|
Post by trubble on Jun 19, 2012 0:16:13 GMT
It doesn't. It merely indicates a heightened chance of that being the case. And SYG (etc) offers you the right to presume harm is intended, and to use lethal force to protect yourself from that harm. Where I think it's problematic is that it doesn't require you to have tried anything else before lethal force. It merely requires you to assess that nothing else will work - as far as I can see... ?? - and that's subjective. So it's ''justified homicide'' based on a subjective assessment. Apparently, the majority of cases that have successfully used SYG(etc) as a defence have invovled only 2 people, one of them armed and one not. I think that raises doubt about how good this subjective assessment system really is. Mind you, I think that statistic includes cases of a police officer killing a felon and we should presume that a police officer has an advanced ability to assess these situations. (Glaring examples that show otherwise notwithstanding - exceptions that prove the rule etc...). it doesn't require you to try anything else because there is NO rational reason to do so. what difference does it make whether the criminal is armed or not? in the first place, only an imbecile would wait and see if he was before killing it. But... I didn't kill my would-be assailants ... my daughter didn't kill the robberjunkie who told her he had a syringe full of HIV+ contaminated blood.... in my case, I walked away with all my belongings still in my possession, in her case she walked away a few quid lighter but a lesson learned. Our assailants were druggie idiots that made us feel a little crap and be a little poorer but they did not deserve to die for it! C'mon, where is the room for repentance & forgiveness in a shoot-to-kill policy for petty theft?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 8:59:44 GMT
Eh? Surely the buddy is responsible for his or her own nefarious risk-taking? Edit: Guess not! Found this case online: Tulsa woman shoots 2 intruders. One dies. The other is charged for his buddy's murder. Gets life (minimum 17 years.) why would you not think that you are responsible? it is a criminal conspiracy, and, each and every member of a criminal conspiracy, no matter how slight the participation, is guilty of each and every act of the conspiracy. if you helped plan the robbery, and stayed home while your buddy went to commit the robbery, and he, or anyone else dies, YOU are guilty of first degree murder. the garbage in your example, being in oklahoma, is truly lucky it didn't get the death penalty, which it certainly deserved
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 9:09:26 GMT
it doesn't require you to try anything else because there is NO rational reason to do so. what difference does it make whether the criminal is armed or not? in the first place, only an imbecile would wait and see if he was before killing it. But... I didn't kill my would-be assailants ... my daughter didn't kill the robberjunkie who told her he had a syringe full of HIV+ contaminated blood.... in my case, I walked away with all my belongings still in my possession, in her case she walked away a few quid lighter but a lesson learned. Our assailants were druggie idiots that made us feel a little crap and be a little poorer but they did not deserve to die for it! C'mon, where is the room for repentance & forgiveness in a shoot-to-kill policy for petty theft? of course they did. what the hell does being a druggie have to do with anything? it's not likely that anyone held a gun to their head and forced them to do drugs. i realize that you are in britain, which is so uncivilized that it has a gun ban, so you are not able to do the right thing in such situations. unfortunately, i don't think that you would if you were able to. the time for repentance and forgiveness is BEFORE the piece of shyt decides to rob you or break into your house, NEVER after
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 11:46:54 GMT
NO, it is NOT about beyond a reasonable doubt. it is an absolute. what is so difficult to comprehend. WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE CRIMINAL'S MIND HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. intent is PROVEN by the action, NOT by what the fool is thinking. it's so simple. Well then as I said, the word 'intent' is being used wrongly. They mean something else not 'intent', which is a statement of what is going on in a person's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 11:54:41 GMT
you were the one talking about defense, and thinking that you should only kill a punk in self defense. i said that self defense is NOT what it is about. i don't know where the hell you ever got the idea that self defense had anything to do with it. it is defending yourself, indeed, but it is defending your property, someone else, someone elses property, etc. all of the spin that you try to put on it just don't change the reality Shooting the man who is about to step on my foot in the head with a bazooka is not justifiable defence of my toes, not when there are other things I can do first leaving the extreme option for extreme circumstances. Similarly killing someone for taking your pen is not justifiable defence when you have a gun on them and can order them to put it down. To do so goes beyond defence and turns it into punishment or revenge. If you believe that the correct punishment for pen theft is the death penalty then let it be for the courts to decide that AFTER the person has been convicted in a proper trial. Not just according to the citizen's charter for bumping anyone they like that you advocate.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 12:06:37 GMT
i'll give you another little example of how things work, in civilization. if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and the clerk dies of a heart attack, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. the fact that you did not intend to kill the clerk has NO relevance. Whether I intended to kill the clerk has relevance to whether I intended to kill the clerk. Maybe I am guilty of murder and should be executed, but that is a separate issue. I did not have intent for this to happen and so while you can say I am guilty of murder, you cannot accurately say that I had intent to murder, because I didn't. And anything which appears to prove absolutely that I did, is therefore a false proof. Am I driving in the second example? Otherwise, as with the first and third examples, I do not see how I am guilty of murder. I am not saying that the officer or home-owner are guilty of it either (that would depend on the circumstances), but why would I be unless I somehow coerced them into coming along? If while walking on the way to the store my buddy slips on a banana skin and inadvertently pushes someone else into oncoming traffic, would that death be my murder also?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 12:08:47 GMT
Eh? Surely the buddy is responsible for his or her own nefarious risk-taking? Edit: Guess not! Found this case online: Tulsa woman shoots 2 intruders. One dies. The other is charged for his buddy's murder. Gets life (minimum 17 years.) Bizarre. If I ever intend to commit a crime I'll make sure to have an accomplice with me so that I can blame them for anything bad that happens, even if they had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 12:15:05 GMT
why would you not think that you are responsible? it is a criminal conspiracy, and, each and every member of a criminal conspiracy, no matter how slight the participation, is guilty of each and every act of the conspiracy. Is crashing a car part of the robber's conspiracy? Is being shot by a police officer an act of the conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 19, 2012 13:32:44 GMT
I think it's right to place the onus on any felon, any one of the felons, committing a crime. After all, they are the ones who caused the risk. If someone dies, even of a heart attack, then the felon should be held responsible. I always thought that a murder charge would relate to an innocent person being killed though. I never linked it to a co-conspirator but I suppose there's logic in it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 19, 2012 13:36:31 GMT
Eh? Surely the buddy is responsible for his or her own nefarious risk-taking? Edit: Guess not! Found this case online: Tulsa woman shoots 2 intruders. One dies. The other is charged for his buddy's murder. Gets life (minimum 17 years.) Bizarre. If I ever intend to commit a crime I'll make sure to have an accomplice with me so that I can blame them for anything bad that happens, even if they had nothing to do with it. Thanks for the tip off; that's the last time I'm going shoplifting with you!
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 14:12:52 GMT
I think it's right to place the onus on any felon, any one of the felons, committing a crime. After all, they are the ones who caused the risk. If someone dies, even of a heart attack, then the felon should be held responsible. I always thought that a murder charge would relate to an innocent person being killed though. I never linked it to a co-conspirator but I suppose there's logic in it. I have no problem with a robber being held accountable for the heart-attack clerk's death either (although I think I would call it manslaughter) as the death is a result of the fear and stress the robber placed upon the victim. But that doesn't make the robber a murderer or a manslaughterer of their partner who is killed in defence by another party. If it was a justifiable use of lethal force then there was no murder. Why invent a crime that didn't occur then try to pin the non-existent crime on a person whose crime was something else and not that.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 15:52:29 GMT
NO, it is NOT about beyond a reasonable doubt. it is an absolute. what is so difficult to comprehend. WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE CRIMINAL'S MIND HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. intent is PROVEN by the action, NOT by what the fool is thinking. it's so simple. Well then as I said, the word 'intent' is being used wrongly. They mean something else not 'intent', which is a statement of what is going on in a person's mind. i realize that you know nothing about the law, but, i truly do not understand why something so simple is so difficult for you to comprehend. once again, what is going on in a person's mind has NO relevance whatsoever. the thought in the person's mind to break into your house, or rob you, PROVES that the thought in the person's mind is to harm you it don't get any simpler than that
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 15:55:06 GMT
you were the one talking about defense, and thinking that you should only kill a punk in self defense. i said that self defense is NOT what it is about. i don't know where the hell you ever got the idea that self defense had anything to do with it. it is defending yourself, indeed, but it is defending your property, someone else, someone elses property, etc. all of the spin that you try to put on it just don't change the reality Shooting the man who is about to step on my foot in the head with a bazooka is not justifiable defence of my toes, not when there are other things I can do first leaving the extreme option for extreme circumstances. Similarly killing someone for taking your pen is not justifiable defence when you have a gun on them and can order them to put it down. To do so goes beyond defence and turns it into punishment or revenge. If you believe that the correct punishment for pen theft is the death penalty then let it be for the courts to decide that AFTER the person has been convicted in a proper trial. Not just according to the citizen's charter for bumping anyone they like that you advocate. your toe illustration has no relevance to the subject. the plain reality is that there is just not ANY rational reason to say a word to a burglar or robber. as one of my tshirts says, shoot first, there's no questions to ask." THAT is the reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 15:59:56 GMT
i'll give you another little example of how things work, in civilization. if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and the clerk dies of a heart attack, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. the fact that you did not intend to kill the clerk has NO relevance. Whether I intended to kill the clerk has relevance to whether I intended to kill the clerk. Maybe I am guilty of murder and should be executed, but that is a separate issue. I did not have intent for this to happen and so while you can say I am guilty of murder, you cannot accurately say that I had intent to murder, because I didn't. And anything which appears to prove absolutely that I did, is therefore a false proof. Am I driving in the second example? Otherwise, as with the first and third examples, I do not see how I am guilty of murder. I am not saying that the officer or home-owner are guilty of it either (that would depend on the circumstances), but why would I be unless I somehow coerced them into coming along? If while walking on the way to the store my buddy slips on a banana skin and inadvertently pushes someone else into oncoming traffic, would that death be my murder also? don't be daft. the banana skin has NOTHING to do with anything, unless it occurred during your getaway from a crime, in which case, yes, YOU are guilty of first degree murder. whether or not you are driving in the example has no relevance. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that someone died during your commission of a crime. NOTHING else matters just as in all the other instances i have explained to you, your intent to rob the store is proof of your intent to murder.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 16:01:03 GMT
Eh? Surely the buddy is responsible for his or her own nefarious risk-taking? Edit: Guess not! Found this case online: Tulsa woman shoots 2 intruders. One dies. The other is charged for his buddy's murder. Gets life (minimum 17 years.) Bizarre. If I ever intend to commit a crime I'll make sure to have an accomplice with me so that I can blame them for anything bad that happens, even if they had nothing to do with it. there is nothing bizarre about reality. blaming someone else doesn't excuse you
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 16:01:47 GMT
why would you not think that you are responsible? it is a criminal conspiracy, and, each and every member of a criminal conspiracy, no matter how slight the participation, is guilty of each and every act of the conspiracy. Is crashing a car part of the robber's conspiracy? Is being shot by a police officer an act of the conspiracy? neither has anything to do with the subject
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 16:03:43 GMT
I think it's right to place the onus on any felon, any one of the felons, committing a crime. After all, they are the ones who caused the risk. If someone dies, even of a heart attack, then the felon should be held responsible. I always thought that a murder charge would relate to an innocent person being killed though. I never linked it to a co-conspirator but I suppose there's logic in it. it applies to ANY death, regardless of whose death it is
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 19, 2012 16:09:30 GMT
I think it's right to place the onus on any felon, any one of the felons, committing a crime. After all, they are the ones who caused the risk. If someone dies, even of a heart attack, then the felon should be held responsible. I always thought that a murder charge would relate to an innocent person being killed though. I never linked it to a co-conspirator but I suppose there's logic in it. I have no problem with a robber being held accountable for the heart-attack clerk's death either (although I think I would call it manslaughter) as the death is a result of the fear and stress the robber placed upon the victim. But that doesn't make the robber a murderer or a manslaughterer of their partner who is killed in defence by another party. If it was a justifiable use of lethal force then there was no murder. Why invent a crime that didn't occur then try to pin the non-existent crime on a person whose crime was something else and not that. the crime of murder DID occur. and it is NOT manslaughter, but first degree murder. what anyone else does has no relevance. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that someone died, regardless of who, or the reason, during the commission of a crime. a simplified version just for you, the texas felony murder rule: (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 16:30:28 GMT
i realize that you know nothing about the law, but, i truly do not understand why something so simple is so difficult for you to comprehend. once again, what is going on in a person's mind has NO relevance whatsoever. the thought in the person's mind to break into your house, or rob you, PROVES that the thought in the person's mind is to harm you it don't get any simpler than that If what is going on in a person's mind has no relevance then why does the law even talk about intent as there is no requirement for any? It is like talking about what proves a thief's favourite colour is blue but then saying that in law the thief's favourite colour has no relevance. So why worry about whether or not we can prove what their favourite colour is?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 19, 2012 16:41:32 GMT
don't be daft. the banana skin has NOTHING to do with anything, unless it occurred during your getaway from a crime, in which case, yes, YOU are guilty of first degree murder. whether or not you are driving in the example has no relevance. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that someone died during your commission of a crime. NOTHING else matters So if my overweight buddy coincidentally had a heart attack on the drive home, that would be my murder also? What if they survive? Is that only attempted murder on my part? Or if they survive will they be the ones charged with attempted murder (of themselves)? Well then you or the law are using either or both of the words 'proof' and 'intent' incorrectly.
|
|