Free MMORPG Forums

Paladuck

It's not a simplification, its the law.

This is not what murder is defined as. There was a case where a man intended to fire a warning shot at kids who were breaking into his car. He missed and accidentally hit one of the kids, killing them. The court threw out his murder conviction, holding that because the man had not intended to kill and had only intended to fire a warning shot, he could not be convicted of murder. The case was retried on manslaughter grounds.

Prosecutors don't bring cases to trial that they're 100% sure of losing. No prosecutor would ever go after a murder charge for someone who didn't have an intent to kill. They'd try for manslaughter or some other lower form of homicide. You said yourself that things depends on precedent and past cases. Any prosecutor would look at those past cases and determine what would fly in their state. There is no such thing is a murder charge without intent to kill.

I think the source of the confusion between us is that you are probably thinking of the word "murder" in terms of common sense usage, that when someone kills another person and it wasn't completely accidental, that's murder. If we just look at the way people commonly think of and interpret "murder," then I agree that a wide range of things can be covered, including malicious soccer injuries.

However, I'm talking about murder in terms of its legal definition, which requires intent to kill and some sort of premeditation or deliberation, depending on the jurisdiction.

__________________

Ronin

Did I say the judge?

It's a lot on the judge, most of it actually.

The prosecution has a pretty decent shot, if they make it to court.
If they do not "pray" to be able to use it, it's still not the worst tactic (though a tactic non the less and therefore inferior).

Very much depending on the situation, it's necessary that parameters are afixed in a certain way, so that it is a possible route, so I must admit, that it wouldn't be a case that flies on it's own wings.
I wouldn't stress right now, how far one could stress the connection of the word of law and the common understandings of a crime and how a court should serve those 2, because that would be just complicating the whole thing needlessly, for little gain.

Tnx for staying with me on this, I in a way morbidly enjoyed that.

@the case:
I sense a lot of danger from this case however, because you will never be able to know what went on in the mans head.
That is exactly why I think that the fetish so many people have with guns is such a shame imo.
It forces the whole country to trust people like him, pretty much blindly.

__________________

Paladuck

That's another common conception, that the judge makes or breaks a trial. Really though, the judge's job is to administer the law and ensure that it is used fairly. A judge would never have the discretion to fudge the requirements for a murder conviction, otherwise they'd get reversed by an appellate court in a second.

The US legal system is a mess for many reasons, including that (1) a lot of things don't make sense if you aren't well versed in the legal system, and even more damning (2) words in their legal definitions don't mean the same thing that they mean in the real word. Its misleading, but also necessary, simply because the common meaning of words like "murder" and "assault" are so loose and wide-open, and the law requires that things be exact and precise. Hence that's why these terms are defined with precision (and a lot of times people don't agree over the definitions)

__________________

Norrin Radd

That's the problem with things like abortion debates.

"It's murder.", it's not murder. "There are meanings beyond legal definition.", not in law there aren't. The very term "murder" exists because killing exists, and if we are to punish people the we need to know that one umbrella action (Killing) has many branches under it (Manslaughter, justifiable homicide, homicide, suicide etc).

The only reason these terms even exist is because of law. So to take what law gave us an pervert it for our own means is precisely what's wrong with PEOPLE, not the law system.

If someone doesn't commit a murder, they shouldn't get tried for murder. It doesn't matter what people think in the "real world".

Either way, this is getting a bit off topic. So try to keep your posts connected to football players being too rough.