• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Incident: Are You Guilty of Murder?

it is likely going to depend on where you are when you do it, (different places have different laws) but killing in defense of another's life is usually going to fall into an affirmative defense.
 
rhinefire said:
A car is traveling at a high rate of speed being pursued by the police. You see the speeding car is headed straight for a crowd of children only seconds away. You believe the cops are helpless to prevent a potential slaughter of children as the car plunges towards them. You decide to deliberately take the pursuit in to your own hands and ram the car and in doing to the car swerves away from the crowd of kids but the car strikes a wall killing the driver. Are you "guilty" of murder?
Click to expand...

This is easy. No. A car can be used as a lethal weapon. I see no difference between this scenario and someone who shoots another who is leveling a gun at a crowd of children.
 
rhinefire said:
A car is traveling at a high rate of speed being pursued by the police. You see the speeding car is headed straight for a crowd of children only seconds away. You believe the cops are helpless to prevent a potential slaughter of children as the car plunges towards them. You decide to deliberately take the pursuit in to your own hands and ram the car and in doing to the car swerves away from the crowd of kids but the car strikes a wall killing the driver. Are you "guilty" of murder?
Click to expand...

Murder is an unlawful killing with malice. What you described is called justifiable homicide. There is no criminal intent or criminal liability.

Some people are constantly confused by the them "homicide". Homicide just means the killing of a human. Not all killings of humans are murder. If they were then in your scenario the police would have been guilty of murder had they shot and killed the person in the speeding car.
 
Interesting question. In all of the states that I am aware of, assisting the police is not an accepted defense for committing an illegal act. Their badge does not protect YOU, even if they directly ask you to assist them, but especially if they have not asked for your assistance. On the other hand most states have "Good Samaritan" laws which protect TRAINED individuals from prosecution if they act within the limits of that training while helping someone who is not capable of actively accepting or declining that assistance.

With those thoughts in mind, I would suggest that you ARE likely to be charged with at least vehichular manslaughter in such an incident. You have not been asked to intervene. You (assumedly) do not have training in any sort of vehicular interdiction techniques. You've simply taken it upon yourself to intervene in an active police chase. Obviously the emotional reaction of the jury is likely to work in your favor, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to chance it.
 
rhinefire said:
A car is traveling at a high rate of speed being pursued by the police. You see the speeding car is headed straight for a crowd of children only seconds away. You believe the cops are helpless to prevent a potential slaughter of children as the car plunges towards them. You decide to deliberately take the pursuit in to your own hands and ram the car and in doing to the car swerves away from the crowd of kids but the car strikes a wall killing the driver. Are you "guilty" of murder?
Click to expand...
No. I was defending others from a lethal situation. It's no different than shooting a would-be thief holding someone at gunpoint.
 
Honestly its hard to tell in America these days. I no longer understand what is murder and what isnt based on some of the court rulings. Justice is seemingly more a matter of your lawyers skill of deception vs the prosecutions skill of deception. So in this case from the OP you'd be rolling the dice.
 
Tigger said:
Interesting question. In all of the states that I am aware of, assisting the police is not an accepted defense for committing an illegal act. Their badge does not protect YOU, even if they directly ask you to assist them, but especially if they have not asked for your assistance. On the other hand most states have "Good Samaritan" laws which protect TRAINED individuals from prosecution if they act within the limits of that training while helping someone who is not capable of actively accepting or declining that assistance.

With those thoughts in mind, I would suggest that you ARE likely to be charged with at least vehichular manslaughter in such an incident. You have not been asked to intervene. You (assumedly) do not have training in any sort of vehicular interdiction techniques. You've simply taken it upon yourself to intervene in an active police chase. Obviously the emotional reaction of the jury is likely to work in your favor, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to chance it.
Click to expand...

While it's true that assisting the police in apprehending a criminal is not going to directly be a defense to the use of deadly force in most states, in this case the defense would be based on the fact that the person killed was about to commit manslaughter.o f course if you lived in a state was not friendly to self-defense (or vicarious self-defense), then you could probably expect to be charged with something.
 
rhinefire said:
A car is traveling at a high rate of speed being pursued by the police. You see the speeding car is headed straight for a crowd of children only seconds away. You believe the cops are helpless to prevent a potential slaughter of children as the car plunges towards them. You decide to deliberately take the pursuit in to your own hands and ram the car and in doing to the car swerves away from the crowd of kids but the car strikes a wall killing the driver. Are you "guilty" of murder?
Click to expand...

Justifiable homicide. I would sleep just fine at night with the decision. I may be upset that I killed a fellow human, but I wouldn't be upset about the decision.
 
Paleocon said:
While it's true that assisting the police in apprehending a criminal is not going to directly be a defense to the use of deadly force in most states, in this case the defense would be based on the fact that the person killed was about to commit manslaughter.o f course if you lived in a state was not friendly to self-defense (or vicarious self-defense), then you could probably expect to be charged with something.
Click to expand...

You're going to be charged with something, at least initially. There's no doubt if that. The question is.... Do you trust the Legal System to get it right? I for one have no faith in the system getting it right. So unless my kid us in that crowd I'm not likely to take that chance.
 
Tigger said:
You're going to be charged with something, at least initially. There's no doubt if that. The question is.... Do you trust the Legal System to get it right? I for one have no faith in the system getting it right. So unless my kid us in that crowd I'm not likely to take that chance.
Click to expand...

I don't trust the system either. I was just talking about what the law itself would allow.
 
rhinefire said:
A car is traveling at a high rate of speed being pursued by the police. You see the speeding car is headed straight for a crowd of children only seconds away. You believe the cops are helpless to prevent a potential slaughter of children as the car plunges towards them. You decide to deliberately take the pursuit in to your own hands and ram the car and in doing to the car swerves away from the crowd of kids but the car strikes a wall killing the driver. Are you "guilty" of murder?
Click to expand...

No, you are guilty of vigilantism.

Mind you, I haven't read a single post below, one of which must say the same thing. My immediate thought on the matter is that why, if someone pulled a gun and tries to fire into a crowd to get away from pursuing authorities, would it be okay to shoot and kill him, but not in this scenario? A man fleeing, from police paying no mind to who might get injured or killed in the process, using a deadly weapon (of which I would say that a car certainly comparable to is at this point) has forfeited his right to do so, as well as the right to his life, should his action put the lives of others at risk. The only way you can keep your rights intact is to deserve them, and this man obviously doesn't.
 
Paleocon said:
I don't trust the system either. I was just talking about what the law itself would allow.
Click to expand...

The people are the Law. When you sit there and look at that jury box and see 14 of the stupidest people you've ever laid eyes on, you cannot have any hope that the System/Law is going to work. When you listen to the Asst. District Attorney and Defense Attorney make cases so ludicrous that my 5 year old nephew can blow holes in them, you cannot have any hope that the System/Law is going to work. When you realize this is the 8th time the defendant is here for the same charge and only THIS TIME will he actually see the inside of a prison if convicted, you cannot have any hope that the System/Law is going to work. When you realize that the Judge has almost complete and total leeway in adjudicating the case and is not able to be held responsible to anyone, you cannot have any hope that the System/Law is going to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom