Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children in a school playground at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California on 29 January 1979, killing two adults and injuring eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day".​

Doubt you even know where the wheelhouse term comes from :p

Personally, if the girls argued all the time it wouldn't add the likelihood of guilt of Amanda. Now if AK had threatened to kill her, that would change things but of course that isn't a motive.
ETA of course Brenda was nuts.
Click to expand...

It would evidence the existence of an unspecified motive, which is adjacent to the real thing. I don't like Mondays either.

I do know too where the wheelhouse thing comes from! :mad: It comes from acbytesla! :)
 
Bill:
Often in these shows, they try to make normal teenage rebellion into something sinister but we don't even see that.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I'm with Anglo on this Grinder. Maybe you can find one crazy person out of twenty thousand killers who at the spurt of the moment kills somebody, but not likely two and certainly not three.
Click to expand...

In Canada, murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate. All other culpable murder is second degree murder. It would seem that if in Canada the Crown cannot prove planning, deliberateness or criminal recklessness, then 2nd degree murder is the charge.

Manslaughter is murder as a result of immediate provocation, "A wrongful act or an insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool."

It would seem to me that motive, or lack of motive, or lack of proof of motive would simply send a 1st degree charge to 2nd degree. The only difference in sentencing is that in 1st degree parole is not to be before 25 years, and for 2nd degree not before 10 years.

The scenario acbytesla describes would be manslaughter in Canada.
 
Bill Williams said:
In Canada, murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate. All other culpable murder is second degree murder. It would seem that if in Canada the Crown cannot prove planning, deliberateness or criminal recklessness, then 2nd degree murder is the charge.

Manslaughter is murder as a result of immediate provocation, "A wrongful act or an insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool."

It would seem to me that motive, or lack of motive, or lack of proof of motive would simply send a 1st degree charge to 2nd degree. The only difference in sentencing is that in 1st degree parole is not to be before 25 years, and for 2nd degree not before 10 years.

The scenario acbytesla describes would be manslaughter in Canada.
Click to expand...

You are conflating motive with premeditation. If a guy looks at my bird in a bar and I glass him and he bleeds to death I have a motive (to stop people looking at my bird) but no premed.
 
Grinder said:
16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children in a school playground at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California on 29 January 1979, killing two adults and injuring eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day".​

Doubt you even know where the wheelhouse term comes from :p

Personally, if the girls argued all the time it wouldn't add the likelihood of guilt of Amanda. Now if AK had threatened to kill her, that would change things but of course that isn't a motive.

ETA of course Brenda was nuts.
Click to expand...
And alone.
 
Bill Williams said:
Can one have a motive of a non-premeditated crime?
Click to expand...

Yes, I just gave you an example. Here's another. You insult my wife and I lunge at you with a knife. I have a motive - to avenge the insult - but no premeditation, unless you want to torture the word so as to impute a nanosecond of premeditation formed in the moment between reaching for the knife and plunging it into your heart. In that interpretation, it would be hard to conceive of an unpremeditated murder and, in truth, the concept does give rise to silly problems sometimes (it may not be without significance that we wise and venerable ones over here do well enough entirely without it).
 
anglolawyer said:
Yes, I just gave you an example. Here's another. You insult my wife and I lunge at you with a knife. I have a motive - to avenge the insult - but no premeditation, unless you want to torture the word so as to impute a nanosecond of premeditation formed in the moment between reaching for the knife and plunging it into your heart. In that interpretation, it would be hard to conceive of an unpremeditated murder and, in truth, the concept does give rise to silly problems sometimes (it may not be without significance that we wise and venerable ones over here do well enough entirely without it).
Click to expand...

You're always criticizing my hobbies!

Which is my way of saying....... UNCLE!

Nowif you can just get the same admission from Grinder, I will be a happy, chastised but happy man.
 
acbytesla said:
Very good article DF. The US Supreme Court will rule in Copes favor. In fact, I'm surprised that a lower Federal Court didn't already throw out the conviction based on the previous US Supreme Court ruling that was made against Judge Hayes ..but maybe something else "legally" is going on here that I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Five of the nine justices are quite conservative.
Kennedy has moments of sanity but otherwise I would not count on them.

This is an issue I think about with murder cases generally.
I would like to consider myself as skeptic and home that I am one.
Would have to say that if I was selected for a death penalty case.
Generally skeptics tend to be anti-death penalty.

As a result, when you have a death penalty trial, you will not get many skeptics. Concerned that they may see guilt without good evidence.
 
anglolawyer said:
Yes, I just gave you an example. Here's another. You insult my wife and I lunge at you with a knife. I have a motive - to avenge the insult - but no premeditation, unless you want to torture the word so as to impute a nanosecond of premeditation formed in the moment between reaching for the knife and plunging it into your heart. In that interpretation, it would be hard to conceive of an unpremeditated murder and, in truth, the concept does give rise to silly problems sometimes (it may not be without significance that we wise and venerable ones over here do well enough entirely without it).
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I have seen some trials where the prosecutor argues just that :(
 
acbytesla said:
Very good article DF. The US Supreme Court will rule in Copes favor. In fact, I'm surprised that a lower Federal Court didn't already throw out the conviction based on the previous US Supreme Court ruling that was made against Judge Hayes ..but maybe something else "legally" is going on here that I don't understand.
Click to expand...

You think? :p

I just talked with a friend that has been involved on both sides of criminal cases, both prosecution as an agent and now as a PI.

His take on motive is that it very useful in the investigative phase and an add-on for trial if it is fairly clear and not knowing isn't powerful for the defense. Tesla that means they look for motive to lead them to suspects just as they use proximity and opportunity.

Bill, perhaps you could be more specific about what I'm supposed to say uncle about.

The fact that you confused premeditation and motive isn't my problem.
 
Grinder said:
Bill, perhaps you could be more specific about what I'm supposed to say uncle about.

The fact that you confused premeditation and motive isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

First of all, I conflated them, not confused them. They are intricately related.

Second of all, you do too. I am off to my 12-step program to recover from this sin, and you are welcome to come along.
 
Bill Williams said:
You're always criticizing my hobbies!

Which is my way of saying....... UNCLE!

Nowif you can just get the same admission from Grinder, I will be a happy, chastised but happy man.
Click to expand...

Grinder is incorrigible. The word was actually invented with him in mind. He is occasionally right, however. E.g. that motive is an investigative tool. I know this because I've seen lots of movies where the cops ask, 'do you know of anyone who might have wanted to harm your husband?' but he's wrong in all other respects on this subject as on so many others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom