On 1/7/2012 2:33 PM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in
:

Snip


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!


Do to Denver, you may buy your drugs there with the good graces of law
enforcement.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:48:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Leon lcb11211@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.

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. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.


:wq

One word - INTENT.
If the intent was to kill the guy, it's the same as breaking i to the
trailer if the guy dies breaking in.

A more likely charge in the cliff incident would be manslaughter or
criminal negligence causing death.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 1/7/2012 2:33 PM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in
:

Snip


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!


Do to Denver, you may buy your drugs there with the good graces of law
enforcement.

Oops. For the record, I use medications, not what generally is thought
of as drugs. The silly giggling of a friend smoking something made the
decision for me. The smell of marihuana smoke in the rest room closest
to my lab in the VA clinched it.

To each his own. I have no objection to you smoking or whatever the
lesser stuff, as long as you don't commit crimes getting it, or drive
while under the influence.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

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...ccomplice/stor
y? id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U


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

That's a whole other kettle of fish ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

On 1/7/2012 7:33 AM, Larry W wrote:
In articleAdWdndH7eMJaPJrSnZ2dnUVZ5sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 1/6/2012 4:55 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
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.

Without being familiar with the specific laws where it occurred,
how can you say?



Common sense.

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.


Only if "felonious intent" - like trying to ram someone, or escape
police pursuit.

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.
Prove intent.
Reasonable doubt.

Get a good lawyer

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.

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 10:02:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.


Something DID happen. A man was killed while engaged in a crime. 2 men
were involved in the crime. If the surviving guy had run when the
now-dead guy started kicking in the door, complicity would be pretty
hard to prove. Because he hung around untill his buddy sprang a leak,
complicity is pretty easy to establish.
Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.





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 Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:07:33 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Hey, this is USENET, not a court of law. Kangaroos are allowed.

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

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:13:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Yeah, I wonder how the law deals with a death but no murder for self
defense, with co-conspirators, etc. I guess we'll see.

Back to hippity hopping along.

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

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:11:36 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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

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

Um, perhaps the law considers it a felony murder but lets the doer off
the hook with a self-defense plea, while convicting conspirators. We
shall see.


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

Facts? We doan need no steenkin' facts! Thees eez USENET, señor!

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

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:02:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Look up the words "with intent to" in some legal cases. What the DA
says, goes. He'll have all the inner and outer sounds contained on the
very high-res 911 call tapes to work with.


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.

Ideally, no. But it happens.


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.

Oops, I meant to write "after his buddy shot his RPG at your convoy"


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

Damned straight. What do they think they're doing in my...um, oh. This
is -their- country...


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

Aww, you're no fun. We're sure kickin' this dead kangaroo around,
aren't we?

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

On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.

And exactly what is wrong with our laws.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, wrote:
complicity is pretty easy to establish.
Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.

I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
finding.

I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
just one method they use to find more information.

On 07 Jan 2012 21:57:44 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

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...ccomplice/stor
y? id=15304382#.TwisXjEgd-U


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

That's a whole other kettle of fish ...

If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:34:47 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.

And exactly what is wrong with our laws.

We're 180 degrees on this one. A big guy with a foot long knife
breaking in your door is assault, period. Now, can I prove it?
Yes.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is
committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the
victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by
an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is
aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an
unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual is not considered
an aggravated assault.
and
assault noun act of hostility, aggression, aggressive action,
assailment, attack, besiegement, encounter, incursion, incursus,
injury, intrusion, irruption, offense, onset, onset with force,
onslaught, oppugnatio, siege, strike, sudden attack, violation of
another's rights
Associated concepts: aggravated assault, assault and battery, assault
with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to commit a felony, assault
with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to maim, assault
with intent to rape, assault with intent to rob, battery, felonious
assault, simple assault.

Pick any six.

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:56:55 +0000, Han wrote:

To each his own. I have no objection to you smoking or whatever the
lesser stuff, as long as you don't commit crimes getting it, or drive
while under the influence.

That's probably the way it should be handled - DUI. Or as an aggravating
factor of any crime committed while UI.

That way we could avoid making criminals rich.

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

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.

Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the obligatory
bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was out of my
mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just microwaved with some
kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was delicious, and held up well to
warming up ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:34:47 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/7/2012 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:38:22 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

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.

Technically, under the law, she WAS assaulted.

And exactly what is wrong with our laws.


No. it is what is RIGHT about our (or in this case, YOUR -) laws.
Protect the innocent while they are still alive, and punish the guilty
BEFORE they kill someone.
There is assault, and assault causing bodily harm, and assault and
battery, and aggravated assault.

Theatening harm is assault.
Following through on the assault is battery, and assault with intent
to harm vs intimidate is aggravated assault - and a felony even if you
never get the chance to do any physical harm.
If someone - anyone - including YOU, is killed as a result of an
"aggravated assault", felony murder has occured., and anyone involved
in that felonious assault is guilty of the offence. Period. That is
the law in the USA, Canada, Britain, and most of the civilized world
- and that is PART of what makes it a "civilized " world.

I know it is only WIKI, but here it is from that source:

In law, assault is a crime causing a victim to fear violence. The term
is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The
specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to
an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal
violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused
by an immediate show of force.[1][2] Assault in some US
jurisdictions[which?] is defined more broadly still as any intentional
physical contact with another person without their consent;[3][4][5]
but in the majority of the United States and in England & Wales and
all other common law jurisdictions in the world, this is defined
instead as battery. Some jurisdictions have incorporated the
definition of civil assault into the definition of the crime making it
a criminal assault to intentionally cause another person to apprehend
a harmful or offensive contact.

or from another online dictionary:

assault[uh-sawlt] Example Sentences Origin as·sault /?'s?lt/
Show Spelled[uh-sawlt] Show IPA
noun
1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2. Law . an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer
to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a
stone or club in a threatening manner.
3. Military . the stage of close combat in an attack.
4. rape1 .
verb (used with object)
5. to make an assault upon; attack; assail.

or from the legal dictionary at fthefreedictionary.com:

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an
apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an
apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a
tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.
Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort
Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault
consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions
throughout the United States are not substantially different from the
common-law definition.

ElementsGenerally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act
intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that
causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone
are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some
action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere
threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a
raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension
of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be
specific intent€”if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of
harmful or offensive contact in the victim€”or general intent€”if he or
she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition,
the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a
reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who
holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since
it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension
in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a
Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not
suffice for this form of assault.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true
apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of
injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such
apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the
victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be
sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to
an adult might not.

Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the
danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted
battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping
victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the
victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

Aggravated AssaultAn aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a
felony, is committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely
frighten the victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those
accompanied by an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a
dangerous weapon is aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious
harm. Pointing an unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual
is not considered an aggravated assault.


Columbia Encyclopedia:
assault

assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use
violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to
another. If violent contact actually occurs, the offense of battery
has been committed; modern criminal statutes often combine assault and
battery. An assault may be both a crime and a tort, for which the
party assaulted may sue for damages; the victim's freedom, as to move
or remain at peace, must have been impinged on. Modern criminal
statutes recognize certain degrees of assault (e.g., with intent to
kill, to do great bodily harm, to rape) as aggravated assaults and
felonies, though simple assault remains, as at common law, a
misdemeanor. Either malevolence or recklessness (as in driving a car
in reckless disregard of human life) may constitute the intent
necessary to assault in most jurisdictions.

Read mo http://www.answers.com/topic/assault#ixzz1ipPAvnSj


West's Encyclopedia of American Law:
Assault

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.


At common law, an intentional act by one person that creates an
apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an
apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a
tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability.
Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort
law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault
consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions
throughout the United States are not substantially different from the
common-law definition.

Elements

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act
intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that
causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone
are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some
action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere
threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a
raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension
of harm in the victim.

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be
specific intent €” if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension
of harmful or offensive contact in the victim €” or general intent €” if
he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In
addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially
certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A
defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite
intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce
an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is
irrelevant.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a
specific intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not
suffice for this form of assault.

There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true
apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of
injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such
apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the
victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be
sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to
an adult might not.

Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the
danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted
battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping
victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the
victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

Aggravated Assault

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is
committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the
victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by
an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is
aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an
unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual is not considered
an aggravated assault.

Punishment

A defendant adjudged to have committed civil assault is liable for
damages. The question of the amount that should be awarded to the
victim is determined by a jury. Compensatory damages, which are aimed
at compensating the victim for the injury, are common. Nominal
damages, a small sum awarded for the invasion of a right even though
there has been no substantial injury, may be awarded. In some cases,
courts allow punitive damages, which are designed to punish the
defendant for the wrongful conduct.


Read mo http://www.answers.com/topic/assault#ixzz1ipPOLxjn

Leon wrote:



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

If I have no knowledge he had a gun, there's no foul. If I knew he had a
gun, but, again, had no information that he intended to use it in an illegal
manner, also no foul.

If I knew he had a gun and intended to shoot somebody and I went along to
try and dissuade that action, no foul.

If I knew in advance that my buddy intended to commit an illegal act and I
went along to assist in some way, I'm equally guilty of any offense my buddy
commits. My assistance can be quite passive, such as a look-out, driving the
getaway car, or anything tending to make a success of my buddy's escapade.

Let's take a simply example: If I hold the victim down while my buddy stabs
him 18 times thereby ending the victim's life, should I be responsible only
for simple assault? After all, I didn't do any stabbing.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, wrote:
complicity is pretty easy to establish.
Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.

I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
finding.

I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
just one method they use to find more information.
And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed,
and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the
letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel,
you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works.
Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you
were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably
should have known.

That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward
IF it gets to trial.

Leon wrote:

Common sense.

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, I don't see the logic, nor, evidently, do you.

A passenger in a car is not a participant in any offense in which the driver
partakes.

Take it further: You are a passenger in a car. Your buddy, the driver, gets
incensed over the actions of another driver, pulls up beside the other
driver, and, through the open window, shoots the other driver dead. Are you
in any way guilty of anything? Of course not.

If, however, YOU are driving and you buddy says "Pull up beside that asshole
so I can shoot his sorry ass," and you do as your buddy asks, you have
committed felony murder (in most jurisdictions).

Leon wrote:

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.

That has to be the most idiotic statement I've heard in the last hour.

Leon wrote:
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.

Giggle.

"However, prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old
Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities,
Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the
gunshots.
" 'When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death
results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for
it,' [Assistant District Attorney] Walters said."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/na...xtype=rss_news

I understand that those "drug legal areas" have been rescinded and no longer
exist in the last few years.

--------------

"Han" wrote in message ...
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!

Han wrote:


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.

Oh - pure bull****. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's
sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen.
What freakin' good is your almighty registration? Do you even think before
you write this stuff? The real world is about more than your feel good
crap. Sorry - but this brain dead line of thought really hits a nerve.



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.


You are a dreamer. Do you really even understand where illegal guns come
from? Do you really believe they all come from traceable sources? Do you
really believe the capacity even exists to actually trace these things?
Have you thought this out at all?


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.

Oh... that would be a thread, wouldn't it? You're just feeling wicked
tonight aren't you...?

--

-Mike-

Do the USA not have "accomplice" charges for these crimes?


------------
"Leon" wrote in message
...

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 Sun, 8 Jan 2012 00:55:15 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:56:55 +0000, Han wrote:

To each his own. I have no objection to you smoking or whatever the
lesser stuff, as long as you don't commit crimes getting it, or drive
while under the influence.

That's probably the way it should be handled - DUI. Or as an aggravating
factor of any crime committed while UI.

That way we could avoid making criminals rich.

Which, the perps on the street or those in suits and ties with law
degrees?

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood

Leon 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.

No you don't. We have a teaching moment here; The basic theory of criminal
law is that every offence is predicated on the state of mind of the accused.
In the example you posit, there is no "mens rea", or guilty mind. Without
the requisite criminal (or negligent) intent, there is no crime. Period. End
of story. The driver must have known, or should have known, that a robbery
was planned before any sanction can attach. Mere presence is not enough
because, as you proposed, the presence was entirely innocent.

On 08 Jan 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

If it's Saturday, it must be Lutefisk.

Since my daughter in law is from North Dakota I have taken the obligatory
bite of lutefisk. It took hours before that foul taste was out of my
mouth. I had leftovers from yesterday's swai. Just microwaved with some
kind of dill mix over it. At $6/lb it was delicious, and held up well to
warming up ...

I wonder how much Agent Orange is left in the mud over there in swai
country...but, yeah, swai is pretty good. Why is some tilapi sweet
and mellow, the other very fishy? Is it just old fish before it's
frozen?

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood

Maybe another good Samaritan got punished again?

Perhaps they heard a scream and were going in to rescue somebody when the
stoned drug freak woman murdered her potential rescuer, hallucinating he was
an attacker? Her father, a police officer, was first on the scene.

We ain't gonna' know the facts.


--------
"Leon" wrote in message
...
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.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" 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.

What difference does it make to me where the criminal got the gun if I have
to protect myself from him? Traceable? Why? Any time the cops have a gun
that COULD be traceable, the crime has already occurred. What difference
does it make to me, when accosted by a mope, whether the gun he uses can be
traced?


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.

No, the goblin didn't get any guns from me. He was apparently just beginning
his squit-eyed actions.

You had better check your facts: Most guns used in crime, so far as
authorities know, are NOT committed with stolen guns.

Believe me, every time authorities find a gun that has moved illegally in
commerce, those responsible are punished. Except for those thousands of guns
whose dodgy sales were sanctioned by the BATF. Most went to drug cartels in
Mexico (a good thing) but some ended up on this side of the border where
they contributed to the mayhem.


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.

We have the highest percentage of incarceration because we want to keep the
crime rate as low as possible. There is an obvious and dramatic inverse
relationship between crime and incarceration. This doesn't prove causality,
of course, but it's a good indicator to most folks.

Leon wrote:

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.

No, "if" about it. Gomer #2 participated in the planning and execution of
the crime.

Gomer #2 HAS been charged with murder.

For over 800 years, western law has recognized the felony murder rule. That
you don't like the felony murder rule or think it's unfair is at variance
with the greatest legal minds of almost a millennia, indeed, your position
is the opposite of a civilized society.

In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 1/7/2012 7:48 AM, Larry W wrote:
In articleAdWdndD7eMIPP5rSnZ2dnUVZ5sidnZ2d@giganews. com,
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.

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. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the
evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating
in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.

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 ****.
Hey dude! Why are you kicking in your door??? BANG? The friend is
dead and you are up for murder.

Again, that will be for the jury to decide, not rec.woodworking.

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Han wrote:

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.

Then again, there was the embarassing prosecution and police investigation.
I believe what "twisted the jury's mind" was more the ineptitude of the
prosecution process more than anything else.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:15:48 -0500, wrote:
And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
you WERE guilty of "careless driving".

You are right, I was sick. But, I didn't know I was, which would have
exempted me from responsibility. Shortly after the accident, I went
into the hospital for fifteen months. According to my father who kept
getting the court dates pushed back because of the hospitalization,
the charges were eventually dismissed. The prosecutor assumed I was
still in the hospital for injuries I'd suffered from the car crash and
felt I'd "suffered enough". Funny how that worked out.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 21:24:41 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Oh - pure bull****. Do you live in any sort of a real world? For christ's
sake think will you? So you legally register your gun. It gets stolen.
What freakin' good is your almighty registration?

There is often a definite advantage to law enforcement if some sort of
trail can be established from where, when and who the gun was stolen
from.

Consider this. A bunch of guns are stolen in the US and find their way
into a smuggling ring that brings them up to Canada. (As has happened
many times). Knowing where these guns came from in the US lets law
enforcement focus on certain areas and travel routes more than others.
Every little bit of knowledge helps in trying to prevent such
occurrences.

How about a closely comparable example? Knowing where many/most of the
illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border into the US, lets
immigration concentrate more on a particular area.

Same situation, different subjects, both true. Tell me you dispute
this?

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/6/2012 6:34 AM, Leon wrote:

Does any one "just" own "a" gun? ;~)

I only own one ... a Remington Model 11 20 ga which my father gave me
when I was nine. No shells are in the house.

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.

I can follow your logic. I used to have a gun and one day I found
myself in a situation where I thought I was going to have to use it to
save a friend's ass. Fortunately I didn't have to use it, but it
scared the crap out of me when I realized all of the ramifications of
using it. I haven't had a gun since then other then a rifle with
ammunition so old I'd probably be safer having it pointed at me then
shooting it. I guess when they cut the police force to where you
have to protect yourself I'll reconsider.

Mike M

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:45:49 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:10:35 -0500, wrote:
complicity is pretty easy to establish.
Charge the guy. Convict the guy. Then figure out what to do with him.

I'm guessing that's probably not too far from the truth, except for
the conviction part. I've experienced something similar up here in
Toronto, Canada, except the charges were part of the cops fact
finding.

I was sick and passed out at the wheel of my car. Slammed head on into
a concrete light pillar and knocked it over. Woke up in the hospital
not remembering one bit of the accident. Cops didn't have a clue why
the accident happened either, but that didn't stop them from charging
me with careless driving. When I consulted a lawyer, I was told it was
just one method they use to find more information.
And IF you were sick when you got behind the wheel, you WERE guilty
of driving without due care and attention - and therefore, legally -
you WERE guilty of "careless driving".
Depending on the circumstances, the charge would LIKELY be dismissed,
and if not you would quite LIKELY be found not guilty - but by the
letter of the law - if you were sick when you got behind the wheel,
you WERE guilty of the charge. That's just the way the law works.
Due care and attention would preclude you from driving if you knew you
were not physically and mentally up to the task, or if you reasonably
should have known.

However if you were sick to the point of passing out you might also have
been in a mentally impaired state and incapable of making such a
judgment, and it is difficult to argue effectively that one becomes sick
by intent or has any other kind of volition in the matter.

One problem with the current legal system is that it doesn't have any
place for "**** happens through nobody's fault".


That is up to the court to decide from the evidence brought forward
IF it gets to trial.

Dave caused the accident and nobody else.

Some say he's an accident waiting to happen.

-------------
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

However if you were sick to the point of passing out you might also
have
been in a mentally impaired state and incapable of making such a
judgment, and it is difficult to argue effectively that one becomes
sick
by intent or has any other kind of volition in the matter.

One problem with the current legal system is that it doesn't have any
place for "**** happens through nobody's fault".