Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[Cavemonster]

link

That is the specific case, but base jumping often involves entering high buildings with our permission to jump off them. SO it would seem to be a death in the course of a felony.

Reading the case details, the park officials allowed the protesters to both break the law and put their lives at extreme risk. That makes them active participants.

If zoo officials allowed people to get into a cage with tigers, and agreed to allow them to taunt the tigers and arrest them later, those zoo officials would be complicit in the death.

By allowing illegal and dangerous actions to occur, I'd say park and law officials are partly responsible.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Reading the case details, the park officials allowed the protesters to both break the law and put their lives at extreme risk. That makes them active participants.

If zoo officials allowed people to get into a cage with tigers, and agreed to allow them to taunt the tigers and arrest them later, those zoo officials would be complicit in the death.

By allowing illegal and dangerous actions to occur, I'd say park and law officials are partly responsible.

So throw them all in jail for murder.

 

[Cavemonster]

So throw them all in jail for murder.

As I said above, the crime doesn't fit the legal definition of murder.

It does qualify as criminal negligence, which seems an appropriate charge.

 

[Bob Klase]

Yes, that justifies the other person shooting. There's a term for that; self defense. That does not justify Murder II for the driver for that shooting.

In your opinion. Others differ. If you are committing a felony then you're responsible for results that would not have occurred if you hadn't been committing a felony.

If there was a justified killing, then how can anyone be charged with murder?

I think you know the answer to that question- the law says he can be charged with murder. The fact that you don't like the law doesn't invalidate the answer to that question.

The person shooting was justified under the law. That doesn't mean that every action by everyone involved in the situation is also justified.

An unjust law is an unjust law. Just because it's on the books doesn't automatically make it a just law.

Apparently, since it is on the books, we're just talking opinions here. Just because your opinion is different doesn't make yours correct.

An unjust law is an unjust law.

I'm sure we'd all agree with that when it comes to laws we all think are unjust.

Just because it's on the books doesn't automatically make it a just law.

Just because you don't think it's unjust doesn't make it an unjust law.

Or do you think that previous laws to hand over escaped slaves back to their "rightful owners" were just, just because they were on the books?

Do you think that just because someone doesn't agree with you that a particular law is unjust has to mean they think there's no such thing as an unjust law? Or are you just trying to win debating points without really making a valid point?

How about if he was aiming for Pedestrian A when another car comes around the corner and has to swerve suddenly to avoid hitting him- in the process, the 2nd car hits pedestrian B.

Now you're just reeeeally stretching logic to prove your point.

Hardly a stretch. A pretty valid analogy which is not invalidated by your desire to make it go away.

Because I'm capable of rational thought and don't accept every analogy thrown at me?

You think you're more capable of rational thought than anyone who doesn't agree with you. And no one said you have to accept "every" analogy thrown at you. You just can't accept the ones that don't agree with your predetermined opinion.

Hey, you know what? I also disagree with the idea that allowing homosexual marriage automatically leads into allowing people to marry their dogs or siblings. I guess that means that it's just because it disagrees with my point of view, and not because the argument distorts logic to make its point, right?

Non sequitur which doesn't address anything I've written.

The only reason to ever reject something is because it "doesn't agree with my point of view"?

The alternative extreme is that you never reject anything just because "doesn't agree with your point of view". Of course you're the one stuck with the extremes since I didn't say you never or always do anything.

Or do you just accuse me of that because I'm not immediately going, "Oh! That makes total sense! Him attacking someone else with the car was TOTALLY like him shooting his accomplice with a gun in every conceivable fashion!

Oh, now I got it. You're one of those people who who that an analogy must agree with every single aspect of a situation or it doesn't count.

ONO WAY I could POSSIBLY disagree with that analogy, OMG!!!!!!"

ONO WAY you could POSSIBLY set up strawmen.

I find it funny how certain people here actually refuse to accept the idea of personal responsibility. She couldn't possibly be responsible for her own death -- being an accomplice and all.

I find it funny that I can't find a single post here where someone claims she bears no responsibility for her own death. Apparently you'd be happier if they'd fille charges against her and put her dead body in jail.

She couldn't possibly be responsible for her own death -- being an accomplice and all.

Oh, you're absolutely right. It's not possible to have more than one person responsible for a death. We could never charge two people for the same crime. Thanks for showing me how unjust all the other laws are that allow more than one person to be held responsible for a single crime.

 

[Bob Klase]

Obviously, given some people's position on this thread, the surviving kids should all be thrown in jail for life for Murder II.

Right. That's just as obvious as the fact that given your position, no one should ever be charged with hiring a contract killer.

 

[Bob Klase]

Reading the case details, the park officials allowed the protesters to both break the law and put their lives at extreme risk. That makes them active participants.

Which law did they break? The link only refers to:

Yosemite National Park bans parachuting from its majestic cliffs

Perhaps that would be a regulation (not the same as a law) since Yosemite National Park is not a part of congress (or any other law-making government body) and can't make laws.

 

[Lonewulf]

Right. That's just as obvious as the fact that given your position, no one should ever be charged with hiring a contract killer.

Yes, I guess I can see how someone could come to that logical conclusion.

 

[Bob Klase]

link

Could you help find somewhere in that link where it refers to a felony?

That is the specific case, but base jumping often involves entering high buildings with our permission to jump off them. SO it would seem to be a death in the course of a felony.

It might seem that way, but you really need to find a case where a trespassing charge related to base jumping was was a felony and not a misdemeanor.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As I said above, the crime doesn't fit the legal definition of murder.

It does qualify as criminal negligence, which seems an appropriate charge.

She died during the commission of a crime.

 

[Bob Klase]

She died during the commission of a crime.

Perhaps you could give us the wording of the law that says that's automatically murder in all situations?

 

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, Bob, I was going to write up an in-depth response to you, but I can't really find the energy.

Come back when you can say something other than "That's just your opinion!" or "You disagree with my analogy only because it doesn't match your predetermined opinion!"

 

[Lonewulf]

Perhaps you could give us the wording of the law that says that's automatically murder in all situations?

So it's murder in this case, but not murder in a similar situation?

Why is that so, or is this arbitrarily decided? (And "because the law says so" is a poor argument at best. If the law said "standing 5 feet from someone that is killed is murder", that wouldn't make it ethically or morally equivalent to murder, or even logically).

 

[Cavemonster]

Which law did they break? The link only refers to:



Perhaps that would be a regulation (not the same as a law) since Yosemite National Park is not a part of congress (or any other law-making government body) and can't make laws.

I don't know the legal status. We got to this tangent because most folks in the thread agreed that the OP situation was in accordance with the law, but we couldn't agree on whether it was ethically appropriate.

When I was addressing ponderingturtle's example, I was addressing the park officials' level of ethical/social responsibility, which is a separate issue from whether they are legally responsible.

 

[Cavemonster]

She died during the commission of a crime.

Yes, and the legal definition of murder contains the intent to at least harm. Did the park official's intend to harm anyone?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Could you help find somewhere in that link where it refers to a felony?

It was an example of the kind of death, that I read about in the Darwin Awards. Base jumping often involves breaking into buildings to jump off them, this seems like something that could be a felony, or do you have no problem with people breaking into your house to do things that you do not give them permission even if they don't steal anything?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, and the legal definition of murder contains the intent to at least harm. Did the park official's intend to harm anyone?

A death that occurs in the commission of a crime, sounds like it would be murder in a lot of places.

The man charged in this case wasn't trying to harm anyone, so any intent doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Cavemonster]

A death that occurs in the commission of a crime, sounds like it would be murder in a lot of places.

The man charged in this case wasn't trying to harm anyone, so any intent doesn't seem to matter.

They were carrying around a loaded gun with the intent to use it to coerce, accroding to the robbery victim, they drove at him, engaging the car as a possible lethal weapon, plenty of intent to harm.

If I'm cheating on my taxes, accidentally drop my envelope, and before I can bend down to pick it up, some guy walks along and slips, breaking his neck, I'm not on the hook for murder just because the envelope contained my crime of tax cheating.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They were carrying around a loaded gun with the intent to use it to coerce, accroding to the robbery victim, they drove at him, engaging the car as a possible lethal weapon, plenty of intent to harm.

Only gun mentioned in the article is the one the farmer shot the girl with. Got a source for him being armed?

 

[Cavemonster]

Only gun mentioned in the article is the one the farmer shot the girl with. Got a source for him being armed?

Sorry, I was confusing it with another case mentioned.

The point remains that they continued to drive the vehicle at the farmer, making it a weapon.

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

"Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle," the affidavit stated.

But again, I said several times that I believe murder is a stretch for this charge, even if legal officials feel that it fits. Stop arguing against strawmen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But again, I said several times that I believe murder is a stretch for this charge, even if legal officials feel that it fits. Stop arguing against strawmen.

I don't see a problem with thought experiments. I cited an illegal activity, the breaking and entering associated with base jumping, and that can result in deaths. I don't see why deaths during the commission of a crime should not be applied in such situations.