• 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!

Death Penalty? Seriously?

Fledermaus said:
And I have repeatedly reiterated 2nd degree, not first nor death penalty.
Click to expand...

Well, I've been solely focused on capital murder versus not capital murder, as is the thread's intent. So, why tf are you even bothering me?
 
calamity said:
Well, I've been solely focused on capital murder versus not capital murder, as is the thread's intent. So, why tf are you even bothering me?
Click to expand...

Incredible.... You don't pay attention to what I post then cop an attitude when your inattention is noted...

I have said TIME AND AGAIN 2nd Degree fits.

If reality bothers you that is a you problem not a me problem.
 
calamity said:
Thread title indicates that the subject being discussed is the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Yep but quickly edits that in the OP and recant's:

I think I got the DP part wrong. Apologies... murder. Charged with Murder. That is still overkill.
Click to expand...

Which then left the discussion to be what is an appropriate charge for alleged unlawful actions that led to the death of a vehicle passenger directly caused by those actions.
 
Fishking said:
Your own definition doesn't fit the bill. You'd have prove their intent was to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Did you miss this? It was in red: death caused by a reckless disregard for human life.

15-17 yr olds dropping rocks onto cars is exactly that, they certainly knew it could lead to killing someone.
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
I doubt they thought that far ahead.
Click to expand...

How far they thought ahead subjectively is irrelevant.

He cited a Michigan statute allowing a 2nd degree murder conviction if the intent was "wanton reckless disregard for human life". That kind of question is resolved by (1) what subjective FACTS are known to the defendant, and (2) what an objectively reasonable person would do in the circumstances.

They don't ask whether the defendant actually thought that far ahead. They would ask what an objectively reasonable person would expect to happen if they drop several pound rocks at cars going 70 mph.



Even with no legal experience or training, the reason should be obvious: the law would be an ass if all a defendant had to do to get acquitted is say "deerrrrrrrr.....I dunno.... I wasn't thinking"
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The arrival of "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" on Nov 9 indicates otherwise.
Click to expand...

Did you just wake up from a marijuana-induced stupor? "Not my President" has been around for every President for at least a couple decades. Just the people saying it switches back-and-forth depending on who it is.
 
Lutherf said:
2nd Degree. I'm not sure what the Michigan statutes are but, as a rule, it's homicide caused by reckless behavior so it sounds right to me.
Click to expand...

This is my thought. 1st degree would be unwarranted. They *might* have intended to kill, but even if they did it would be pretty much impossible to prove. However, they did knowingly and willfully do something that they knew could at least hurt someone seriously, and someone died from it. I'm not sympathetic to the age of the person on this one. They are old enough to know better, rocks hurt, and large heavy rocks hurt a lot. 2nd degree murder is very appropriate.
 
radcen said:
Exactly. If we're reading their minds, someone who favors a lesser punishment please inform us what their intent was. What were they expecting would happen?
Click to expand...

I am sure that the prosecution will ask that question.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Scaring people? Denting hoods? Reasonable doubt established. I win.
Click to expand...

Why would it be "scary" if not apt to cause serious injury or death. It is not necessary to target occupied vehicles to make dents in them. You lose.
 
calamity said:
The correct analogy would be shooting at the tires of moving cars. Shooting at people in a moving crowd would not fit.

But, of course, it requires intelligence to make correct analogies.
Click to expand...

Which you seem to be lacking... random people are the intended targets either way. Unless you're thinking unoccupied self-driving vehicles are already here and in common use.
 
calamity said:
No. My reason for calling your analogy incorrect is that pointing guns at actual people is not the same as chucking rocks at cars. Duh.
Click to expand...

That's it? That's your defense of your non-point? Guns and rocks are different? Well, hell, I guess murder by stabbing is just "creative whittling". Hey, it's just as sound as your so-called point.
 
Marco Montana said:
No thats ridiculous, I've done some horrible things as a kid, throwing eggs at cars is one of them... They should be charged with manslaughter, they had no intent to kill, they were trying to scare or cause damage. Maybe I don't know the case just speculating here....
Click to expand...

How do you know that?
 
radcen said:
That's not reasonable doubt. Tha's absurd straw grasping.
Click to expand...

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable+doubt
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is not reasonable to conclude they were trying to scare people? I knew kids that did that... no intent to kill or even injure a person.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable+doubt

You guys have no idea what reaonable doubt is...
Click to expand...

Do you have a reasonable doubt that throwing large rocks at moving occupied vehicles could cause serious injury or death? With anything less than first degree (premeditated) murder there is no need to prove intent to kill - only that the criminal act could cause serious injury or death thus doing so showed a reckless disregard for that possibility.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Do you have a reasonable doubt that throwing large rocks at moving occupied vehicles could cause serious injury or death? With anything less than first degree (premeditated) murder there is no need to prove intent to kill - only that the criminal act could cause serious injury or death thus doing so showed a reckless disregard for that possibility.
Click to expand...

The intent could have been to kill but it just as easily could have been to damage cars, cause an accident, scare drivers or to shut down the highway... that is a reasonable doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom