BF2S Forums Iraq veteran another casualty of a different war

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

that's because arson is an intentional fire - it has intent and malice aforethought. those are the actual concepts being used in the law on homicide (in the english legal system, anyway, which the american one is a derivative of). if you accidentally caused a fire in your home and a death was then caused, it would be manslaughter at its most severe (depending on factors such as the foreseeability of the fire breaking out in the first place; or, in the case of civil law procedures, the responsibility, culpability and any possible negligence involved). the actus reus itself (i.e. the act of the fire breaking out, either by a purposeful action or by an omission to act) is secondary to the mens rea (i.e. the mental factors) of the offence.

it has intent and forethought of burning your house down for fraud, NOT murder....Yet you are charged with murder are you not?

Not first degree, if murder at all.

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As to the "someone dies in an accident on the way to put out the fire" scenario: I would say no more than manslaughter charges. If someone dies on-scene: probably second or third degree murder, maybe down to manslaughter. Here in TX, if you drink and drive and someone dies as a result of the accident, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Sort of the same thing, I would think. You didn't mean for someone to die, but they did because of a conscious decision on your part (proximate cause).

I think you misunderstood me there. Would you charge the person who caused the fire with manslaughter when the fire truck crashed on the way to the fire?

The point I was trying to make was that one should not be held accountable for the mistakes made by others. e.g. the fire truck causing an RTA or the police shooting each other. Yes if you created a fire and fire fighters died trying to put it out then you are responsible for their deaths but if something essentially unrelated happens that is arguably down to bad judgement or a lack of training then I don't see that you should be held responsible.

I understood your point. Hence why I made the distinction between murder and manslaughter. You asked if the arsonist would be charged with murder.

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

manslaughter. an intention to burn your house down to claim insurance money is just that... it's not intention to murder somebody. if you kill somebody without malice aforethought (i.e. the purposeful willing of their death), then it's manslaughter. it's as simple as that, really. and rather just, too, i feel. you can't sentence somebody for the death penalty when all they wanted to do was claim a few thousand dollars. as towards aggravating and mitigating factors... how foreseeable the accidental deaths were will factor in here.

ok, I stand corrected then. Is it the same with a police chase where, say a pedestrian, is run over?

I believe that very scenario has played out before. I see where you are going with your argument. But that is a far less controlled environment than an entry team serving a warrant, who are trained in muzzle and trigger control.

The fault of the death for that police officer lies totally with the other officer, based on the info provided.

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

manslaughter. an intention to burn your house down to claim insurance money is just that... it's not intention to murder somebody. if you kill somebody without malice aforethought (i.e. the purposeful willing of their death), then it's manslaughter. it's as simple as that, really. and rather just, too, i feel. you can't sentence somebody for the death penalty when all they wanted to do was claim a few thousand dollars. as towards aggravating and mitigating factors... how foreseeable the accidental deaths were will factor in here.

ok, I stand corrected then. Is it the same with a police chase where, say a pedestrian, is run over?

do they have a charge in america along the lines of 'reckless endangerment' or 'danger to the public' when engaging in a car chase? over here in the UK we have a specific crime that people are charged with if they're involved in a police chase or any other form of risky behaviour during the police procedure; this pretty adequately covers any eventuality that may occur within those circumstances.

of course, but they're very rarely murder. murder has a very narrow definition (it has to, really). it will always involve an intent with malice aforethought.

Uzique wrote:

of course, but they're very rarely murder. murder has a very narrow definition (it has to, really). it will always involve an intent with malice aforethought.

I wonder if the standard practice is to charge them with murder and plea bargain down to a lesser man slaughter charge. Is that what I am thinking of?

It depends on what the DA thinks he can get. First degree murder is premeditated, meaning they have to be able to prove that you planned on doing it. Second degree is where it wasn't planned but you had intent to kill (for instance, you walk in on your wife screwing another dude and in a fit of rage you pull out your glock and cap him).

Felony murder is a weird one which is charged when you kill someone during the commission of another felony. For instance, you're robbing a convenience store when a customer who's trying to escape knocks something over. It startles you, you think it's a cop or something, and you turn around and fire blindly thus killing the customer.

Voluntary manslaughter is when you kill someone but usually you had no intention of doing so. It might be levied if, say, you beat the ever-loving shit out of someone and they die but you only intended to beat them up.

Involuntary is when you kill someone but you had no intent (for instance, that drunk driver).

Uzique wrote:

plea bargaining normally happens when a crime has already been proven- you merely bargain (in the english system, at least) the specifics of your sentence, based on the statutory or common-law tariffs in place. that's when you normally consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the individual case. it can be a negotiation of the years you'll serve in the case of a custodial sentence, or the amount you'll be fined in a lesser one - things like that. you can't charge a person with murder who didn't kill the victim with malice aforethought. all the crimes fall under the category of a 'homicide', but there's a decisive difference between a murder and a manslaughter (i don't know if this is the 'degrees' of crime mentioned in the american parlance).

yeah but I think you can charge them with murder and they can take their chances with the jury, or plea to a lesser charge and go the "safer route", right? or am i watching too much tv?

lowing wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

It depends on what the DA thinks he can get. First degree murder is premeditated, meaning they have to be able to prove that you planned on doing it. Second degree is where it wasn't planned but you had intent to kill (for instance, you walk in on your wife screwing another dude and in a fit of rage you pull out your glock and cap him).

Felony murder is a weird one which is charged when you kill someone during the commission of another felony. For instance, you're robbing a convenience store when a customer who's trying to escape knocks something over. It startles you, you think it's a cop or something, and you turn around and fire blindly thus killing the customer.

Voluntary manslaughter is when you kill someone but usually you had no intention of doing so. It might be levied if, say, you beat the ever-loving shit out of someone and they die but you only intended to beat them up.

Involuntary is when you kill someone but you had no intent (for instance, that drunk driver).

couldn't an argument be made for felony murder in an arson case then?

Yeah, I suppose. It really falls under the DA's discretion and the local laws.

Lowing, I think the bargaining process usually works as either having them plead guilty to a lesser crime or having them plead guilty to the same crime but asking the judge to give a lighter sentence.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-05-20 07:31:37)

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

over here guilt for those high-level crimes is almost always decided upon by a jury, anyway.

Same here. The challenge for the DA is which charge he/she can get the conviction on with the jury, based on the evidence at hand.

wat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_barga … ted_States

" the vast majority (roughly 90%)[1] of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial[2][3]. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court"

If the guy pleas guilty, they don't go to trial.

Not here it seems:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/na … ml?sid=101

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i think murder has to always be tried by a jury.

Not if they plea guilty. It only goes to Jury when they plea not guilty.

Apologies if i'm stating the obvious there..

I think Uzique and I thought it was obvious...