BF2S Forums Dumb kid gets whats coming to him, Man charged with murder.

Jaekus wrote:

Do not presume to know what I think, when you can't seem to properly understand the two sentences that make up the definition of premeditation.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Do not presume to know what I think, when you can't seem to properly understand the two sentences that make up the definition of premeditation.

and yet you acknowledge the difference between this scenario and the guy dumping his wife but refuse to tell me what the difference is.

Kampframmer wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Again, if you want to keep bringing up hypothetical situations to distract from the topic at hand, that is also premeditation. I do not care (and neither does the law) how angry someone is. We are not talking people who are psychopaths.

There is nothing hypothetical about it, these situations happen all the time, and there is no difference in the circumstances. They are both emotionally charged scenarios that the person did not plan to be involved in. Now take either of those and compare with the guy killing his wife and dumping her in a predetermined spot and getting his story straight, and you see a difference, but refuse to tell me what it is? I think you are arguing something you do not necessarily think is true.

If the law doesn't care then there would not be different classifications of murder.

Its very well possible that he was out his mind with anger, but try telling that to a court.
the see that CCTV footage of him walking over, grabbing a gun and shooting him they will all shout 'MURDER!'.
Its possibletaht it was a case of manslaughter (because of his mental state at that moment), but its impossible to prove that to a court, considering the footage.

Kampframmer wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

So far:
Kid 1 and 2 (k1, k2) run in store.
k1 points a gun at man.
Man shoots k1 once.
(SELF DEFENCE)
k2 runs out of the store.
(This is where the self defence line gets blurry. Maybe he was pised and wanted that kid to go down as well, maybe he just felt lie shooting him too. Who knows.)
Man chases k2.
(no longer self defence after this point as all possible threats are eliminated)
Man walks back in to his counter.
man grabs 2nd gun from drawer.
Man walks over to k1 shoots him multiple times, k1 dies.
(Manslaughter or murder (what degree)??)

He shot him multiple times, knowing this would kill the kid. So it's definitely murder.
He also got the second gun, so he knew the first was out of bullets (why else would you get a second gun when you've already got one in your hand, unless it has run out of ammo in the initial hold up and using the rest of the clip shooting whilst running after the second kid?) and thus that's where it becomes premeditated.

Well, your first point of him shooting multiple times, doesnt prove murder. But the fact that he grabbed the second gun puts him in a tricky position.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Do not presume to know what I think, when you can't seem to properly understand the two sentences that make up the definition of premeditation.

and yet you acknowledge the difference between this scenario and the guy dumping his wife but refuse to tell me what the difference is.

It seems you know and yet you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm not going to waste my time.

Jaekus wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

He shot him multiple times, knowing this would kill the kid. So it's definitely murder.
He also got the second gun, so he knew the first was out of bullets (why else would you get a second gun when you've already got one in your hand, unless it has run out of ammo in the initial hold up and using the rest of the clip shooting whilst running after the second kid?) and thus that's where it becomes premeditated.

Well, your first point of him shooting multiple times, doesnt prove murder. But the fact that he grabbed the second gun puts him in a tricky position.

Well, do you think he shot him multiple times but didn't intend to kill him?
He owns at least two guns, and yet does not know this would kill someone?
Try arguing against that in court.

Kampframmer wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

Well, your first point of him shooting multiple times, doesnt prove murder. But the fact that he grabbed the second gun puts him in a tricky position.

Well, do you think he shot him multiple times but didn't intend to kill him?
He owns at least two guns, and yet does not know this would kill someone?
Try arguing against that in court.

Of course he accepted and was wel aware of the consequences of shooting him that many times, but that doesnt prove murder. Doing something when you damn well know it will kill someone can still be manslaughter.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

and yet you acknowledge the difference between this scenario and the guy dumping his wife but refuse to tell me what the difference is.

It seems you know and yet you want me to explain it to you anyway? I'm not going to waste my time.

Oh I do think I know, I also think you can not explain the differences as you see it, without expressing the differences of premeditation and say second degree  murder.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-05-29 03:03:08)

Kampframmer wrote:

He intended to kill him. Thats not murder.

Jaekus wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

He intended to kill him. Thats not murder.

Huh? Intent to kill someone is the definition of murder.

Kampframmer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you intend to kill someone while defending yourself its not necessarily murder.

English law has only murder and manslaughter AFAIK

oic.
We also have a sort of death by blame thing.
When you do or dont do something that might put someone in lifethreatening danger, but you dont accept the outcome (i.e: death)

Last edited by Kampframmer (2011-05-29 03:12:43)

Jaekus wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

If someone dies because you did something and you more or less accepted it, thats something completely different than manslaughter and murder.
(dunno whats its called in english law. Death by blame or something??)
The intention to kill is also present with manslaughter.

I think you're getting mixed up here.

Manslaughter is when you cause death to someone without intent, but through means you were responsible for and had control of at the time. I had this discussion I used to work with, he was studying law and explaining the work he had to do to complete his degree. The two scenarios were thus:

1) A woman takes two dogs for a walk. She does not own the dogs but is minding them for a friend. She has been told they can be very aggressive around people they do not know and she should never walk them without them both each wearing a muzzle. She decides to take them both for a walk and does not muzzle one of them. She is a small woman and the dogs are at least as heavy as her and are very strong. They both break free from her grasp as a jogger goes past, attacks, and the unmuzzled one kills the jogger.

2) A drug dealer has some very strong drugs. He has a regular client who sees him. He tells the person the drugs are very strong and to be careful. The client takes too much, overdoses, and dies.

Who is guilty of manslaughter?

The woman with the dogs. Because at the time of the incident she was responsible for the dogs, knowing they could attack, someone and as a result someone died.

The drug dealer is not guilty of manslaughter because he warned his client. Once the drugs were in the possession of the client, the client had responsibility, and the death was the result of their own actions.

Murder is either scenario but with intent to kill the person. That's what happens in court when either side is arguing. The prosecution is arguing intent (murder) and the defence is arguing lack of intent (manslaughter).