Rand
Banned
PRO-DP
Posts: 1,839
|
Post by Rand on Sept 5, 2008 1:32:17 GMT -6
However as I recall you against the law of parties or anything remotely similar. Hopefully you'll see the light someday I'm ok with the DP for the accomplice when he directly and clearly participated in the killing of the victim. It is not always the case in the law of parties. Non Shaka, I'm not a nazi. I don't want to kill the jews. And I dare you to find any post which could suggest such thing ... but since it's crap, you won't find any. PS : Agaveman canceled his profile ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2008 13:51:55 GMT -6
I believe there is an Arizona case where an officer enroute to a felony was killed in a traffic accident some 30 miles from the suspect and they were considering the LOP and the DP. In this case I consider it to be a stretch.
Otherwise LOP makes sense. It doesn't matter who kills who, if a death occurs during the commission of a felony all parties involved in the crime are considered equally culpable. That doesn't necessarilly mean the DA would try for the DP for all the accused, but would have the option.
If I were in Europe I'd be more worried about the imposition of sharia over there than the DP over here. Demographics is destiny...
|
|
|
Post by Shaka on Sept 11, 2008 22:10:23 GMT -6
I believe there is an Arizona case where an officer enroute to a felony was killed in a traffic accident some 30 miles from the suspect and they were considering the LOP and the DP. In this case I consider it to be a stretch. Otherwise LOP makes sense. It doesn't matter who kills who, if a death occurs during the commission of a felony all parties involved in the crime are considered equally culpable. That doesn't necessarilly mean the DA would try for the DP for all the accused, but would have the option. Theres no way I could in good concenious to myself support any punishment for an officer 30 miles from the crime scene thats ridiculous. However if the officer or bystander, for argument sake was killed in care chase with the criminal; thats fine he's totally responsible he caused it by not complying with the officers. You might just be right on this.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 12:57:38 GMT -6
Does the law of parties apply to deaths of criminals too? If two people commit a crime and one dies in the commission of the crime, does the other person get a more serious penalty because SOMEONE (even one of the criminals) died? of course it does. if you and your buddy break into my house, and i blow your buddy's head off, YOU are guilty of first degree murder. if you're driving the getaway car, and hit a pole and kill your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder. of course, in all instances, you can, and should, be executed
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:01:58 GMT -6
your disdain for morality doesn't stand you in any good stead. your aversion to reality is even worse. there is certainly, to any RATIONAL mind, nothing unfair about it. it is exactly right, both legally and morally
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:03:27 GMT -6
Erm.... how so? If two people go out armed and ready to hold up a bank. One of them is trigger happy and kills someone. You saying the other guy shouldn't be held accountable. Sorry dude they both responsible they knowingly put people in danger, someone being killed was always a possibility hence they both should be executed. The fact his mate ( the shooter) bought it during the crime doesn't change that. Question: You say you are prodeathpenalty... for what crime? Being Jewish only? the boy can hardly be pro since he's said a couple of times on this thread that he doesn't support the execution of murderers
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:08:06 GMT -6
Erm.... how so? If two people go out armed and ready to hold up a bank. One of them is trigger happy and kills someone. You saying the other guy shouldn't be held accountable. Sorry dude they both responsible they knowingly put people in danger, someone being killed was always a possibility hence they both should be executed. The fact his mate ( the shooter) bought it during the crime doesn't change that. In fact the one charged with the killing is not even the one who shot. It is the clerk who shot the criminal. So it was self-defense here, not a murder. No murder, then you can't charge someone with murder. This is the danger of applying the law blindly like a robot. Oh no, being jewish is not a capital crime in my book. On the other hand, being gay is a capital crime for you. I'm pro-DP for murderers. But I believe it should not be mandatory, although the majority of them should get it. then why do you keep saying that they shouldn't? three times in this thread, that has been your position. you are fully aware of the fact that ANY participation, however slight the participation, in any felony that results in a death, makes you a murderer. you keep saying murderers shouldn't be executed. then you try to claim that you're a pro. your inability to reason rationally certainly is showing
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:11:01 GMT -6
Erm.... how so? If two people go out armed and ready to hold up a bank. One of them is trigger happy and kills someone. You saying the other guy shouldn't be held accountable. Sorry dude they both responsible they knowingly put people in danger, someone being killed was always a possibility hence they both should be executed. The fact his mate ( the shooter) bought it during the crime doesn't change that. Question: You say you are prodeathpenalty... for what crime? Being Jewish only? Been listening to a former member from this board, I see. She's slipping..still no knock on my door from DHS yet i've been too busy to get around to forwarding the information. sorry. you're not worth her time, but, i can always find time eventually
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:12:15 GMT -6
Been listening to a former member from this board, I see. She's slipping..still no knock on my door from DHS yet I have no idea of what or who you referring to. he doesn't either. the boy is just stupid. of course, you already know that
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:14:38 GMT -6
which is why it is being expanded
|
|
Rand
Banned
PRO-DP
Posts: 1,839
|
Post by Rand on Sept 13, 2008 2:47:34 GMT -6
I'm pro Jumbo. Proud not to be part of the ugly image you and your buddies are showing of the pros : bloodthirsty savages who enjoy personally an execution, for their self interest, and not because of justice or whatever rational concern. You're morbid.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Sept 13, 2008 3:46:01 GMT -6
I'm pro Jumbo. Proud not to be part of the ugly image you and your buddies are showing of the pros : bloodthirsty savages who enjoy personally an execution, for their self interest, and not because of justice or whatever rational concern. You're morbid. Please do NOT equate dumbo with any other pro on this board or any other pro for that matter. We are not his "buddies" as he falls into a disturbed section all on his own. He would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to murder someone and call it self defense. Dude probably leaves his house wide open begging someone to cross his property line. Even those who "celebrate" an execution would ultimately not behave as dumbo does. I fully believe he would act on shooting someone for the F of it, if he could. That is NOT a pro. Period.
|
|
Rand
Banned
PRO-DP
Posts: 1,839
|
Post by Rand on Sept 13, 2008 3:47:15 GMT -6
God, that's even worse than I fought.
|
|
|
Post by draco on Sept 13, 2008 4:01:39 GMT -6
Hey, leave Jumbo alone, you two!
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Sept 13, 2008 4:07:20 GMT -6
God, that's even worse than I fought. What's worse? That he's that crazy? I think he's dangerous and uses the dp as a cover for his own desire to kill. There's no place for that. None.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Sept 13, 2008 4:08:00 GMT -6
Hey, leave Jumbo alone, you two! Ahem...... Pokemon cards.....
|
|
|
Post by draco on Sept 13, 2008 4:10:16 GMT -6
Hey, leave Jumbo alone, you two! Ahem...... Pokemon cards..... Ahem... the josephdphillips program.... no point in booting him in the hard drive either. He's quite used to it.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 13, 2008 6:32:47 GMT -6
I'm pro Jumbo. Proud not to be part of the ugly image you and your buddies are showing of the pros : bloodthirsty savages who enjoy personally an execution, for their self interest, and not because of justice or whatever rational concern. You're morbid. Please do NOT equate dumbo with any other pro on this board or any other pro for that matter. We are not his "buddies" as he falls into a disturbed section all on his own. He would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to murder someone and call it self defense. Dude probably leaves his house wide open begging someone to cross his property line. Even those who "celebrate" an execution would ultimately not behave as dumbo does. I fully believe he would act on shooting someone for the F of it, if he could. That is NOT a pro. Period. Your post would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that you are probably right.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 13, 2008 6:33:53 GMT -6
You right I misread, I have rather a long workday. I took it that the partner died after murdering the shopkeeper, in which case the surviving partner should be eligible for DP. In the case I cited, the robber's partner was tried and executed for his fellow robber's death at the hands of the shopkeeper. Some people lack reading comprehension skills What was the shopkeeper's name, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 13, 2008 6:43:33 GMT -6
I find the concept of the Law of Parties strange because we have a different system here. In the shopkeeper case, the prosecution would have had to prove that the robber who survived at least thought it was possible that someone dies during the robbery yet committed the robbery nonetheless. If the deadly use of the weapon was not intended or considered possible by the surviving robber, he could not be convicted for the death of his co-robber. If it were held that they had agreed beforehand that someone might die, then he probably could be convicted because only the shopkeeper can rely on the self defense argument; the surviving robber could not.
The only crime I am aware of where the existence of a certain fact alone means that one is punishable is in pub brawls. If you take part in a brawl here and someone is seriously hurt, you are punishable irrespective of whether you were the one to cause the bodily harm, unless you can prove that you tried to get out.
I suppose the felony rule is the same principal and we havent extended it here yet to all felonies because crime isn't so bad (yet).
|
|
|
Post by Shaka on Sept 13, 2008 21:14:30 GMT -6
I find the concept of the Law of Parties strange because we have a different system here. In the shopkeeper case, the prosecution would have had to prove that the robber who survived at least thought it was possible that someone dies during the robbery yet committed the robbery nonetheless. If the deadly use of the weapon was not intended or considered possible by the surviving robber, he could not be convicted for the death of his co-robber. If it were held that they had agreed beforehand that someone might die, then he probably could be convicted because only the shopkeeper can rely on the self defense argument; the surviving robber could not. The only crime I am aware of where the existence of a certain fact alone means that one is punishable is in pub brawls. If you take part in a brawl here and someone is seriously hurt, you are punishable irrespective of whether you were the one to cause the bodily harm, unless you can prove that you tried to get out. I suppose the felony rule is the same principal and we havent extended it here yet to all felonies because crime isn't so bad (yet). You basically agreeing with Rands point.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 14, 2008 15:47:39 GMT -6
I'm pro Jumbo. Proud not to be part of the ugly image you and your buddies are showing of the pros : bloodthirsty savages who enjoy personally an execution, for their self interest, and not because of justice or whatever rational concern. You're morbid. hardly lad. wrong again. YOU are the epitome of a wowie. your stated idea that murderers shouldn't be executed hardly gives you credibility as a pro. since it is an irrefutable FACT that EVERY individual involved in a crime which results in a death is a murderer, and you have specifically stated that they should not be executed, you can hardly call yourself a true pro. i am completely ambivalent when there is an execution, so you lose again. i am thankful that a worthless piece of garbage has ceased to pollute our air, but i also know that there is NO difference between executing a murderer and swatting a fly, except the fly didn't deserve to die.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 14, 2008 15:49:19 GMT -6
I'm pro Jumbo. Proud not to be part of the ugly image you and your buddies are showing of the pros : bloodthirsty savages who enjoy personally an execution, for their self interest, and not because of justice or whatever rational concern. You're morbid. Please do NOT equate dumbo with any other pro on this board or any other pro for that matter. We are not his "buddies" as he falls into a disturbed section all on his own. He would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to murder someone and call it self defense. Dude probably leaves his house wide open begging someone to cross his property line. Even those who "celebrate" an execution would ultimately not behave as dumbo does. I fully believe he would act on shooting someone for the F of it, if he could. That is NOT a pro. Period. don't be daft hon. you know damn well that you can't shoot anybody for the f of it. that's illegal
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 14, 2008 15:51:05 GMT -6
God, that's even worse than I fought. What's worse? That he's that crazy? I think he's dangerous and uses the dp as a cover for his own desire to kill. There's no place for that. None. you have every right to be wrong. you just shouldn't do it so often
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 14, 2008 15:58:22 GMT -6
I find the concept of the Law of Parties strange because we have a different system here. In the shopkeeper case, the prosecution would have had to prove that the robber who survived at least thought it was possible that someone dies during the robbery yet committed the robbery nonetheless. If the deadly use of the weapon was not intended or considered possible by the surviving robber, he could not be convicted for the death of his co-robber. If it were held that they had agreed beforehand that someone might die, then he probably could be convicted because only the shopkeeper can rely on the self defense argument; the surviving robber could not. The only crime I am aware of where the existence of a certain fact alone means that one is punishable is in pub brawls. If you take part in a brawl here and someone is seriously hurt, you are punishable irrespective of whether you were the one to cause the bodily harm, unless you can prove that you tried to get out. I suppose the felony rule is the same principal and we havent extended it here yet to all felonies because crime isn't so bad (yet). virtually every nation has the law of parties. in england, it's called the law of common criminal enterprise. you just cited your law of parties there is no problem. when one of the thieves puts a bullet in a gun, they BOTH know that someone might get killed. obviously, if someone does, they are BOTH guilty of murder, regardless of who pulls the trigger
|
|