Free MMORPG Forums

kiore

LOL i wish more black chicks played soccer because it would NOT have went down like that

__________________

V-Opolis

wow, that was screwed up.granted, it could have been accidental(i doubt it tho). Ive done a few things people wouldnt see as accidental that were COMPLETE accidents on the soccer field, sometimes the mindset of getting the ball overcomes your rational thinking lol.

Paladuck

Ronin...nothing you said indicates that there's any sort of premeditation. Just trust me on the law.

__________________

Norrin Radd

If your mindset for getting the ball is to give someone a Lex Luger-esque running forearm to the head, subsequently leaving them seizuring on the floor and in need of oxygen, then it's no accident.

It's no accident and you're a psychotic who shouldn't be playing anything besides backgammon in a correctional facility.

Ronin

Well, you would say, that there is no crime no matter what?

That's pretty ridiculous.

Also it's completely inapplicable.
Just imagine everyone getting of, if they create some sort of "I wanted to shoot him in the arm as I planed all the way, which you can see through evidence; I never wanted to shoot him in the face" defense. Your way of seeing it completely undermines murder as a crime, to the point where it's not possibly trailed anymore.

If you hazard the consequences, you are fully liable for them.
A kick to the head for example is not something that you can defend as accidentally causing injury.
Same goes with jumping into another player foot up.
(Also there are players who are known to play this way and the great majority who aren't. If this kind of acting repeats itself as a well established practice, you can't say it "just happened".)
[Noter example is what Norrin said; I just read that]

If someone is harmed through this way of acting, it's not an accident.

There is a limit to the what you can reasonably expect and getting severed for life or killed is way outside of it.

__________________

V-Opolis

i dunno if you played sports, but there are circumstances(most) injury is not intentional. very FEW people go out to injure someone...or even commit actions that could injure.

Ronin

I practice Karate, there is a pretty steep emphasis on the topic of what is alright and what is out of line.

Coming from that it's probably a lot safer than playing football.
The number of people in the recent years that were injured to the point of having to burry all their ambitions to come back to pro soccer, or just simply life a normal life again, is an aspect of the sport I find pretty disgusting.

Especially since it does not have to be that way.

Soccer is a sport that does emphasis non contact play, though that holding, griping and pulling, kicking and punching everywhere lets one assume otherwise.
The players play unfair, irresponsibly and brutish and often enough you wonder if they are in control of themselves at all and if they are, their coldblooded way would shock as they practically try to damage each other for the rest of the game; That's not the idea of soccer is it?
It really varies from league to league and club to club and player to player, but it's not okay anywhere.

__________________

Showy

That is pretty ****ed up. Maybe she should look into boxing.

__________________

Paladuck

Again, Ronin, you're just speaking about generalities and your gut feelings about what you think the law should be. I'm telling you what it is.

There is no murder without an intent to kill. Period. If you intend to stop someone from making a play on the ball and you end up killing them, that is not murder.

Voluntary Manslaughter also requires an intent to kill. Not an intent to be a douchebag, not an intent to be unsportsmanlike, an intent to kill. Even in the most egregious of physical contact in soccer, such as intentional elbowing, pushing, kicking, there is no intent to kill.

You keep on saying that when someone acts like that, it's no accident. It doesn't matter if it's not an accident. It is not murder unless that person, in doing that act, intended to KILL the other person. I'm pretty sure that nobody is trying to kill another player by elbowing them in the back or slide-tackling their legs.

Let me give you an example. Joe is holding a gun. He thinks it is unloaded. He points it at Fred and fires, as a joke. It turns out the gun is loaded, and Fred is killed. Joe can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, or reckless/negligent homicide, but definitely not murder, because he did not intend to kill Fred. Of course in a trial the prosecution would try to prove that Joe intended to kill him, that Joe had a grudge against Fred, etc. and the defense would present evidence to rebut that.

It doesn't matter how messed up the act is, or how dirty the move is, or how outside the normal conduct of the sport that the actions are. There is no murder without intent to kill. So do we get that yet...

__________________

Ronin

Not "intent to kill";
That's a stupid simplification.

Intent to commit an action with the known plausible outcome of death, is murder, as soon as it has that outcome.

Why?

Because you knew you would risk it and you did it anyways.

If it's the first or second or third priority, or just something that happened on the way doesn't make any difference.

For example:
If someone shoots a gun in a shooting range, though someone is in the way to the target thus killing him, it's a coldblooded act that lead to his death in a causal matter the shooter was aware of.

There is no real difference if the person was in the way of a target, or in the way to a football (Oh dear, soccer ball of course).

I simply said that it would make court. There is nothing else I want to prove here, because a lot of it depends on the state, precedence cases, etc.

Concerning your example however: It's not an unloaded gun to begin with, if the intent was causally directed to use potentially deadly force, just not against a person, but an object (which is out of dispute as the outcome in our speculative case was death); Your example missed the point.

(@gut feeling:
Yes I appealed to your common sense. Why? Because it's relevant. The way you point it out any murder could have been an accident, as you leave the act of an aware killing out of the focus and rather concern yourself with circumstantial matters.
If it's only murder if you find physical evidence of preparation, it would be extremely easy to get off. If the weapon was in place beforehand and you can't gather any circumstantial burden of prove, the state would let the person walk, even if there are eye witnesses, which makes trailing for murder impossible for the prosecution and anyone would get convicted with a low sentence at best.)


I have a couple of more things to say on the gun example though:
Something pretty similar actually happened to me once.

I was lying in an improvised emplacement, together with a fellow recruit in basic training, securing our convoy, whilst it had to put on catenae. Finally we got the order to prepare to move within 10 minutes. We kept scanning the sector for the time and than went to move out rather casually, however, I had noticed that my buddy had loaded the gun when lying down and not unloaded it when getting up, so I told him about that.

His reaction was to kneel up, hold the ejector of the gun closely to my ear and fire it.
He said he though it hadn't been loaded.
(I fought hard, to beat my anger that time, really hard, but instead of giving him a trashing, I kept my cool. Saying not a word, I went of to report to the nearest officer, that I couldn't hear anything for now and needed to see a medic. To my great luck there was no permanent damages to my ears.)

Though practice ammunition was used, had he pointed at my face or stomach, I would be glad to be alive now, though definitely terribly mutilated.

What a terrible accident would that have been, you might point out.

I would say, that there is nothing accidental about holding a gun towards a person and pulling it's trigger.
I would also not like to see my killer getting of so easily as he probably would have, because of it having been an "accident" caused by his stupidity.

That does not really run in line with him being a danger to society, so I would swallow my pride, were that still possible, but those who make a living out of playing a sport so aggressively, often targeting other players as a cowardly effort to defeat their superiority, are a consistent danger to all the other innocent players.

__________________