• 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?

rhinefire

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,399
Reaction score
3,021
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
I think that would be voluntary manslaughter. Given the information in the scenario, the driver's death wasn't intended.
 
Last edited:
No. You are a hero.
 
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...

Not if you have a good lawyer. That would be the time to use the "he needed killin" 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...

No. And if the cops have much to say about it, you'll be a hero.
 
If the police could do it to protect the children, then so could anyone else.
 
joko104 said:
If the police could do it to protect the children, then so could anyone else.
Click to expand...
I didn't think vigilantism was smiled upon in the judicial system.
 
Justifiable homicide.
 
Intent is what matters. Your intent was not to kill the driver, but to change the trajectory of his car. The drivers speed is what killed him. Had he been obeying the law, he would have likely lived through the impact of hitting the wall (as long as he wasn't driving a flammable Porsche, lol).

In the end, the most you could be charged with is a traffic violation.
 
Paleocon said:
:roll:

Defensive force isn't generally "safe".
Click to expand...
I think you can draw a line on how "unsafe" self defense is permitted to be. There's way more opportunity for collateral damage when ramming your car into another car going ~100 miles per hour than with using your firearm. Kinda like even though you used your RPG-7 to protect your neighbor, it's still not cool because there is so much potential collateral damage to be done there.
 
Woodman909 said:
Was this meant to be a lame response? If so, you succeeded. How WOULD you feel about the person who executed this move if it WERE your child's life in the balance? It's not vigilantism, it's taking action to prevent a disaster. I think that action was appropriate.
Click to expand...
Your response was fallacious, so I showed which fallacy you used. The relations you have to anyone in this scenario doesn't make it objectively different than if you had no relations whatsoever with anyone in the scenario, especially in the judicial system. Keep in mind that I'm more interested in discussing the legality of the event, not the ethics of it.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
Your response was fallacious, so I showed which fallacy you used. The relations you have to anyone in this scenario doesn't make it objectively different than if you had no relations whatsoever with anyone in the scenario, especially in the judicial system. Keep in mind that I'm more interested in discussing the legality of the event, not the ethics of it.
Click to expand...

Fine... it was legal. The man is a hero.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I think you can draw a line on how "unsafe" self defense is permitted to be. There's way more opportunity for collateral damage when ramming your car into another car going ~100 miles per hour than with using your firearm. Kinda like even though you used your RPG-7 to protect your neighbor, it's still not cool because there is so much potential collateral damage to be done there.
Click to expand...

In order for force to be justifiable, it must be both appropriate and necessary. Since the crime being defended against is manslaughter (which the fugitive would be guilty of if the children died), lethal force is proportionate. If there was no safer way, then it was necessary. This applies even if others are injured collaterally, as long as the force was not directed against them (however in most states third parties who were injured could sue you civilly, and in two states the fugitive's family could file a wrongful death action). Nevertheless, there would be a defense to any criminal charges.
 
Woodman909 said:
Fine... it was legal. The man is a hero.
Click to expand...
I think it was the right thing to do, but illegal. The "hero" in the scenario might be charged with anything from manslaughter to a mere traffic violation.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I think the act was a bit too dangerous to be classified as self defense.
Click to expand...

It was not an act of self defense. It was an act in defense of others.
 
joko104 said:
It was not an act of self defense. It was an act in defense of others.
Click to expand...
Oops, you're right. Can't fix it now though. My point still stands though.
 
For argument's sake, since everyone seems to believe the driver causing the accident is a hero, I'll take the position that the driver who rammed his car into the fleeing vehicle is indeed guilty of murder and perhaps first degree murder because he acted with malice of forethought in doing so.

1. The driver of the car doing the ramming has no way of knowing what the intent of the fleeing driver is - in fact, someone fleeing the police is highly unlikely to deliberately run into a crowd of children when his/her only thought is likely getting away from the police.

2. If the driver has time to ram his/her car into the fleeing car, the fleeing car has time to avoid the group of children. For all the driver knows, by ramming his car into the fleeing car he/she may actually cause it to plow into the crowd of children when the fleeing car may never have done so without the interference.

3. There are many cases where an uninvolved third party inserts themselves into a criminal situation and commits a crime themself. They are not absolved of their crime even though they may have had good intentions. Unless the action is related to imminent personal danger/safety, the consequences of your actions are your responsibility.

4. At the very least, the driver doing the ramming is going to end up on the wrong end of a civil suit filed by the family of the deceased, fleeing driver.
 
Murder, by definition, has to be premeditated and intentional. Unless you knew the driver and had a goal of killing him, it cannot be murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom