On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:55:16 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
out wearing a seat belt????


Now do you see the logic?

No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
misdemeanor, let alone a felony.


It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
some way for being with him.

Being with someone is different than conspiring with someone.
Different logic.

On 1/6/2012 8:55 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 01/06/2012 07:26 PM, Leon wrote:
On 1/6/2012 8:13 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 01/06/2012 06:50 PM, Leon wrote:
On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article_OmdncUKb_QjiJrSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
partner will
be charged with felony murder.

I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.

Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.


Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was
killed?
Standing out side is not a crime is it?

If he was the lookout to allow the crime to be committed, it was a
crime.


"If" Speculation, hopefully does not rule.

Still a murder did not happen! Him being there does not change that fact.


Got it.

"I was just there to say 'Hi'." "I had no idea the bitch would shoot one
of us just because we wanted a warm place to stay - and maybe a little
action. That's the only reason we kicked her door in. We always carry a
hunting knife while breaking in - whats the big deal, it was HIS knife,
not mine! I have no idea why she shot him, it could have been me and
that would ave been a bummer!"


Ok in all seriousness I am not defending either one. I am simply
stating that felony murder against the guy that was out side is a wrong
charge. He should be charged for something but certainly not felony
murder. Had his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to
felony murder. If he is being charged as an accessory to a felony
murder, who actually committed the felony murder that he is an accessory
to and why isn't that person being charged too?

And other than a door being kinked in what crime was committed? The
lady feared for her life but other than her front door being kicked in
there was no other crime. Thankfully she stopped the guy before he had
a chance to go further with what ever his intent was. The law lets her
do what she did. But you simply cannot continue on and prosecute the
other people involved with the crime for things that did not happen.
There was no rape, therefore they are not charging the other guy with
rape. They did not assault her, therefore they are not charging him
with assault. They did not murder any one, why are they charging the
buddy with murder??? You simply cannot charge some one for something
that did not happen.


An another note, in Texas, many southern states, it is not unusual at
all to see one with a large hunting knife attached to his belt. AND
this is a more common site in trailer parks.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
do see the stark difference?

You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.

Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
what should be the even hand of justice.

Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
is shot and killed.

Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
with the engine running.

The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
act that any member undertakes.



Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
go to jail responsible for his death.

That's where the law can fall down. It leaves it up to the DA whether
or not to prosecute the driver as a getaway conspirator or just let
him go as an unsuspecting friend.

In places like Gnu Yawk ****ty, with foaming-at-the-mouth liberals
like Bloomberg and his pet DA, you're hung before you're arrested.

--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

On 1/7/2012 7:27 AM, Larry W wrote:
In articlecaydnS3iJZ1XBJrSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, wrote:

My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
neighbor across the street.

After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.

That's entirely illogical, Swingy.

Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
about it. I have ...


Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...

What an asinine, thoughtless, irrelevant statement.

Just the thought of what could happen were your wife and daughter to
walk into that kind of situation obviously goes right over your head, eh?

On second thought, add "stupid" to the first sentence ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:14:00 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:



No ****! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
the young woman.

Better check your definitions.

Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
be the felon (as in defense of self).

I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.

Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.

I think he should be prosecuted for assisted burglary, not felony murder.

What about the rape? Is there any doubt in your mind that if she had
-not- stopped them, they both would have raped her, then possibly
killed both her and the baby?

The problem is that now he'll go to jail, spend time with much more
hardened criminals, and learn how to do things right the next time.
sigh

Too bad she didn't have slugs and the guys were stacked up in the
doorway. It would have made things much simpler.

--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.

In cases where it applies, yes.

That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios, to
bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 07 Jan 2012 14:47:05 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, wrote:

On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article_OmdncUKb_QjiJrSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
partner will be charged with felony murder.

I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
commonsense.

Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
case.

Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
felony murder statute.

What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.

What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?

Involuntary manslaughter.

Works for me.


That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.

You might be right. Perhaps the OK DA/judge/jury will find the truth
and act accordingly.

--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

On 1/6/2012 10:21 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:50:27 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article_OmdncUKb_QjiJrSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's partner will
be charged with felony murder.

I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of ridiculous
overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and commonsense.

Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes someone to
die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook case.


Precisely what crime did the other guy commit when his buddy was killed?
Standing out side is not a crime is it?

If she hadn't been armed, what do you suppose would have happened to
her and/or the baby? Wouldn't she have been gang raped and
burglarized, at the very least?

Crimes:
stalking
breaking and entering with intent to rape
attempted burglary
Conspiracy to rape
Conspiracy to breaking and entering
Conspiracy to burglary

I am talking about the guy standing out side waiting on his buddy not
the guy that actually broke in. AND seriously the lady was scared that
any of those things could have happened but we will never know what may
have happened since nothing happened after she shot the guy. Hos only
crime was breaking and entering. That is where it stops. You cannot
continue to trump up, what could have happened, charges.



Find a speaking weasel. He'll put those into actual legal terms for
ya, bud.

These two were, in all probability, bad, bad men.

Key word there, probability, not absolute. And thank goodness in this
country we get a trial by jury rather than a shoot from the hip mob.

AGAIN I am not defending the other guy simply stating that he is not
liable for charges of something that did not happen.







Leon, what would you do if you were an American soldier driving down a
road in Afghanistan and you saw an Arab standing there with an RPG,
looking right at you after his buddy shot his RPG?
Standing by the road isn't a crime, is it?

I suspect that the Arab was shooting the RPG at the Taliban. IIRC we
are not at war with the people of Western Asia or Northern Africa. I
believe an Arab would be an ally. If he were not shooting at me I would
asses the situation and probably continue on.

What would you have done? Would have shot them cause the only good
foreigner is a dead foreigner?

Do you see how actual details and facts make thing look differently?












--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:

A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them
tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom."
He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group
testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to
the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.

Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems
logical enough to me.

Considering your previous illogical and totally irrelevant table saw
blade remark in this thread, your invoking the concept of "logic" in the
above can be safely ignored.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/7/2012 9:46 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:14:00 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:40:23 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/6/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:



No ****! Why should the second guy be charged with murder?? No
murder was committed. Smells like a liberal. Someone is going to
pay for killing the worthless POC and we will never make it stick on
the young woman.

Better check your definitions.

Homicide = Killing of a human being by the actions of another
Murder = Homicide with premeditation and malice or homicide committed during
the commission of a felony. Note the person committing the homicide need not
be the felon (as in defense of self).

I under stand the laws say it is so but what moron made that law up.

Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.

I think he should be prosecuted for assisted burglary, not felony murder.

What about the rape? Is there any doubt in your mind that if she had
-not- stopped them, they both would have raped her, then possibly
killed both her and the baby?

What rape??????????????? You have been watching way too much TV.

Your run a red light in your car. The officer and ride along district
attorney charge you with murder. Is there any doubt that running that
light was intentional so that you could hit the other car and kill all
the occupants?








The problem is that now he'll go to jail, spend time with much more
hardened criminals, and learn how to do things right the next time.
sigh

Too bad she didn't have slugs and the guys were stacked up in the
doorway. It would have made things much simpler.

--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

On 1/7/2012 8:12 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?

Involuntary manslaughter.

And if he was merely sitting in the getaway car? Illegal parking?


"If" pigs had wings, Bubba. Stick to the facts, you're starting to
dis-spell all previous indications that you might be smarter than you're
sounding lately.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.

In cases where it applies, yes.

That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios, to
bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.


Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually happened.

Lets imagine the worst and go for that.

On 1/7/2012 8:47 AM, Han wrote:
Larry wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, wrote:

On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, wrote:

On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article_OmdncUKb_QjiJrSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
partner will be charged with felony murder.

I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
commonsense.

Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
case.

Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
felony murder statute.

What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.

What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?

Involuntary manslaughter.

Works for me.


That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.

Who was murdered? If a police officer shoots a bank robber inside the
bank are the customers that may have spoken to the robber, before he
pulled out his gun, accessories to the murder?

Until we actually know the facts lets not guess at what did or may have
happened.

On 1/7/2012 9:55 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 07 Jan 2012 14:47:05 GMT, wrote:

Larry wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:22 -0600, wrote:

On 1/6/2012 6:54 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:07 -0600, wrote:

On 1/6/2012 4:28 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article_OmdncUKb_QjiJrSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:

None of the news reports have mentioned it, but the dead guy's
partner will be charged with felony murder.

I have no sympathy for the dude, but that's the kind of
ridiculous overreaching by prosecutors that defies logic and
commonsense.

Not in the slightest. If you commit a crime, and it causes
someone to die, that's murder. This is practically the textbook
case.

Nonsense. This scenario is far from from the "textbook case" ...
read the laws in the various states and you will quickly understand
that this particular scenario is neither a "textbook case", nor
does it fit with the crafted distinction in all States that have a
felony murder statute.

What it is a textbook example of "legal fiction" ... look it up.

What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?

Involuntary manslaughter.

Works for me.


That would work for me, but it does dilute the statute of felony murder.
I still think convict of felony murder, but not the maximum sentence.

You might be right. Perhaps the OK DA/judge/jury will find the truth
and act accordingly.

Exactly and throw the case out because there was no murder. And
accordingly remind the prosecuting attorney that you can not win on a
charge that does not fit the crime.

On 1/7/2012 8:48 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

Swingman wrote:

What is your suggested punishment for the 2nd idiot?

Involuntary manslaughter.

And if he was merely sitting in the getaway car? Illegal parking?

If they planned to do a burglary or rape the woman, it is still felony
murder for the waiting driver. Perhaps not the maximum sentence.

Think of the deterrrence value of it.


There is that word IF again. If it actually happened then yes the out
side guy should be charged with the crime that actually happened.
Because one one was actually murdered he should not be brought up on
murder charges.

On 1/7/2012 9:06 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:27:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In articlecaydnS3iJZ1XBJrSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, wrote:

My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
neighbor across the street.

After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.

That's entirely illogical, Swingy.

Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
about it. I have ...

They would have found a locked safe and left. And if you walked in
and they wanted you to open it, you'd say "It's my wife's safe. I
don't know the combo." Right?

Then they shoot you for being a wuss.

Easy to speculate how you would react when it has not happened to you
personally.

On 1/7/2012 9:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/7/2012 7:27 AM, Larry W wrote:
In articlecaydnS3iJZ1XBJrSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, wrote:

My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked
and
loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
neighbor across the street.

After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've
lived
in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.

That's entirely illogical, Swingy.

Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
about it. I have ...


Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...

What an asinine, thoughtless, irrelevant statement.

Just the thought of what could happen were your wife and daughter to
walk into that kind of situation obviously goes right over your head, eh?

On second thought, add "stupid" to the first sentence ...



Desperation for a come back leads to stupid comments.

On 1/7/2012 8:56 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/6/2012 9:01 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

lots of snippage

OK you are missing the point here. I understand that some believe
that this falls under a felony murder law and the implications that
go with it.

I am saying that it is stupid and because your buddy gets killed
while committing a crime is not reason to be charged with murder.
If you were not there, there would be no murder. Your being there
and him being killed as a result of self defense does not make you a
murderer.

Even in a liberal state (I think) like New York, they are charging
the 4 friends of the perp who killed a policeman during the
commission of a burglary with murder of some kind. They were active
participants in the robbery, not just lookouts. Slightly, but
perhaps significantly different. sorry for the wrap
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/ny...brooklyn-robbe
ry-
a-police-dept-veteran-is-fatally-shot.html?scp=5&sq=figoski&st=cse
or
http://tinyurl.com/7dmxywd

You and your buddy go in to a bar, he carries in a concealed gun
with out a license and you don't know it. He gets into a fight
pulls his gun but gets shot by the bar tender and dies. You are
charged with felony murder. Does that sound about right?

This is different. The 2 go into the bar to have drinks, not to have
a fight.

You assume that they go in for drinks but your buddy is taking in a
gun to even a score.

Well, I wouldn't take a gun anywheregrin. And I certainly wouldn't go
with someone who is carrying a gun into any kind of drinking
establishment. But now you are supposing guy #2 knew that guy #1 was
carrying. Maybe yes, maybe no. Moreover, I don't know how excitable the
guys are/were.

I thought they were just some drinking buddies who are/were generally
peacable. But then, I like to be optimistic about peoples intentions.
Which, my ultra-right wing buddie says, is just plain wrong.

I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is suppose to
only use actual facts.

On 1/7/2012 9:38 AM, Leon wrote:

He should be charged for something but certainly not felony murder. Had
his buddy murdered the woman then yes an accessory to felony murder. If
he is being charged as an accessory to a felony murder, who actually
committed the felony murder that he is an accessory to and why isn't
that person being charged too?

A perfect example of the common law concept of "legal fiction":

... a legal device assuming something is true that is clearly false ...

Another example is the asinine "legal fiction" in the US that a
corporation is a "person".

The legal concept of "legal fiction" is why corporations can commit
criminal acts and be fined instead of a real "person" in the corporation
going to jail for the criminal act, as Pfizer's $2.3 Billion fine for
fraud and other crimes.

Another blurring of the distinction by the legal establishment between
what is legal, and the concepts of what is moral, ethical, right, fair,
etc. ... a device that will eventually bring capitalism to its knees.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/7/2012 9:31 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:55:16 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:



You are riding in the car with a friend, he runs a red light gets hit
and is killed. You are charged with murder because you were riding with
out wearing a seat belt????


Now do you see the logic?

No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws
of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a
misdemeanor, let alone a felony.


It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in
some way for being with him.

Being with someone is different than conspiring with someone.
Different logic.

Totally agree. But it is only speculative that there was a conspiracy
of what may have happened with the woman and her child. Fortunately she
made sure that we could only speculate and probably saved the other guy
in the yard from more serious charges.

On 1/7/2012 9:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
do see the stark difference?

You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.

Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
what should be the even hand of justice.

Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
is shot and killed.

Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
with the engine running.

The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
act that any member undertakes.



Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
go to jail responsible for his death.

That's where the law can fall down. It leaves it up to the DA whether
or not to prosecute the driver as a getaway conspirator or just let
him go as an unsuspecting friend.

In places like Gnu Yawk ****ty, with foaming-at-the-mouth liberals
like Bloomberg and his pet DA, you're hung before you're arrested.

Now you are seeing the light, I think. ;~) We would like for the other
guy to get the worse punishment, that would make us all feel good. But
not actually knowing all the facts does he really deserve it?

On 1/7/2012 7:54 AM, Larry W wrote:
In articletfSdnYIbNqS6OprSnZ2dnUVZ5gGdnZ2d@giganews. com,
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 1/6/2012 4:44 PM, Larry W wrote:
Can't speak about a home invasion, but I personally have experienced, in
a large eastern center-city neighborhood, police no-show to a 911 call for
firearms being discharged on the street outside my (former) home.



Good thing no one killed, having personally experienced that crime you
would have been lawfully charged with murder.

Now that's funny!



Equally funny as the guy in Oklahoma being charged for something that
did not happen.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:CpadnbRd8Z-
:

I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is suppose to
only use actual facts.

Thanks, Leon, I think. I have a better idea of "the other guys'" concepts
and preconceived views now. I don't necessarily agree ...

I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because who can
trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people", who has to run
soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers who get paid by
their client (either the perp or complainant, or the "people") and
sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of twisting the jury's mind.
Think about OJ. etc. etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/7/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:CpadnbRd8Z-
:

I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is suppose to
only use actual facts.

Thanks, Leon, I think. I have a better idea of "the other guys'" concepts
and preconceived views now. I don't necessarily agree ...

I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because who can
trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people", who has to run
soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers who get paid by
their client (either the perp or complainant, or the "people") and
sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of twisting the jury's mind.
Think about OJ. etc. etc.


There is that but eventually they got OJ red handed.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:12:33 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Have you ever seen a dog chasing his tail? Gun registration is not a
fix for anything. It only gives the government one more power over you
and I.

There *are* some advantages to registering guns. If some are stolen,
they can be returned to the lawful owner assuming serials haven't been
removed.

There's a definite advantage to law enforcement if they can track a
gun from the original owner to where it's finally seized.

Another reason may be to cause gun owners to reasonably and safely
store their firearms as they should be doing. Too many children are
killed or injured every year because of improperly stored guns.

None of these reasons have anything to do with this Mom protecting her
child as she was fully entitled to do. Just that there can be reasons
why some gun control has good purpose.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:

Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a ****.

He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide intent
and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:13:31 -0600, Leon wrote:

Exactly and throw the case out because there was no murder.

I'll betcha' a rusty scraper blade that doesn't happen.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:54:20 -0600, Leon wrote:

The prescribed punishment for what he confessed to, not a witch hunt
punishment. If this liberal law and lawyers thought that they had half
a chance of nailing the woman for the murder and not create public
outrage the other idiot would probably be sentenced with 90 days of
public service.

I wondered if you were trolling, Leon. I'm not wondering any more.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 8:43 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

You're right, by now it may be too late to be really useful.
Still, why make it even easier for criminals to get guns?

Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of
us should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.

Here's how a criminal gets his gun:
* Criminal #1: "Here's the money."
* Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."

Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much
different, but you get the idea.)

Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that
illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its
owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through
a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has
an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who
"neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.

Need to register kitchen knives also. Oh and your machete, your
pitchfork, 2x4. All weapons of death in the wrong hands.

Take all guns off the streets and you have a new weapon of choice.

The guy who got angry at me for barely bumping the rear wheel of the bike
he was pushing on the sidewalk threw his slize of pizza at me. I guess I
was lucky he didn't have a gun or knife and that he was restrained by the
streetvendors. I think there is a difference in the effects of a slice
of pizza and a gun though.

Have you ever seen a dog chasing his tail? Gun registration is not a
fix for anything. It only gives the government one more power over
you and I.

I have no objection tosomeone having a gun, IF they know how to handle it
responsibly. The fact that now anyone who really wants it can get a gun
without anyone checking on him is what makes it scary for me. I really
think that should be made more difficult, and that both the buyer and
seller should face the consequences of an illegal act.

Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but,
using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy
whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if
so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is
generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the
"illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that
brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help
at least somewhat.

Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.

And how many of those in prison are there for a reasons because there
was actually fowl play that involved a gun?? There are countless
reasons for being in joail that does not involve a weapon.

As I said, a different subject, but one of the facets of a less lawful
society.

Why a greater percentage? Because of way too many stupid laws.

We have gone over the aspects that the law of felony murder is likely
because of deterrence, and to get the guy who had been stirring up the
trouble and was "smart" enough to let someone else do the deed.

Seriously, someone kills your friend you are responsible for his death
because you were with him. Make up your own reason to prosecute him.
The only gun involved was the person doing the shooting with the
registered gun.

??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.

In cases where it applies, yes.

That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios,
to bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.


Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually
happened.

Lets imagine the worst and go for that.

That's what usenet is for!!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:CpadnbRd8Z-
:

I think you may be coming around Han. ;~) No one knows everyone's
intentions all of the time. Thank goodness a court of law is
suppose to only use actual facts.

Thanks, Leon, I think. I have a better idea of "the other guys'"
concepts and preconceived views now. I don't necessarily agree ...

I am getting rather (not sarcastic, I forget the word now) of what it
really is that a court of law does. We have trial by jury because
who can trust a judge appointed for life or chosen by the "people",
who has to run soon again for reelection. Then we have trial lawyers
who get paid by their client (either the perp or complainant, or the
"people") and sometimes do an excellent and convincing job of
twisting the jury's mind. Think about OJ. etc. etc.


There is that but eventually they got OJ red handed.

That was only because he got too arrgant and stupid.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/7/2012 12:08 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:13:31 -0600, Leon wrote:

Exactly and throw the case out because there was no murder.

I'll betcha' a rusty scraper blade that doesn't happen.


We will have to just wait and see. I'll take you up on that but I will
pay you a new scraper blade if he goes to trial for felony murder. ;~)

On 1/7/2012 1:19 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 9:52 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/6/2012 10:01 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Is it possible that they want people to stop committing felonies?
I think it's probably a good law in most cases.

In cases where it applies, yes.

That said, it's amazing at how many ignore the original circumstances
and run rabbit trails on hypothetical, totally different scenarios,
to bolster weak, eGoogglebrain, arguments.


Exactly! Lets not consider the actual facts and what actually
happened.

Lets imagine the worst and go for that.

That's what usenet is for!!!


Yeah! LOL

Han wrote in
:

[...]
Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.

Largely because of our absurd policy of jailing people for using drugs, or for possessing small
amounts for personal use.

On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:

Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a ****.

He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide intent
and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).


Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I think
that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that some one
said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems to be common
knowledge only here in this group. ;~)

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:21:07 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 9:06 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:27:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In articlecaydnS3iJZ1XBJrSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
On 1/6/2012 6:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, wrote:

My house was burglarized back in the 70's. My deer rifle was locked and
loaded and I found it on couch, ready to shoot whoever walked in the
door during the burglary; my 45 pistol was stolen and used to rape my
neighbor across the street.

After that incident, I no longer keep ammunition in any house I've lived
in, you burglarize my home you need to bring your own.

That's entirely illogical, Swingy.

Only if you ignore the possibility of what would have happened had I
walked in from work, unsuspecting and unarmed, an hour earlier ... think
about it. I have ...

They would have found a locked safe and left. And if you walked in
and they wanted you to open it, you'd say "It's my wife's safe. I
don't know the combo." Right?

Then they shoot you for being a wuss.

Damn, I just knew that was too easy.


Easy to speculate how you would react when it has not happened to you
personally.

Verily.

--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in
:

[...]
Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the
highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that
should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.

Largely because of our absurd policy of jailing people for using
drugs, or for possessing small amounts for personal use.

I was born in Holland, so follow with some interest the Amsterdam
experiences. It does turn out only semi-beneficial to allow low-level
drugs. One bad aspect is the riffraff drugtourists coming in. That
causes troubles in tourist areas (not only Amsterdam). Another is the
"gateway" to small-time and not so smalltime transgressions of the law in
other areas, hard(er) drugs, prostitution and human trafficking. So I
haven't reall formed a hard opinion, but I think that somewhere there
should be a definite and definitive border beyond which it is a real bad
crime. But, yes, it would likely be beneficial to drug users and society
as a whole if personal drug use would be allowed, and somehow regulated
and taxed.

YMMV!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:

Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a
****.

He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide
intent and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).


Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I
think that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that
some one said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems
to be common knowledge only here in this group. ;~)

"Prosecutors have instead charged the intruder's alleged accomplice, 29-
year-old Dustin Stewart, with first-degree murder in the death of his
friend, Justin Shane Martin, 24."
A news report, so not authoritative ...
http://tinyurl.com/6t4ggnq
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-mom-fa...omplice/story?
id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:32:09 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 9:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:52 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 7:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

I'm in the choir, and well aware of, and completely fine with, the
justification for felony murder charges in the above scenario, but you
do see the stark difference?

You really have to stretch logic, common sense and reality to invoke
felony murder charges in the case I remarked upon.

Again, Asshat lawyers playing games with the legal system by shading
what should be the even hand of justice.

Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the
robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller
is shot and killed.

Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No,
you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or
even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank
with the engine running.

The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in
committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any
act that any member undertakes.



Lets change that story to a friend drives another to the bank to make a
deposit. The friend ends up robbing the place and gets killed. Now you
go to jail responsible for his death.

That's where the law can fall down. It leaves it up to the DA whether
or not to prosecute the driver as a getaway conspirator or just let
him go as an unsuspecting friend.

In places like Gnu Yawk ****ty, with foaming-at-the-mouth liberals
like Bloomberg and his pet DA, you're hung before you're arrested.

Now you are seeing the light, I think. ;~) We would like for the other
guy to get the worse punishment, that would make us all feel good. But

The second perp need to be punished, and heavily.


not actually knowing all the facts does he really deserve it?

If I were the DA, I'd have that mindset going into it, then let the
facts bring it into focus. I'd want to get the guy on tape as to what
his mindset was at the time of the incident. Who brought whom into
the picture, what they were planning, etc. If he wanted to rape the
woman and got the dumb moose to break the door in for him, I'd want
him hung (or better.)

--
Worry is a misuse of imagination.
-- Dan Zadra

On 1/7/2012 2:36 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 11:57 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:18:20 -0600, Leon wrote:

Is that what the guy outside the trailer said??? Or did he say I'll
wait out side while you go into inside "your trailer" to take a
****.

He's been charged with murder, not convicted. A trial will decide
intent and guilt. Don't get your knickers in a twist :-).


Actually I do not believe he has been charged for murder at all, I
think that was suggested by a someone that had heard something that
some one said that oddly the media has not got wind of and yet seems
to be common knowledge only here in this group. ;~)

"Prosecutors have instead charged the intruder's alleged accomplice, 29-
year-old Dustin Stewart, with first-degree murder in the death of his
friend, Justin Shane Martin, 24."
A news report, so not authoritative ...
http://tinyurl.com/6t4ggnq
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-mom-fa...omplice/story?
id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U


Humm... we'll now see if it makes it to court.