Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
A man is charged with murder for the killing done by a cop.
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe bank robbery example was meant for illustrative purposes only but more to the matter at hand; I believe that you left out some pertinent details in order to bolster your argument
It frankly just doesn't make sense. It might be the name of it.
If he had killed a resident he would be guilty of murder, if he had killed a police officer he would have been guilty of murder. If a stray bullet had hit a bystander there's manslaughter of some reckless sort. But his friend dying seems to be an entirely accidental byproduct of what they did, brought on by their own actions.
I don't see that as murder.Last edited by Leonhard; 06-24-2020, 06:31 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHe did not point the gun at his friend or killed him. It is entirely fair game that the police shot one of them in the shoot out. The punishment of murder just doesn't make any sense. This isn't murder. If there's an extra crime for the death I have no word for what it would be. This is a death, during a felony basically. Which carries a murder penalty? Would he also have gotten a murder sentence if his friend had had a heart attack or a stroke?
It frankly just doesn't make sense. It might be the name of it.
If he had killed a resident he would be guilty of murder, if he had killed a police officer he would have been guilty of murder. If a stray bullet had hit a bystander there's manslaughter of some reckless sort. But his friend dying seems to be an entirely accidental byproduct of what they did, brought on by their own actions.
I don't see that as murder."If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by myth View PostYour issue with this seems similar to my issue with classifying George Floyd's death as murder (I think it is at most manslaughter. But in Minnesota the thing they call 3rd degree murder is what my state calls manslaughter, or so I gather). Does it help if we call it "Someone died because you committed a crime, so you get extra punishment" or "death by crime" or "technical involuntary manslaughter"?
He already got charged for armed robbery, and for exchanging fire with the police. That one of them died seems to be a not unexpected accident. It is not the fault of the police, but I don't see any reason to punish one of the survivors for it. I'm not sure what this accomplishes as punishment over and above the punishment for armed robbery.
As I said if his friend had a heart attack would that have been murder?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYeah I think murder should be reserved for a person having an intent to kill either in the moment, or with forethought. To call anything else murder just waters down the term.
He already got charged for armed robbery, and for exchanging fire with the police. That one of them died seems to be a not unexpected accident. It is not the fault of the police, but I don't see any reason to punish one of the survivors for it. I'm not sure what this accomplishes as punishment over and above the punishment for armed robbery.
As I said if his friend had a heart attack would that have been murder?
As to what it accomplishes, well....let's see if I remember this right from when I was getting my degree in criminal justice.
It's a big-picture question regarding the deterrent effect of incarceration.I believe the term is rational choice theory. I suppose the basic idea is that if there's a threat of more punishment for the crime, it would cause some people to think twice about committing the crime in the first place. The greater the punishment, the higher the deterrent effect. So for the individual defendant in this case, it doesn't really accomplish anything. But for all the would-be criminals who hear about this case, it might deter them from committing the same or similar crime.
The theory has some merit, but I don't think it offers a comprehensive explanation for how criminals decide to commit crimes. In my opinion, a lot of crime is committed due to lack of impulse control and an inability (or maybe unwillingness) to consider the consequences of one's actions."If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe bank robbery example was meant for illustrative purposes only but more to the matter at hand; I believe that you left out some pertinent details in order to bolster your argument
The parallel you made have a person shooting someone. Now if his friend, instead of being shot by the police, instead shot a resident, then that would be different. Then your analogy would be apt, and we would in fact have a situation where it would make sense to claim that he was an accomplice to murder. But the idea that the accidental death of one of them during a shootout with the police constitutes murder does not make any sense.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by myth View PostPotentially, but it seems it would be hard to argue that the crime was the proximate cause of death.
As to what it accomplishes, well....let's see if I remember this right from when I was getting my degree in criminal justice.
It's a big-picture question regarding the deterrent effect of incarceration.I believe the term is rational choice theory. I suppose the basic idea is that if there's a threat of more punishment for the crime, it would cause some people to think twice about committing the crime in the first place. The greater the punishment, the higher the deterrent effect. So for the individual defendant in this case, it doesn't really accomplish anything. But for all the would-be criminals who hear about this case, it might deter them from committing the same or similar crime.
