|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 10, 2018 14:48:32 GMT -6
without the participation of firearms manufacturers, firearm murders would be an impossibility. If the firearms manufacturer commits a felony doing it, sure. Those licensed to manufacture firearms, however, are not breaking any laws.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 14:49:26 GMT -6
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. Joe said that the reason the friend is guilty is that "Without the driver's participation, the crime victim would not have been murdered." Well, "without the firearm manufacturer's participation, the victim would not have been shot". Sauce for the goose.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 10, 2018 14:49:50 GMT -6
Is the Uber driver guilty of murder? Of course he is. He committed a felony the minute he accepted the passenger.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 14:56:00 GMT -6
without the participation of firearms manufacturers, firearm murders would be an impossibility. If the firearms manufacturer commits a felony doing it, sure. Fair enough. Then suppose that Junior asks Dad if he can have Dad's AR-15 for his 21st birthday. Dad says yes. Buddy borrows the AR-15 from Junior, and murders Noah Deadman with it. Under California law, Dad committed a felony in giving Junior the AR-15, and Junior committed a felony in letting Buddy borrow it. Without their participation, Buddy would not have shot Noah Deadman to death. Should both Dad and Junior be charged with murder?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 15:00:04 GMT -6
Is the Uber driver guilty of murder? Of course he is. He committed a felony the minute he accepted the passenger. And of course you think all murderers should be executed, so it's gurney time for this Uber driver. We're at that point where no serious person will take you seriously, and you must merely harrumph about their lack of moral backbone.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 15:01:52 GMT -6
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. The friend to a degree yes, drug deals go bad eventually & death. Illegal activity to begin with. The Uber driver does not know what blow is to begin with( he did not say he was going to a dealers house. The Uber does not know any of them, & people BS all the time. Uber is doing a job, not a crime. Going for blow could be taken in anther way too. lol See that is where the guidelines come into play the Uber driver may face a fine or community service, maybe a short time in jail? Fired? So, there is logic after all Bernard. Unlike fug 's post.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 10, 2018 15:03:05 GMT -6
Bernard, this what "investigations" are for. Most "buddies" staying in the car with the motor running are aware of some crime going on, so buyer beware. Trying to implicate a cabbie isn't going to fly. But since you brought up "intent" if the getaway driver is aware that the others are going to kill someone, are you now ok with executing the driver even though he didn't kill anyone?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 15:13:56 GMT -6
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. The friend to a degree yes, drug deals go bad eventually & death. Illegal activity to begin with. The Uber driver does not know what blow is to begin with( he did not say he was going to a dealers house. Right. I agree that these seem like relevant considerations. However, the passenger does tell the driver while they're driving that he is heading to score some blow, which is when the driver says he doesn't want to know. At that point, I guess, the driver should have stopped the car and told him to get out. By affecting ignorance and continuing with the journey, the driver committed a felony. Joe is in favor of executing the Uber driver. I assume you disagree. True, but at the same time people also score drugs all the time, so it's plausible the guy is doing exactly what he says. Let's stipulate that the driver believes the passenger, but figures it's none of his business. He's just the driver. Professional crooks are doing a job. So are the illegal immigrants in the kitchen. Doesn't mean its not a crime. Do you mean going to trumpet practice?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 15:23:56 GMT -6
Yeah of course trumpet practice. Where did your mind go? I know professionals crooks are doing jobs all time . Normally the job is a legal job though.
Lets get real, the Uber driver was not going to be charged with murder. Poor judgement, or maybe afraid if he asked him to get out? You said he did not notice the blood on the killer, so nothing to report. Just another crazy customer maybe? I do not know what was going thru his head. Dealing with the public is a dangerous job.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 15:38:24 GMT -6
Bernard, this what "investigations" are for. Most "buddies" staying in the car with the motor running are aware of some crime going on, so buyer beware. Trying to implicate a cabbie isn't going to fly. But since you brought up "intent" if the getaway driver is aware that the others are going to kill someone, are you now ok with executing the driver even though he didn't kill anyone? Well I am an anti so I don't support execution, but I guess the question is whether I would support a murder charge. If he took them there in the knowledge that they were going to commit murder, he is an accessory before the fact and guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I have no major issue with rounding that up to murder. It's different, IMO, when he's the driver for some minor felony (like going to go buy some weed, which I believe is still a felony in some states, a misdemeanor in others, legal for medical purposes in others and legal for fun in others) but his passenger unexpectedly starts painting the walls with people's heads. I think you responded earlier that he should pick better friends. No doubt he should. But choosing your friends unwisely isn't murder. Being friends with someone who goes on to commit murder isn't murder. Similarly, suppose Buddy is going to score some drugs, and would feel safer if he had a gun. Junior relents and lets Buddy borrow his. In that case, (a) Junior knew Buddy was going to commit a felony drug purchase (b) Junior assisted him in this felony, by providing him with a way to feel safer while making the transaction. If the deal goes south, should Junior be charged with the murders Buddy commits? Be careful of answering yes. You'll lose your second amendment by inches. This kind of "guilt by association" is troubling to me, and looks like a way to encroach slowly upon people's constitutional rights. "Mickey didn't murder anyone, but he drove the car that allowed someone else to murder someone, and that COUNTS!!!" "Trump didn't collude with the Russian Federation, but one of his campaign team met with a Russian citizen, and that COUNTS!!!!" "Dad didn't murder anyone, but he provided Junior with the gun that Buddy used, and that COUNTS!!!" No, it doesn't, or shouldn't. Dad should be held guilty for what he did, namely gifting a restricted firearm to his son. Junior should be held guilty for what he did, namely lending that firearm to Buddy in violation of the law, and helping his friend in the commission of a felony drug purchase. Neither of them should be held guilty for what they did not do. And they did not murder anyone.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 15:45:00 GMT -6
Yeah of course trumpet practice. Where did your mind go? I know professionals crooks are doing jobs all time . Normally the job is a legal job though. Lets get real, the Uber driver was not going to be charged with murder. Anything that I can argue "is the same" on a web forum is something an infinitely more skillful prosecutor can argue "is the same" in a court of law. And if you're asking me to put my faith in the Robert Muellers of this world, I don't. I think we agree that the Uber driver should not be charged with murder. However, I worry that under a law that permits getaway drivers to count as the murderers themselves, the Uber driver would count. Gee, what would stop professional getaway drivers from registering for Uber, and taking a hit job or a bank heist as a fare? Where do you draw the line? Here's where I think we should draw it. Did they pull the trigger, or knowingly conspire to murder? If so, throw the book at them. If not, and if they were merely the getaway driver for a lesser felony, not expecting a murder to happen, then get them for the lesser felony. But murder? No. The problem is that conspiracy is hard to prove. Laws like this may be there to remove that burden and make the prosecutor's job easier. If so, they seem to me to be attempts to circumvent due process. Yikes. I realized I just answered the question I put to fugly.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 16:15:01 GMT -6
Sounds like the guidelines already there to that law, Bernard.
No need to pat yourself on the back.
I still want a link ( I asked fug for ) & never got, where someone was actually charged with murder under the circumstances fug posted to begin this thread.
The friends knew murder in the drug culture could happen in their illegal activity. The get away driver never reported the crime, shared in the benefits( drugs/money. Knew what they were doing & what they were up against.
Unless after an investigation the Uber driver is found to be connected ( anything is possilbe) but needs to be proven.
The law as is,is a GOOD LAW.
To score a blow, could have mean't just a house of ill repute. Which Clinton with his legal job hung around a lot, & one house someone was murdered. In Arkansas.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 10, 2018 16:50:26 GMT -6
you think all murderers should be executed, so it's gurney time for this Uber driver. I believe all murder convicts should be punished the same, as do the good people of Michigan. The moral underpinnings of that view are beyond reproach. All murder victims are equally harmed, so their murderers should be equally punished. You seem to be the one without a backbone, Bernard. You want to give an easy out for those responsible for homicides, simply because you think those with weapons are always more culpable.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 10, 2018 16:54:26 GMT -6
Fair enough. Then suppose that Junior asks Dad if he can have Dad's AR-15 for his 21st birthday. Dad says yes. Under the California murder statute, sections 187 et seq, all it takes is implied malice to convict a defendant of murder. Part of that definition is a depraved indifference to human life, and I'm sure the father can be shown to have exhibited that indifference in willfully handing a semi-automatic or automatic rifle over to another. Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 16:56:30 GMT -6
Sounds like the guidelines already there to that law, Bernard. We aspire to be a nation of laws, not one of guidelines to be followed at the discretion of prosecutors. As we have seen on the national stage in the last couple of years, the more we leave to prosecutorial discretion, the more we permit politics and personal ambition to pre-empt justice and waste everybody's time. So now I am congratulating myself without knowing it? A personal best. I agree that that's a fair request and would be relevant. But wouldn't you agree that the existence of an abusable law is cause for concern even if it has not yet been abused? You might be asking for a different, better, law than the one we're discussing. You think that there should be proof that the driver shares the benefits of the crime, knew what they were doing, is proven to be connected in a criminal ring, etc. I agree that those are good things to demand. They put an appropriate burden on the prosecutor. But does the law as it stands require all that? Such a tempting topic. You're surely trying to trick me into breaking my own rules about sticking to the subject of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 17:13:16 GMT -6
Well, guidelines are built around every law.
Unless thru proof of a legit link, I still want to see a case where fugs statement can be verified. All laws could be seen as abused. Does the law as it stands require all that? Well, that is why I am asking for a link. I believe they require that, if they follow the guidelines, prove they do not.
No not intended to trick you into going off topic, just the conversation brought that to mind. Professional crooks having legal jobs etc...
I said don't pat yourself on the back by using your famous "I win " meaning you in discussions" debates' arguments' . lol in the past
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 17:21:24 GMT -6
you think all murderers should be executed, so it's gurney time for this Uber driver. I believe all murder convicts should be punished the same, as do the good people of Michigan. The moral underpinnings of that view are beyond reproach. All murder victims are equally harmed, so their murderers should be equally punished. Sounds good, but you must be screwing something up in the application. "Jones was murdered and is equal to all other murder victims. Therefore the guy who planned the murder and pulled the trigger should not be punished more harshly than the guy who showed up intending to buy a bit of weed." Doesn't really follow does it? It isn't to do with weapons. The guy who strangled someone to death with his own bare hands, no weapons involved, should be charged with murder. His Uber driver that night should not.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 10, 2018 17:24:21 GMT -6
Fair enough. Then suppose that Junior asks Dad if he can have Dad's AR-15 for his 21st birthday. Dad says yes. Under the California murder statute, sections 187 et seq, all it takes is implied malice to convict a defendant of murder. Part of that definition is a depraved indifference to human life, and I'm sure the father can be shown to have exhibited that indifference in willfully handing a semi-automatic or automatic rifle over to another. Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different. I'm asking whether the law as it stands is a good law. You're asking how to apply it. Those are different questions and we are not disagreeing. You are, however, disagreeing with whitediamonds, who thinks that given the guidelines in place, people like Junior and the Uber driver have nothing to worry about. They would never be convicted under the law as it stands. "On the contrary," you are saying to her, "Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different." Maybe I should butt out and let you two rumble.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 10, 2018 17:49:09 GMT -6
Bernard, this what "investigations" are for. Most "buddies" staying in the car with the motor running are aware of some crime going on, so buyer beware. Trying to implicate a cabbie isn't going to fly. But since you brought up "intent" if the getaway driver is aware that the others are going to kill someone, are you now ok with executing the driver even though he didn't kill anyone? Well I am an anti so I don't support execution, but I guess the question is whether I would support a murder charge. If he took them there in the knowledge that they were going to commit murder, he is an accessory before the fact and guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I have no major issue with rounding that up to murder. It's different, IMO, when he's the driver for some minor felony (like going to go buy some weed, which I believe is still a felony in some states, a misdemeanor in others, legal for medical purposes in others and legal for fun in others) but his passenger unexpectedly starts painting the walls with people's heads. I think you responded earlier that he should pick better friends. No doubt he should. But choosing your friends unwisely isn't murder. Being friends with someone who goes on to commit murder isn't murder. Similarly, suppose Buddy is going to score some drugs, and would feel safer if he had a gun. Junior relents and lets Buddy borrow his. In that case, (a) Junior knew Buddy was going to commit a felony drug purchase (b) Junior assisted him in this felony, by providing him with a way to feel safer while making the transaction. If the deal goes south, should Junior be charged with the murders Buddy commits? Be careful of answering yes. You'll lose your second amendment by inches. This kind of "guilt by association" is troubling to me, and looks like a way to encroach slowly upon people's constitutional rights. "Mickey didn't murder anyone, but he drove the car that allowed someone else to murder someone, and that COUNTS!!!" "Trump didn't collude with the Russian Federation, but one of his campaign team met with a Russian citizen, and that COUNTS!!!!" "Dad didn't murder anyone, but he provided Junior with the gun that Buddy used, and that COUNTS!!!" No, it doesn't, or shouldn't. Dad should be held guilty for what he did, namely gifting a restricted firearm to his son. Junior should be held guilty for what he did, namely lending that firearm to Buddy in violation of the law, and helping his friend in the commission of a felony drug purchase. Neither of them should be held guilty for what they did not do. And they did not murder anyone. If I "knowingly" let buddy borrow my gun "knowing" he is going to commit crime, then there is no being careful about my answer. I deserve to lose my 2nd rights. The whole point is if 3 people "knowingly" commit a crime and anyone of them steps it up, then they all should be found guilty of the higher offense or consequence. And that is NOT guilty by association but guilty by participation. Simple and quite obvious.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 17:50:07 GMT -6
Under the California murder statute, sections 187 et seq, all it takes is implied malice to convict a defendant of murder. Part of that definition is a depraved indifference to human life, and I'm sure the father can be shown to have exhibited that indifference in willfully handing a semi-automatic or automatic rifle over to another. Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different. I'm asking whether the law as it stands is a good law. You're asking how to apply it. Those are different questions and we are not disagreeing. You are, however, disagreeing with whitediamonds, who thinks that given the guidelines in place, people like Junior and the Uber driver have nothing to worry about. They would never be convicted under the law as it stands. "On the contrary," you are saying to her, "Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different." Maybe I should butt out and let you two rumble. I have no clue what the gun laws are in California to begin with. That I would imagine it would have an affect on the results of charges. Except of course for the killer.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 11, 2018 9:00:09 GMT -6
Sounds good, but you must be screwing something up in the application. "Jones was murdered and is equal to all other murder victims. Therefore the guy who planned the murder and pulled the trigger should not be punished more harshly than the guy who showed up intending to buy a bit of weed." Doesn't really follow does it? Of course it follows, if the pothead had committed a felony predicate to the murder. He's every bit as culpable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 14:07:20 GMT -6
Under the California murder statute, sections 187 et seq, all it takes is implied malice to convict a defendant of murder. Part of that definition is a depraved indifference to human life, and I'm sure the father can be shown to have exhibited that indifference in willfully handing a semi-automatic or automatic rifle over to another. Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different. The felony murder rule doesn't require malice.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 11, 2018 22:50:44 GMT -6
If I "knowingly" let buddy borrow my gun "knowing" he is going to commit crime, then there is no being careful about my answer. I deserve to lose my 2nd rights. With respect, if you knowingly let your buddy borrow your car to go to a drug deal, do you deserve to lose your driving license? If you lend him your MAGA hat and he commits a crime while wearing it, should you be banned from wearing hats? Surely not. Ironically, the one item we have a constitutional right to own is the one item you're making conditional on good behavior. Isn't this the kind of thinking you would normally warn us against?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 11, 2018 22:56:21 GMT -6
Sounds good, but you must be screwing something up in the application. "Jones was murdered and is equal to all other murder victims. Therefore the guy who planned the murder and pulled the trigger should not be punished more harshly than the guy who showed up intending to buy a bit of weed." Doesn't really follow does it? Of course it follows, if the pothead had committed a felony predicate to the murder. He's every bit as culpable. "All murderers should be punished equally. Therefore the pothead deserves to die." It doesn't sound good whichever way I read it. Still, the fact that you cannot distinguish it from smoking weed again goes to illustrate how little understanding you have of the gravity of murder. It's as if someone told you that murder is the most heinous crime and you've learned to parrot that lesson. But deep down you don't really get it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 12, 2018 7:57:42 GMT -6
deep down you don't really get it. Yeah I get it. But a pothead who aids and abets a murder is also guilty of murder. So would an accountant, or fry cook, or anyone who commits a felony predicate to a murder. This is well-established in law going back centuries. You just don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 10:02:44 GMT -6
If I "knowingly" let buddy borrow my gun "knowing" he is going to commit crime, then there is no being careful about my answer. I deserve to lose my 2nd rights. With respect, if you knowingly let your buddy borrow your car to go to a drug deal, do you deserve to lose your driving license? If you lend him your MAGA hat and he commits a crime while wearing it, should you be banned from wearing hats? Surely not. Ironically, the one item we have a constitutional right to own is the one item you're making conditional on good behavior. Isn't this the kind of thinking you would normally warn us against? You're absolutely right. "Shall not be infringed" certainly has been infringed many times. But in this scenario I would consider myself a felon and of all infringements I can live with a felon restriction. How about you? What's a maga hat?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 10:52:20 GMT -6
With respect, if you knowingly let your buddy borrow your car to go to a drug deal, do you deserve to lose your driving license? If you lend him your MAGA hat and he commits a crime while wearing it, should you be banned from wearing hats? Surely not. Ironically, the one item we have a constitutional right to own is the one item you're making conditional on good behavior. Isn't this the kind of thinking you would normally warn us against? You're absolutely right. "Shall not be infringed" certainly has been infringed many times. But in this scenario I would consider myself a felon, remember "knowingly"? Its an important element, and of all infringements I can live with a felon restriction. How about you? What's a maga hat?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 13:41:25 GMT -6
With respect, if you knowingly let your buddy borrow your car to go to a drug deal, do you deserve to lose your driving license? If you lend him your MAGA hat and he commits a crime while wearing it, should you be banned from wearing hats? Surely not. Ironically, the one item we have a constitutional right to own is the one item you're making conditional on good behavior. Isn't this the kind of thinking you would normally warn us against? You're absolutely right. "Shall not be infringed" certainly has been infringed many times. But in this scenario I would consider myself a felon and of all infringements I can live with a felon restriction. How about you? Problem is, though felony in the common man's ear means "serious crime", they are defined however legislators like. In California, grandpa giving the gun he used in WWII to his grandson as an heirloom is a felony if the gun is restricted. Burglary, however, is not a felony. Grand theft is not a felony either. Not in California. But making ten or more copies of a Michael Jackson tape for the kids in your dorm is a felony under federal law, which applies in California. What's to stop a government bent on confiscating your firearms from defining a parking violation as a felony? The $50 fine stays the same, oh but you just lost your 2nd amendment rights. It's a baseball cap, typically red, bearing the words "Make America Great Again". It is usually taken to express support for Donald Trump.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jul 12, 2018 13:49:13 GMT -6
deep down you don't really get it. Yeah I get it. But a pothead who aids and abets a murder is also guilty of murder. So would an accountant, or fry cook, or anyone who commits a felony predicate to a murder. This is well-established in law going back centuries. You just don't like it. Correct. Everybody knows it's the law. The question is whether folks like it. If so, why? If not, why not? Simply repeating "it's the law" is just one way to miss the point of the whole discussion. As I said earlier, my issue with it is that it makes it easy to prosecute people for murder when, according to common sense, they clearly aren't murderers. And "guidelines" can simply be ignored by ambitious prosecutors, resulting in miscarriages of justice and/or everyone's time and money being wasted. E.g. People vs Wilkins. Wilkins committed a burglary (which was at the time still a felony in California). Driving home, unsecured items fell from the back of his truck causing the vehicle behind to swerve and crash, and someone to die. Wilkins was convicted of murder. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Finally the CA Supreme Court overturned it. WHAT A FANTASTIC WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Jul 12, 2018 14:34:38 GMT -6
You're absolutely right. "Shall not be infringed" certainly has been infringed many times. But in this scenario I would consider myself a felon and of all infringements I can live with a felon restriction. How about you? Problem is, though felony in the common man's ear means "serious crime", they are defined however legislators like. In California, grandpa giving the gun he used in WWII to his grandson as an heirloom is a felony if the gun is restricted. Burglary, however, is not a felony. Grand theft is not a felony either. Not in California. But making ten or more copies of a Michael Jackson tape for the kids in your dorm is a felony under federal law, which applies in California. What's to stop a government bent on confiscating your firearms from defining a parking violation as a felony? The $50 fine stays the same, oh but you just lost your 2nd amendment rights. It's a baseball cap, typically red, bearing the words "Make America Great Again". It is usually taken to express support for Donald Trump. Burglaries are felonies in my woods and I FIRMLY believe the death penalty should be extended to burglars, but thats another argument. Whats to stop the "gubmint" from making parking tickets felonies? Well, hopefully 100 million gun owners and our continued effort to eliminate the democratic property. Ever vigilant. But for now felonies are serious business and I'm not particularly sympathetic to those who commit them. And Donald Trump? I've heard of him. Seems to make democrats heads explode. That's always good.
|
|