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

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Why? I'm not playing your little games, lowing.

Discuss the topic at hand, if you can.

I am, the topic is classifications of murder. You claim a person that comes home early and catches his wife in bed with another man  and kills them both, is the same classification as a guy that schemed to kill his wife, cover it up and escape to Mexico....I showed you where they were not the same. Yet you insist they are, so back it up. Oh and again, since it is the OP we are discussing, try to find something else. Obviously you can not, because if you could have you would have done so, instead of dismissing me and my argument as nothing more than little games you don't have time for.

Actually the topic is this specific case. See the title?
You are throwing around examples that have nothing to do with this case as some foundation of a pseudo argument and then complain when no one joins in your solo, hypothetical game. If you can't argue this case, start another thread about what it is you want to discuss.

BTW if this were a court of law your arguments as they currently stand would be laughed out of court, and the defendant would sack you as a lawyer. It's just silly.

That is a bitch move if there ever was one.

Well, when you carry on like one...

DrunkFace wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

According to the following definitions(which have been very simplified) and examples I think 2nd Degree fits best...

Interesting to know that the kid who got away could be charged with 1st Degree murder. hmm

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/ … egree.html

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/ … egree.html

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/ … ntary.html

No, specifically read the example, it does not fit at all with this case.

Here's 3 example which should clearly show the differences.
You're driving your car in sound state of mind legally, you are momentarily distracted and run down a pedestrian - Manslaughter.
You're driving your car while intoxicated, loss control of your car as a result and run down a pedestrian - Murder 2
You're driving your car and someone throws an egg at you, you get angry turn your car towards that person and run them down - Murder 1

This case clearly fits with scenario 3.

Spark wrote:

Lowing I have no idea what you're doing here. The definitions are right there and they're pretty obvious. I can see why people would not want to argue with you when you constantly ignore the definitions.

Last edited by lowing (2011-05-31 01:19:51)

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

I thought precedence was key in a defense, guess not. Anyway, good thing this isn't a court of law huh Jaekus?

I'm not defending the convicted here, you are. LMAO.


It's pretty obvious you're obfuscating from the actual case at hand by bringing up hypotheticals. You ask for cases but have not presented one case yourself where a similar incident has occurred and someone has not received murder one. How about doing your homework and come back when you can support your argument. I've supported mine numerous times now.


Quote me where I made such claims. Oh, wait, you can't.

actually I did present an example of murder 2 that fit the OP. YOu chose to dismiss it. Something I can not help. You have not supported your argument at all, with examples of other cases similar to the OP, reason is, you can not.

Why do I need to find an example? The guy was convicted. I am not the one that needs to convince anyone he is guilty. I am merely pointing out as to why he was found guilty. It is your job to convince otherwise, which you have failed.

You are right

Yes, I know.

you claim there is a difference between the 2, you simply refuse to point them out. I can only assume by doing so would point out the difference between murder 1 and murder 2.

You can assume all you like. I have pointed out how it is murder one. Numerous people in this thread have agreed with me. No one has yet agreed with you. I don't need to bring up spurious arguments for others to "argue" against when I have discussed the facts of the case. Something you are avoiding.

Something you can not do without you argument falling apart.

This, coming from you, with the argument you are presenting, is surely a joke.

Last edited by lowing (2011-05-31 02:37:17)

JahManRed wrote:

Part of me says. This is what happens when you give citizens handguns. They don't have the training to control their emotions. I'm sure that guy was full of adrenalin and not thinking straight.
Another part of me says. Those kids could have shot him if he hadn't shot them first.
Either way its murder. But I still feel for the store guy. A moment of madness just after someone put a gun in your face.

Good to see this is all over the news. If any good comes out of it, scum bags might think twice about doing something like that.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the dead guy. Play with fire, you get burned.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I haven't looked for any examples.
I can not be bothered to look for examples when the FACTS speak for themselves.
I prefer to argue the facts, not scenarios you've read in the paper or watched on crime shows.
You keep avoiding the facts so I can answer some comparative between what the topic is about and some scenario that is unrelated.
It's not your job to convince me of anything, which is good because nothing you've presented is at all convincing.

yes ya have. you can say you haven't.......but you have, and you haven't found any.

It is the facts we are discussing, and like any other discussion comparisons and analogies has been applied to these facts. You however, will not accept that, because you yourself can not find any to support your argument. Hell, you refuse to even point out the differences you acknowledge between the OP and a REAL premeditated murder case.

I am arguing the facts, and am using other cases that mirror the OP where the person is NOT charged with first degree murder to do it.

We are at an impasse then, if you refuse to look at anything else other than the OP which is what is in question, there is nothing more to discuss.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Ty wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

if you wanna get out of jury duty just tell you studied law.  they dont want anybody with any kind of legal knowledge in juries.  its much easier to pursuade.

I have to turn up to the NZ High Court next Tuesday for Jury Duty. I studied law for two years, d'you reckon that's enough for me to be excused?

should be. just say something like "i'm quite fascinated with the legal system, in fact i have studied law for years." throw in a few legal terms here and there.