ExAFO 0 #1 November 29, 2006 So there's this case- in the late 1960s a group of Marines in VA go into a fast food joint in a predominantly black neighborhood. They're clearly drunk, and are using racial epithets(sp?). Another restaurant patron, a black fellow, hears the epithets and shoots three of them, killing two. His defense? He came from a rotten background, and hearing the racial epithets pushed him over the edge, so he was justified. What do you think? Personally, I think the quote of the class was an answer to what the implications of allowing this defense would be: Quote"It'd be carde blanche to kill Whitey if he said something that upset you." Never a dull moment.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeppo 0 #2 November 29, 2006 Just because someone (or someones) is being an ass, doesn't mean they deserve to be killed. (Maybe taken to an alley and smash his face against a wall , but not killed) Murder is murder, plain and simple. Now if the marines came in, and shot any patron that looked at them funny...that's different, then it's clearly self defence.What goes up, must come DOWN!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #3 November 29, 2006 QuoteSo there's this case- in the late 1960s a group of Marines in VA go into a fast food joint in a predominantly black neighborhood. They're clearly drunk, and are using racial epithets(sp?). Another restaurant patron, a black fellow, hears the epithets and shoots three of them, killing two. His defense? He came from a rotten background, and hearing the racial epithets pushed him over the edge, so he was justified. What do you think? Personally, I think the quote of the class was an answer to what the implications of allowing this defense would be: Quote"It'd be carde blanche to kill Whitey if he said something that upset you." Never a dull moment. How is it a defense? Mitigating circumstance during sentencing, maybe, but not a defense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 November 29, 2006 QuoteHow is it a defense? Mitigating circumstance during sentencing, maybe, but not a defense. exactly - it doesn't 'excuse' the action, just adds context. I'd say it's not 'mitigating' at all, one could argue that it hurts his case by demonstrating he has a terrible lack of control that manifests violently. Thus making him a high risk for repeating the behavior. It should increase the sentence, not decrease it. He should be tried for murder and attempted murder. The surviving Marine's (and those of his two buddies) actions would be a completely different crime - inciting to violence. Which should be judged and sentenced as a completely different set of actions. If you can't tell, I'm not a great fan of the abuse and overproliferation of gray areas in context in terms of sentencing. Keep the crimes well defined and the punishments standardized. Use the context to define which specific crime was committed and then sentence accordingly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #5 November 29, 2006 I was amazed by the fact that a few got their knickers in a knot because of the choice of words (in the quote).Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4201 0 #6 November 29, 2006 I don't know for sure, cause i'm not a law student, but I guess that would make it 2nd degree murder because of the racial comments by the victims. Someone correct me if i'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4201 0 #7 November 29, 2006 Maybe the Pros. attorney is charging 1st degree. And the defense is using the racial comments by the victims to justify the defendant’s acts. Not a perfect defense but an in-perfect defense to reduce it to second degree. I don't know, just guessing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #8 November 29, 2006 QuoteI don't know for sure, cause i'm not a law student, but I guess that would make it 2nd degree murder because of the racial comments by the victims. Someone correct me if i'm wrong. According to Black's Law Dictionary: Quotefirst-degree murder. Murder that is willful, deliberate, or premeditated, or that is committed during the course of another serious felony (often limited to rape, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, or arson). - All murder perpetrated by poisoning or by lying in wait is considered first-degree murder. All types of murder not involving willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing are usu. considered second-degree mureder. -- Also termed murder of the first degree; murder one. . . . second-degree murder. Murder that is not aggravated by any of the circumstances of first-degree murder. -- Also termed murder in the second degree; murder two.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 November 29, 2006 So if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #10 November 29, 2006 QuoteSo if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? To be honest, I'm not sure. I just happened to have my Black's Law Dictionary a foot and a half away, so I thought I would post an excerpt. Your interpretation seems reasonable, and I am inclined to agree, but like I said, I'm not sure.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #11 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? To be honest, I'm not sure. I just happened to have my Black's Law Dictionary a foot and a half away, so I thought I would post an excerpt. Your interpretation seems reasonable, and I am inclined to agree, but like I said, I'm not sure. I doubt it. It would still be willfull and deliberate murder. Doesn't have to be premeditated.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #12 November 29, 2006 QuoteSo if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? Nah, it would be second all the way. The cooling off period can stretch into hours. THere has to be a premeditory cause for first. And 20 minutes later after hearing idiots spew isn;t enough, nor is it ienough to make justifiable homicide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? To be honest, I'm not sure. I just happened to have my Black's Law Dictionary a foot and a half away, so I thought I would post an excerpt. Your interpretation seems reasonable, and I am inclined to agree, but like I said, I'm not sure. I doubt it. It would still be willfull and deliberate murder. Doesn't have to be premeditated. States, as far as I know, have statutory language in them that requires the element of premeditation for a 1st conviction. Black's LAw Dictionary is a general definition, not law. Even its definition makes me lean toward a degree of premeditation. Either way, I would expect this to be tried as a 2nd if no plea could be reached. There was a lawyer here who got drunk, drove fast and cut this 18YO college student in half, then left the scene. He was actually tried for 2nd and got the conviction. He was sentence to 11 years as I recall. So that should have been vehicular manslauter, but they were able to squeeze 2nd in there, so who knowns? 3 words: Arbitrary and capricious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #14 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? To be honest, I'm not sure. I just happened to have my Black's Law Dictionary a foot and a half away, so I thought I would post an excerpt. Your interpretation seems reasonable, and I am inclined to agree, but like I said, I'm not sure. I doubt it. It would still be willfull and deliberate murder. Doesn't have to be premeditated. States, as far as I know, have statutory language in them that requires the element of premeditation for a 1st conviction. Black's LAw Dictionary is a general definition, not law. Even its definition makes me lean toward a degree of premeditation. Either way, I would expect this to be tried as a 2nd if no plea could be reached. There was a lawyer here who got drunk, drove fast and cut this 18YO college student in half, then left the scene. He was actually tried for 2nd and got the conviction. He was sentence to 11 years as I recall. So that should have been vehicular manslauter, but they were able to squeeze 2nd in there, so who knowns? 3 words: Arbitrary and capricious. Then I guess I'm wrong. Seems wierd to me thoughDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo if he overheard the marines making the comments and just twitched and shot them right then, it would be 2nd degree. If he overheard the comments and then went out and shot them as they were leaving (i.e., he had a chance to cool off and 'chose' not to) then it's 1st? To be honest, I'm not sure. I just happened to have my Black's Law Dictionary a foot and a half away, so I thought I would post an excerpt. Your interpretation seems reasonable, and I am inclined to agree, but like I said, I'm not sure. I doubt it. It would still be willfull and deliberate murder. Doesn't have to be premeditated. States, as far as I know, have statutory language in them that requires the element of premeditation for a 1st conviction. Black's LAw Dictionary is a general definition, not law. Even its definition makes me lean toward a degree of premeditation. Either way, I would expect this to be tried as a 2nd if no plea could be reached. There was a lawyer here who got drunk, drove fast and cut this 18YO college student in half, then left the scene. He was actually tried for 2nd and got the conviction. He was sentence to 11 years as I recall. So that should have been vehicular manslauter, but they were able to squeeze 2nd in there, so who knowns? 3 words: Arbitrary and capricious. Then I guess I'm wrong. Seems wierd to me though Well, there is no right/wrong, as I posted the law is: Arbitrary and capricious. It's not supposed to be, it's supposed to be predictable, but then ebter class and stautus and watch Kobe Bryant walk on a a rape charge by buying his way out. So there is no right/wrong, but I haven't seen cases like this charged as 1st. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #16 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo there's this case- in the late 1960s a group of Marines in VA go into a fast food joint in a predominantly black neighborhood. They're clearly drunk, and are using racial epithets(sp?). Another restaurant patron, a black fellow, hears the epithets and shoots three of them, killing two. Were those marines awarded a Darwin? QuoteHis defense? He came from a rotten background, and hearing the racial epithets pushed him over the edge, so he was justified. Did the jury by the defence? If not how much did it weigh on the judge during sentencing? Quote"It'd be carde blanche to kill Whitey if he said something that upset you." Pretty much My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #17 November 29, 2006 QuoteThe cooling off period can stretch into hours. In general, that seems like a fundamentally flawed concept. If someone can't contain a murderous intent after "hours" then I don't see the difference in threat to society vs something coldly preplanned. Other than he'd be more, not less, likely to repeat. Seems the definition is loose on purpose (I'm not contradicting the law, I just think this premise was a stupid choice in the definition) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #18 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo there's this case- in the late 1960s a group of Marines in VA go into a fast food joint in a predominantly black neighborhood. They're clearly drunk, and are using racial epithets(sp?). Another restaurant patron, a black fellow, hears the epithets and shoots three of them, killing two. Were those marines awarded a Darwin? QuoteHis defense? He came from a rotten background, and hearing the racial epithets pushed him over the edge, so he was justified. Did the jury by the defence? If not how much did it weigh on the judge during sentencing? Quote"It'd be carde blanche to kill Whitey if he said something that upset you." Pretty much The judge forbade the defence, he was convicted. Life sentence.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #19 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe cooling off period can stretch into hours. In general, that seems like a fundamentally flawed concept. If someone can't contain a murderous intent after "hours" then I don't see the difference in threat to society vs something coldly preplanned. Other than he'd be more, not less, likely to repeat. Hours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 November 30, 2006 QuoteHours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time. Certainly your post equates "pissed off" with "murderous intent" in fun and whimsical way, but I don't think that's true in your real life. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #21 November 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteHours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time. Certainly your post equates "pissed off" with "murderous intent" in fun and whimsical way, but I don't think that's true in your real life. Right, I meant "weeks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rehmwa 2 #17 November 29, 2006 QuoteThe cooling off period can stretch into hours. In general, that seems like a fundamentally flawed concept. If someone can't contain a murderous intent after "hours" then I don't see the difference in threat to society vs something coldly preplanned. Other than he'd be more, not less, likely to repeat. Seems the definition is loose on purpose (I'm not contradicting the law, I just think this premise was a stupid choice in the definition) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #18 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo there's this case- in the late 1960s a group of Marines in VA go into a fast food joint in a predominantly black neighborhood. They're clearly drunk, and are using racial epithets(sp?). Another restaurant patron, a black fellow, hears the epithets and shoots three of them, killing two. Were those marines awarded a Darwin? QuoteHis defense? He came from a rotten background, and hearing the racial epithets pushed him over the edge, so he was justified. Did the jury by the defence? If not how much did it weigh on the judge during sentencing? Quote"It'd be carde blanche to kill Whitey if he said something that upset you." Pretty much The judge forbade the defence, he was convicted. Life sentence.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #19 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe cooling off period can stretch into hours. In general, that seems like a fundamentally flawed concept. If someone can't contain a murderous intent after "hours" then I don't see the difference in threat to society vs something coldly preplanned. Other than he'd be more, not less, likely to repeat. Hours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 November 30, 2006 QuoteHours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time. Certainly your post equates "pissed off" with "murderous intent" in fun and whimsical way, but I don't think that's true in your real life. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #21 November 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteHours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time. Certainly your post equates "pissed off" with "murderous intent" in fun and whimsical way, but I don't think that's true in your real life. Right, I meant "weeks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,647 #19 November 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe cooling off period can stretch into hours. In general, that seems like a fundamentally flawed concept. If someone can't contain a murderous intent after "hours" then I don't see the difference in threat to society vs something coldly preplanned. Other than he'd be more, not less, likely to repeat. Hours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 November 30, 2006 QuoteHours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time. Certainly your post equates "pissed off" with "murderous intent" in fun and whimsical way, but I don't think that's true in your real life. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #21 November 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteHours? I could be really pissed off with my ex-wife for days at a time. Certainly your post equates "pissed off" with "murderous intent" in fun and whimsical way, but I don't think that's true in your real life. Right, I meant "weeks".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