The theory has some merit, but I don't think it offers a comprehensive explanation for how criminals decide to commit crimes. In my opinion, a lot of crime is committed due to lack of impulse control and an inability (or maybe unwillingness) to consider the consequences of one's actions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI don't think it matters here, he didn't shoot his friend, they shot no bystanders, residents or any of the cops. They were shooting at them, but none of the cops have been reported shot and killed. It was one of them that got shot, and while that is tragic enough, it just doesn't make sense that one of them should get a murder sentence for that.
The parallel you made have a person shooting someone. Now if his friend, instead of being shot by the police, instead shot a resident, then that would be different. Then your analogy would be apt, and we would in fact have a situation where it would make sense to claim that he was an accomplice to murder. But the idea that the accidental death of one of them during a shootout with the police constitutes murder does not make any sense.
If the only shootout participant is then shot dead, would the non participants be charged with a felony murder? The death is a justifiable homicide. Can a death be both a justifiable homicide and murder? Either the killing was justified or it wasn’t and the death of an innocent bystander will never be justified. The questions here should be what was the main contributing factor leading to the death and how big of a role did the deceased contribute towards his death?
Hypothetical - a group of armed men storm a jewellery shop and warn everyone that they will shoot whoever moves. The store manager is in a back room and escapes out of a back door and sprints away in a panic constantly looking behind worried he is being chased. He runs into oncoming traffic and gets hit by a truck and dies. Felony murder?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostIf someone dies during the commission of a crime, the person's committing the crime bear the responsibility of that death whether they actually did the killing or not. It's supposed to make you think harder about "simple" crimes like burglary and robbery, where no one is supposed to get hurt....because, people often get hurt or killed during these types of crimes.
In legal circles, it's called "acting in concert".The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHe did not point the gun at his friend or killed him. It is entirely fair game that the police shot one of them in the shoot out. The punishment of murder just doesn't make any sense. This isn't murder. If there's an extra crime for the death I have no word for what it would be. This is a death, during a felony basically. Which carries a murder penalty? Would he also have gotten a murder sentence if his friend had had a heart attack or a stroke?
It frankly just doesn't make sense. It might be the name of it.
If he had killed a resident he would be guilty of murder, if he had killed a police officer he would have been guilty of murder. If a stray bullet had hit a bystander there's manslaughter of some reckless sort. But his friend dying seems to be an entirely accidental byproduct of what they did, brought on by their own actions.
I don't see that as murder.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYeah I think murder should be reserved for a person having an intent to kill either in the moment, or with forethought. To call anything else murder just waters down the term.
He already got charged for armed robbery, and for exchanging fire with the police. That one of them died seems to be a not unexpected accident. It is not the fault of the police, but I don't see any reason to punish one of the survivors for it. I'm not sure what this accomplishes as punishment over and above the punishment for armed robbery.
As I said if his friend had a heart attack would that have been murder?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf you get a person killed because of your reckless behavior, that is at the very least manslaughter. In this case it was in the commission of a violent crime, and they shot at the police, which comes with the risk of being killed by the police. He got his friend killed by deliberate violent action. So that is 1st degree murder in my opinion. And the law's opinion.
Interestingly, today of all days, all three men were just indicted on that.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ce/3253338001/
I'd consider that going too far here, as death occuring during felony is not a murder.Last edited by Leonhard; 06-25-2020, 01:10 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostShooting at the police should be charged at attempted murder too, right? Attempted murder is up to life imprisonment by itself.
But if one of them got shot by the police, then the other isn't accomplice to murder. That charge just straight up doesn't make sense. The other one, in participating in the burglary (and perhaps the shootout - though this part is vague) could be said to have brought it on himself, and the police aren't culpable for his death. However the other one in no way had any intention for that person to die. Even if some of their bullets had killed someone else walking down the street, but this was unintentional, I wouldn't consider that as murder.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
159 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment