Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5558|Sydney

Macbeth wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

well whatever.......add 3 cities up then.

i heard NY once..guess they meant the state.
Metro New York has about 19 million people. Meaning the city and the area around it that it has considerable influence as well as commuters into it from has a population of 19 million.

So yeah anyway.

Isn't first degree murder premeditated or with malicious intent or something? Total bullshit but whatever.
I thought first degree was premeditated murder.
Second degree is intent to kill but without the premeditation, eg. murder in a fit of rage.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-07-10 19:09:46)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,819|6486|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:

reasonable application of force.

in england you can't shoot people that are trespassing or attempting a crime on your property. that's the role of the police. vigilante justice is wrong and degrades the quality of the land's law and legislation: it is not a moral or 'just' punishment to shoot and kill a person attempting a petty crime or larceny. call the police and go through the just and proper legal process. the only way you can get away with shooting, harming or taking somebody hostage for perpetrating a crime against you is if you claim a legal defense of diminished responsibility or provocation, as a result of continuous mental harassment.

cowboy justice is not fitting for a 21st century society, sorry.
You can effect a citizens arrest and require them to wait for the police.
You have to call the police though, you can't just lock them in your dungeon
Fuck Israel
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6877

too bad your opinion accounts for naught.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6961|SE London

ghettoperson wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:


well whatever.......add 3 cities up then.

i heard NY once..guess they meant the state.
Metro New York has about 19 million people. Meaning the city and the area around it that it has considerable influence as well as commuters into it from has a population of 19 million.

So yeah anyway.

Isn't first degree murder premeditated or with malicious intent or something? Total bullshit but whatever.
Regardless of whether you think he was right to shoot the dude, this. How can that be considered first degree murder?
I thought that 1st degree murder was like a murder charge under English law, whereas 2nd degree murder is equivalent to manslaughter - where it is your fault they died but wasn't deliberate.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5558|Sydney
Wiki:

Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally second degree murder is common law murder with first degree being an aggravated form. The aggravating factors that distinguish first degree murder from second degree are first degree murder requires a specific intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6961|SE London

Jaekus wrote:

Wiki:

Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally second degree murder is common law murder with first degree being an aggravated form. The aggravating factors that distinguish first degree murder from second degree are first degree murder requires a specific intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
Yeah - intent to kill. Same thing as deliberately killing someone.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-07-11 02:44:39)

Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5558|Sydney

Bertster7 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Wiki:

Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The most common divisions are between first and second degree murder. Generally second degree murder is common law murder with first degree being an aggravated form. The aggravating factors that distinguish first degree murder from second degree are first degree murder requires a specific intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
Ah, I thought it was just intent to kill.
The intent is what makes it murder over manslaughter. That's why when trying to make a murder charge stick police need to find motive, which leads to intent.
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5558|Sydney
For example, if I threw a rock at someone, but meant to hurt them only and they die, it's manslaughter.
If I threw a rock in the knowledge it would kill them and they die, it's murder.

Pretty shit example, but it says enough I hope.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-07-11 02:47:36)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,819|6486|eXtreme to the maX
The law is a bit variable, if you pre-plan to do something in the full knowledge that the 'possible' consequence is someone will die then its murder.

Depending on your jurisdiction replace 'possible' with
probable
inevitable
Fuck Israel
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5558|Sydney

Dilbert_X wrote:

The law is a bit variable, if you pre-plan to do something in the full knowledge that the 'possible' consequence is someone will die then its murder.
I think it's in this kinda grey area that a good defense and/or prosecution will argue one or the other, but certainly the prosecution would have the upper hand.
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7101|Sydney, Australia
To clear up that 1st/2nd degree murder thing, according to the United States Code,

18 U.S.C. § 1111 wrote:

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c) For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2) the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A) under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3) the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4) the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6) the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340 (1).
And then,

18 U.S.C. § 1112 wrote:

(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both;
Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6850
seeing you guys get your legal education from wikipedia is FUCKING PAINFUL.

mssr. wikipedia, esquire?

nuff said
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7101|Sydney, Australia

Uzique wrote:

seeing you guys get your legal education from wikipedia is FUCKING PAINFUL.

mssr. wikipedia, esquire?

nuff said
Err.. I used a wiki link, since I'd assume most of them didn't know what the USC was

As for the actual content of my post - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod … 20_51.html
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|6081|College Park, MD
seeing you guys get your legal education from cornell is FUCKING PAINFUL
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|7051|UK
isnt cornell ivy league
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7064|United States of America

m3thod wrote:

isnt cornell ivy league
Psssh, it doesn't compare to proper English universities. The Ivy League is just a pale imitation and a charade of an actual education. /Inbeforeacertainforummemberwhoshallgounnamedbutisnotunnamednewbie

On that note, attempting to gain a legal education from Wikipedia is foolhardy, but if you're just looking for part of the US Code or a court case to cite, it should be pretty damn accurate information and perhaps more accessible to us peons.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5738|London, England
Uzique, where your English common law fails, is a failure to account for a mans goods as a product of his time.

Say I were to burn down a man's house and he has no insurance to cover it. This man invested ten full years worth of salary into his home. Assuming an eight hour day with weekends, the man has literally lost three years of his life. They went poof. This isn't even accounting for everything else that was inside the mans home that were also things of value. So, while I can agree that taking a mans life for theft is ludicrously out of line with the crime, I would hardly call theft or attempted theft, a small crime.

However, Castle law, and the threat it represents towards potential criminals is a proven deterrent. It also doesn't leave the victim in a position where they might be injured or killed instead of just robbed in the case of a home invasion. I'd rather have the messy result of a criminals demise rather than put old women and children in harms way just because one feels criminals have some absurd right to life even when they violate the rights of others. As far as I am concerned, if someone breaks into my home, I can not read their mind, and do not know their motives. They could be breaking in to rape my girlfriend or murder me. They forfeit all rights once they enter my home illegally.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7096

m3thod wrote:

isnt cornell ivy league
aka suicide school lel
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5639|foggy bottom

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

seeing you guys get your legal education from cornell is FUCKING PAINFUL
cornell is a top school.  youre fucking crazy
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5639|foggy bottom
http://www.oyez.org/

pretty decent resource
Tu Stultus Es
jord
Member
+2,382|7058|The North, beyond the wall.
Wiki is generally useful and correct.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6960|the dank(super) side of Oregon
I find it interesting that some think a criminal should have some assumption of safety while committing crimes.
jord
Member
+2,382|7058|The North, beyond the wall.

Reciprocity wrote:

I find it interesting that some think a criminal should have some assumption of safety while committing crimes.
There's a grey are like there is on anything.

should a 12 year old kid stealing candy be shot on his escape, or perhaps beaten down with a baseball bat?

That said any decent criminal won't be assuming safety and will bring such items as to not have to assume. Pew pew
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6960|the dank(super) side of Oregon

jord wrote:

should a 12 year old kid stealing candy be shot on his escape, or perhaps beaten down with a baseball bat?
Shot? Probably not.  Nose broken, front teeth smashed in?  Maybe.
jord
Member
+2,382|7058|The North, beyond the wall.
Having had my front teeth bust in and having had too pay the resulting dental fees id rather be shot. In the leg or stomache, of course.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard