|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 8, 2018 13:18:54 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger.
How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 8, 2018 15:46:58 GMT -6
A gun. Makes it a felony. Best outcome would be if the intended victim has a gun and shoots the criminal dead
The one in the get away car is assisting whatever the outcome, knowing it involves a gun, & a death.
Then he leaves the scene of the crime, flees with his buddy. If they get the money they both share it.
You cannot say the one who went in with the loaded gun, had no intentions of shooting anyone, nor can the one who brought then there to commit the crime then flee with them.
No that law has guidelines & should remain.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 8, 2018 21:48:38 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? Well duh, fugly. But explaining the blindly obvious to you is a waste of effort, as I'm pretty sure YOU thought brotha'bama and hillary were good ideas. And fugly, if there is one thing you've made perfectly clear on this site it's that you have total disdain for our constitution, so don't try to wrap yourself up in it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 9, 2018 2:55:04 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? I too am troubled by those laws. I suspect the true motivation for having them is that they allow the prosecutor to pressure the accomplice to flip on the murderer. But the cost is that they may lead to the getaway driver as harsh or harsher sentence than the triggerman. And that's absurd. I don't know why you think it is unconstitutional, though. What's your thinking there?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2018 8:28:57 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. Intent is not part of the definition of murder in California, so you're objection isn't applicable here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 8:58:32 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? It's pretty rare that a felony murder charge will bring a death sentence for anyone except the actual shooter(s). I recall one case where the (retarded) guy driving the get-away car was sentenced to death, while the actual shooter got a lesser sentence. His mama used to post here. Long time forgotten.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 9:01:00 GMT -6
A gun. Makes it a felony. Best outcome would be if the intended victim has a gun and shoots the criminal dead The one in the get away car is assisting whatever the outcome, knowing it involves a gun, & a death. Then he leaves the scene of the crime, flees with his buddy. If they get the money they both share it. You cannot say the one who went in with the loaded gun, had no intentions of shooting anyone, nor can the one who brought then there to commit the crime then flee with them. No that law has guidelines & should remain. What if you had no idea the robber was carrying a gun? Are you still responsible if he chooses to use the gun you were unaware of?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 9, 2018 9:27:37 GMT -6
No that law has guidelines & should remain. Repeat. That law has "guidelines" & should remain.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 9, 2018 10:01:49 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? How about an example fug? One who had no intention, not responsible for killing anyone & not involved in the killing at all? Found guilty? Do you have a link to that case?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 9, 2018 10:05:56 GMT -6
A gun. Makes it a felony. Best outcome would be if the intended victim has a gun and shoots the criminal dead The one in the get away car is assisting whatever the outcome, knowing it involves a gun, & a death. Then he leaves the scene of the crime, flees with his buddy. If they get the money they both share it. You cannot say the one who went in with the loaded gun, had no intentions of shooting anyone, nor can the one who brought then there to commit the crime then flee with them. No that law has guidelines & should remain. What if you had no idea the robber was carrying a gun? Are you still responsible if he chooses to use the gun you were unaware of? If you flee & run , not turn yourself in, even days after the fact if not caught. Share the money, type vehicle driven( stolen) . No remorse for victim only your own azz. How many other robberies connected to. Guidelines to that law.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 9, 2018 10:30:17 GMT -6
A gun. Makes it a felony. Best outcome would be if the intended victim has a gun and shoots the criminal dead The one in the get away car is assisting whatever the outcome, knowing it involves a gun, & a death. Then he leaves the scene of the crime, flees with his buddy. If they get the money they both share it. You cannot say the one who went in with the loaded gun, had no intentions of shooting anyone, nor can the one who brought then there to commit the crime then flee with them. No that law has guidelines & should remain. What if you had no idea the robber was carrying a gun? Are you still responsible if he chooses to use the gun you were unaware of? Then maybe you should hang around with a better class of "robber".
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 9, 2018 10:35:28 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? I too am troubled by those laws. I suspect the true motivation for having them is that they allow the prosecutor to pressure the accomplice to flip on the murderer. But the cost is that they may lead to the getaway driver as harsh or harsher sentence than the triggerman. And that's absurd. I don't know why you think it is unconstitutional, though. What's your thinking there? I don't see the slightest difference between this and two guys attacking a women. One holds her down while the other deposits his DNA in her. Only one guy did that. But they should both be convicted of rape. If you participate in any way, in any crime, the consequences of such, intended or not SHOULD belong to all. Some laws allow it, some stupid laws don't.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 9, 2018 10:48:21 GMT -6
Went to school for 12 years with a girl who was raped and murdered during a robbery one month before graduation. Two went in the store with a getaway driver outside. Others were killed but i dont think a gun was used, but dont recall. Two were convicted and eveeeentually executed. I don't recall if the driver was charged with a capitol or not but was not convicted of such. Did his time, got out and was murdered in the Midwest somewhere. Good. I always hoped the girls father was in someway involved, as a good father should be. He should have been executed with the other two scum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 10:57:12 GMT -6
On second thought... If someone dies during the commission of any felony (even with no weapon), ie: the rape victim bleeds out, the robbie (or even his robber friend) dies of a heart attack, a pedestrian is accidentally run over by the fleeing perp, I believe the state can seek a death sentence.
I know full well that *usually* prosecutors won't seek the max or even a first degree murder. That's because jurors will rarely convict someone who didn't have 'intent to kill' or weren't armed of 1st degree murder. Tough enough to get a second degree murder in this situation.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2018 11:03:42 GMT -6
It's pretty rare that a felony murder charge will bring a death sentence for anyone except the actual shooter(s). Outside of California, that is. The Charles Manson case comes to mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 11:34:57 GMT -6
It's pretty rare that a felony murder charge will bring a death sentence for anyone except the actual shooter(s). Outside of California, that is. The Charles Manson case comes to mind. Charles Manson is an extreme and rare case, I think. (Not arguing whatsoever with his conviction.) When our (second) guy (who was unarmed) was going to trial, our prosecutor (as well as the DA) said that a jury would never convict him of 1st degree murder. He said in CA, it's rare. His words. And, I guess, he should know. (Of course, the DA also thought our case was a slam-dunk for DP). They sought instead a 2nd degree murder for the non-shooter, and even so, the jury hung ~ according to them, because they couldn't wrap their minds around someone who was unarmed and had no intent to kill was guilty of murder.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2018 11:59:57 GMT -6
Charles Manson is an extreme and rare case, I think. (Not arguing whatsoever with his conviction.) When our (second) guy (who was unarmed) was going to trial, our prosecutor (as well as the DA) said that a jury would never convict him of 1st degree murder. He said in CA, it's rare. Your prosecutor obviously doesn't live out here. Most murders here are gang-related, and we have a number of laws that enhance felonies based on gang participation in crimes, murder being among them. The felony murder rule is a good one and should be kept. Without it, adult gangbangers have an incentive to have under-18 gang members doing the actual shooting, thus avoiding punishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 12:33:42 GMT -6
Charles Manson is an extreme and rare case, I think. (Not arguing whatsoever with his conviction.) When our (second) guy (who was unarmed) was going to trial, our prosecutor (as well as the DA) said that a jury would never convict him of 1st degree murder. He said in CA, it's rare. Your prosecutor obviously doesn't live out here. District Attorney Dennis Stout, of San Bernardino, CA. True. But, you still have to gather a jury that believes it's murder when they didn't pull the trigger and weren't armed. Not saying I agree. Maybe people up here are daft. I know I thought so when after 3 and a half years we were still going to have yet another trial without any real hope of a different outcome. The DA let him plead down instead. (That was the second perp. The first - the shooter - got LWOP.) Oh, I absolutely agree that the felony murder rule is good - for a number of reasons, this one being just one.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 9, 2018 14:51:05 GMT -6
District Attorney Dennis Stout, of San Bernardino, CA. I'm surprised. In California, drunk drivers have been convicted of murder. I don't believe the "jurors won't convict" nonsense. That's a convenient cop-out for prosecutors that are softer on criminals than the general public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 17:13:35 GMT -6
District Attorney Dennis Stout, of San Bernardino, CA. I'm surprised. In California, drunk drivers have been convicted of murder. I don't believe the "jurors won't convict" nonsense. That's a convenient cop-out for prosecutors that are softer on criminals than the general public. Stout (of San Bernardino County, not city) was an elected official back then around 1999 or 2000, and he was up for reelection, I believe. He only wanted cases tried to the max that were (to quote him) "slam dunks". The 2nd guy, who the jury hung over when he was tried for 2nd degree murder, wound up pleading to aggravated robbery or something like it, and getting 10 years. The prosecutor (not the DA) said that he could try him again, but it'd be a couple more years of court BS, postponements and another trial with even more witnesses having moved away, and still no guarantee of a 'win'. By then (3 1/2 years after Jim's murder), with the shooter having been convicted and sentenced to LWOP at year 3, we couldn't stomach any more of living that way ~ from court date to court date, my daughter had already spent her formative years, from 15 to 18 in court ~ and never being allowed to heal. I told him to make the deal. Anyway, maybe people (jurors) up here are different than in LA. And, maybe they were different back then.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 9, 2018 23:31:28 GMT -6
I too am troubled by those laws. I suspect the true motivation for having them is that they allow the prosecutor to pressure the accomplice to flip on the murderer. But the cost is that they may lead to the getaway driver as harsh or harsher sentence than the triggerman. And that's absurd. I don't know why you think it is unconstitutional, though. What's your thinking there? I don't see the slightest difference between this and two guys attacking a women. One holds her down while the other deposits his DNA in her. Only one guy did that. But they should both be convicted of rape. If you participate in any way, in any crime, the consequences of such, intended or not "Intended or not" makes a big difference to me. In the case you gave where the accomplice holds a person while the primary offendant assaults her, the assault is intended by both. But when someone drives his buddy to go buy some drugs, and the buyer has an unexpected fight with the dealer and kills him, do you really think the guy who drove him there should be charged with murder?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 10, 2018 8:04:47 GMT -6
when someone drives his buddy to go buy some drugs, and the buyer has an unexpected fight with the dealer and kills him, do you really think the guy who drove him there should be charged with murder? I certainly do. Without the driver's participation, the crime victim would not have been murdered.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 8:35:36 GMT -6
I don't see the slightest difference between this and two guys attacking a women. One holds her down while the other deposits his DNA in her. Only one guy did that. But they should both be convicted of rape. If you participate in any way, in any crime, the consequences of such, intended or not "Intended or not" makes a big difference to me. In the case you gave where the accomplice holds a person while the primary offendant assaults her, the assault is intended by both. But when someone drives his buddy to go buy some drugs, and the buyer has an unexpected fight with the dealer and kills him, do you really think the guy who drove him there should be charged with murder? Bernard, society has gotten to the point when everyone has a Right, but nobody has a Responsibility. According to your statement. I agree with Joe.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 10, 2018 8:53:37 GMT -6
I don't see the slightest difference between this and two guys attacking a women. One holds her down while the other deposits his DNA in her. Only one guy did that. But they should both be convicted of rape. If you participate in any way, in any crime, the consequences of such, intended or not "Intended or not" makes a big difference to me. In the case you gave where the accomplice holds a person while the primary offendant assaults her, the assault is intended by both. But when someone drives his buddy to go buy some drugs, and the buyer has an unexpected fight with the dealer and kills him, do you really think the guy who drove him there should be charged with murder? Yup. Pick better buddies. Committing crimes is risky busines.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 10, 2018 8:56:36 GMT -6
Well Bernard, I guess prison overpopulation wouldn't be a problem if "I didn't mean to..." carried any weight. Wish I had a nickel for every time I heard that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 13:37:40 GMT -6
What about this one? A guy looking to score some drugs calls an Uber. In the conversation on the way over, the customer says he's going to go score some blow. The Uber driver isn't totally sure which drug blow is, but figures it's illegal and says, "I don't wanna know". At the destination, the customer tells the Uber driver to keep the meter running and wait. He comes out a a few minutes later. The Uber driver doesn't notice the blood and drives him home. What the Uber driver didn't realize was that, inside the dealer's house, there was a falling out and the customer stabbed the dealer to death.
Is the Uber driver guilty of murder?
If the answer is no, tell me what the difference is.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 13:42:06 GMT -6
when someone drives his buddy to go buy some drugs, and the buyer has an unexpected fight with the dealer and kills him, do you really think the guy who drove him there should be charged with murder? I certainly do. Without the driver's participation, the crime victim would not have been murdered. By the same logic, without the participation of firearms manufacturers, firearm murders would be an impossibility. Though some liberals will say that's reason enough to haul them into court, I find that argument to be ludicrous. Providing the means for the murder ≠ murder.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 13:49:05 GMT -6
What about this one? A guy looking to score some drugs calls an Uber. In the conversation on the way over, the customer says he's going to go score some blow. The Uber driver isn't totally sure which drug blow is, but figures it's illegal and says, "I don't wanna know". At the destination, the customer tells the Uber driver to keep the meter running and wait. He comes out a a few minutes later. The Uber driver doesn't notice the blood and drives him home. What the Uber driver didn't realize was that, inside the dealer's house, there was a falling out and the customer stabbed the dealer to death. Is the Uber driver guilty of murder? If the answer is no, tell me what the difference is. That is why there are guidelines to that law. SO? Big difference from your other scenario. Oh wait that must be the one fugug mention to begin this thread. It was the Uber driver who had no intention of killing anyone, not responsible for killing anyone, was not involved in the killing. It was that law that got the Uber driver found guilty of murder too.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 13:52:38 GMT -6
I certainly do. Without the driver's participation, the crime victim would not have been murdered. By the same logic, without the participation of firearms manufacturers, firearm murders would be an impossibility. Though some liberals will say that's reason enough to haul them into court, I find that argument to be ludicrous. Providing the means for the murder ≠ murder. That is ludicrous, yet still has nothing to do with that law or the scenarios you placed.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 14:44:34 GMT -6
What about this one? A guy looking to score some drugs calls an Uber. In the conversation on the way over, the customer says he's going to go score some blow. The Uber driver isn't totally sure which drug blow is, but figures it's illegal and says, "I don't wanna know". At the destination, the customer tells the Uber driver to keep the meter running and wait. He comes out a a few minutes later. The Uber driver doesn't notice the blood and drives him home. What the Uber driver didn't realize was that, inside the dealer's house, there was a falling out and the customer stabbed the dealer to death. Is the Uber driver guilty of murder? If the answer is no, tell me what the difference is. That is why there are guidelines to that law. SO? Big difference from your other scenario. Oh wait that must be the one fugug mention to begin this thread. It was the Uber driver who had no intention of killing anyone, not responsible for killing anyone, was not involved in the killing. So if the customer asks a friend, instead of an Uber driver, to give him a ride to the dealer's house, and the friend doesn't anticipate that the transaction will end in bloodshed, but it does, the friend is guilty of murder. But if the customer asks an Uber driver, instead of a friend, to give him a ride to the dealer's house, and the Uber driver doesn't anticipate that the transaction will end in bloodshed, but it does, the Uber driver is not guilty of murder. I am not seeing any logic or common sense here.
|
|