me of a story from my youth in which my Mom told my Sister to do some chores while she went to the store. Immediately, my Sister turned to my Brother and I and told us to do the chores. We responded by saying that my Mom told her to do it. Then, she said that if we did not, she would tell my Mom that we spent that time playing Nintendo and watching TV (something that was prohibited during the week in our house). When we said, "But, we aren't doing that," she responded with, "Well, who do you think Mom is going to believe?"

This is an abuse of a power which, unfortunately, is very easy to abuse due to this type of legislation.
 
#132
#132
LawVol13 said:
Pretending the police murdered the person here is a recurring theme in your posts.
Click to expand...

My recurring theme is that this is a stupid application of a questionable law designed run interference for a cop's actions.

Learn to read. You and crusse turned this into a martyred cop argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#133
#133
LawVol13 said:
I apologize. I misread your post. I thought you were talking about my other post where I said if it was an armed robbery and an innocent third party was killed (even accidentally by police) that the perpetrators would be charged with 1st degree murder.
Click to expand...

In other words...I admit that my weak a$$ analogy made absolutely no sense in supporting my weak a$$ argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#134
#134
therealUT said:
As far as this case goes, I do no even see a manslaughter charge as justifiable. If the prosecutor is pushing the murder charge for that plea, it is still a very petty tactic and reminds me of a story from my youth in which my Mom told my Sister to do some chores while she went to the store. Immediately, my Sister turned to my Brother and I and told us to do the chores. We responded by saying that my Mom told her to do it. Then, she said that if we did not, she would tell my Mom that we spent that time playing Nintendo and watching TV (something that was prohibited during the week in our house). When we said, "But, we aren't doing that," she responded with, "Well, who do you think Mom is going to believe?"

This is an abuse of a power which, unfortunately, is very easy to abuse due to this type of legislation.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of even manslaughter in this case either but I think it's something they might be able to make stick.

I'm more willing than most to fry those who deserve it but I get a bit of a case of the heebie jeebies when I see abuse of power towards that end. The Ross kid didn't murder anybody...it's just that simple and I don't think there's really any ambiguity unless one doesn't understand the difference between "murder" vs other forms of homicide that might be considered more applicable. I understand how the system will often swing the biggest hammer they can in trying to induce a lesser (but still substantial) plea but I'm not always fond of that tactic either depending on the specific case.
 
#136
#136
bamacheats said:
In other words...I admit that my weak a$$ analogy made absolutely no sense in supporting my weak a$$ argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, I meant exactly what I said. I thought he was referring to my second post that had a different scenario. You're only argument has been punishing someone who was not the shooter, which was the first example I gave, which you refused to provide a response. If you really think that felony-murder was enacted to just give the cops the greenlight to kill everyone, then you're even dumber than I originally thought.
 
#137
#137
Coroners' reports should be held paramount in these situations. If the cause of death is from a bullet wound and that bullet was not fired from the person who is later indicted, then there is a serious disconnect and murder cannot, in all honesty, justly be the charge.
 
#138
#138
bamacheats said:
My recurring theme is that this is a stupid application of a questionable law designed run interference for a cop's actions.

Learn to read. You and crusse turned this into a martyred cop argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Incorrect. From the very beginning your argument has been about how the cop was in the wrong. You're simply using this story as a way to say the cop was wrong, while covering it with the veil of the application of the law.

Growing up I lived right next to Kirby High School in Memphis. There was a shootout between 2 gangs at the next-door gas station. A little girl walked out of the store and into the crossfire. She was killed. The "questionable" law allows for each of those kids to be charged with murder. There's nothing "questionable" about the law. If you commit a crime and someone dies because of it, you are held responsible.
 
#139
#139
therealUT said:
Coroners' reports should be held paramount in these situations. If the cause of death is from a bullet wound and that bullet was not fired from the person who is later indicted, then there is a serious disconnect and murder cannot, in all honesty, justly be the charge.
Click to expand...

That's debatable. One can say that the robbery or whatever requisite felony was the proximate cause. Had they not committed armed robbery, the innocent person that was killed would still be alive. And if that's the case, felony murder applies and intent does not have to be proven.
 
#140
#140
LawVol13 said:
That's debatable. One can say that the robbery or whatever requisite felony was the proximate cause. Had they not committed armed robbery, the innocent person that was killed would still be alive. And if that's the case, felony murder applies and intent does not have to be proven.
Click to expand...

I understand that the statutes exist; however, they in no way make charging someone with murder who has not murdered anyone honest, just, or right.
 
#141
#141
therealUT said:
I understand that the statutes exist; however, they in no way make charging someone with murder who has not murdered anyone honest, just, or right.
Click to expand...

So if I hire someone to kill my wife I should go scott free? There are a multitude of ways to get charged with murder without actually murdering someone.
 
#142
#142
tim said:
So if I hire someone to kill my wife I should go scott free? There are a multitude of ways to get charged with murder without actually murdering someone.
Click to expand...

You should be charged with conspiracy; you should not be charged with murder.
 
#144
#144
tim said:
symantics. Conspiracy to wit Murder sounds a lot like being charged with murder to me.
Click to expand...

Semantics. Words have meanings. Somebody that conspires and pays someone to murder, is not a murderer. That is what one refers to as the truth. That person is a conspirator.
 
#145
#145
therealUT said:
Semantics. Words have meanings. Somebody that conspires and pays someone to murder, is not a murderer. That is what one refers to as the truth. That person is a conspirator.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. But, I think when a person is a conspirator he or she has conspired to do an illegal act. One cannot simply be charged with conspiracy alone. Charges like conspiracy and facilitation are charges that are generally punishable by one classification lower to the actual crime that is committed.
 
#146
#146
therealUT said:
I understand that the statutes exist; however, they in no way make charging someone with murder who has not murdered anyone honest, just, or right.
Click to expand...

It's just a difference of opinion. I think that's a risk you take when you commit armed robbery, rape, etc. If someone dies, the criminal should be punished severely because he set the events in motion that led to the person's death. The lesson here to me is: don't commit vicious felonies, and then you won't have to worry about it.
 
#147
#147
LawVol13 said:
It's just a difference of opinion. I think that's a risk you take when you commit armed robbery, rape, etc. If someone dies, the criminal should be punished severely because he set the events in motion that led to the person's death. The lesson here to me is: don't commit vicious felonies, and then you won't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...

Lesson should be, don't lie to make a point; yet, that is exactly what this legislation is.

You want to push for harsh sentences for these crimes, push for harsher maximum sentences and let the prosecutors argue their case, and let the judge sentence appropriately. However, labeling an action murder that is not, simply to push into a more severe punishment bracket is dishonest hogwash.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top