Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[Bob Klase]

There is a difference between treating different crimes differently, and treating crimes that result in someones death differently. If you are held responsible for unintended consequences of one crime why shouldn't you be held responsible for the unintended consequences of the other?

Because the unintended results of some crimes are much more likely to be injury or death than the unintended results of other crimes.

 

[Bob Klase]

Maybe because some people (including me) actually feel that they can disagree with a law. Gasp! Awe!

Because some people here (specifically you) disagree with a law when you don't even know what the law says. Or perhaps you even disagree with one application of the law when you might not disagree with the fundamental law itself.

When you figure that out, maybe future debate will actually get somewhere.

Ditto.

 

[Lonewulf]

Because some people here (specifically you) disagree with a law when you don't even know what the law says.

Can you explain what I fail to understand about this law, then? Or why this misunderstanding has a huge direct impact on any of my arguments in this thread, at all?

Or perhaps you even disagree with one application of the law when you might not disagree with the fundamental law itself.

Perhaps.

Can you perchance try to be less vague, though?

My main disagreement is in giving him a larger prison sentence for Murder II. It doesn't really matter what the law says, or what some lawyer managed to weasel the law to say, or what precedent there was for the decision. I do not agree that someone should be thrown in Murder II for what happens to their accomplice, unless they directly killed that person willfully. Manslaughter seems to be the only logical sentence in these circumstances.

I fail to see how some great new unveiling of some defined law is going to change that opinion, since it's not based on "what the law says", it's based on my own ideas of justice, fairness, etc. As well as logic. Once more, if one cannot "attempt" to kill their accomplice by taking them on a dangerous crime, then how can they willfully kill them?

Murder in the Second Degree is defined as:

"MURDER, SECOND DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of second degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated. Note that the elements are identical with those for 1st degree murder. The practical difference is the sentences are different. Which crime to charge is usually entirely up to the prosecutor¼s discretion. "

The murder of the passenger was not done with malice aforethought, and was not premeditated. There was no "murder". There was negligent homicide or manslaughter or something similar, but not Murder in the Second Degree.

 

[drkitten]

Why should someones death during a misdemeanor be so different than one during a felony?

Because society does not have as much interest in deterring the commission of misdemeanors, by definition. If it did, it would make them into felonies.

 

[Bob Klase]

If there is no "attempted murder" possible under the motivations, how can there be "Murder II"? Attempted murder between the driver and occupant, not the driver and the pedestrian he was trying to run down.

This has gone unanswered, or I missed the answer.

Apparently you missed the answer, along with other things like the definition/difference between different degrees of murder charges.

For instance, in Florida:

http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/homicide-murder.html

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree

Oh look. Murder II specifically says that "although there is no premeditated design to effect the death of any individual".

I'm not arguing what's actually in the books, I'm asking for the logic behind the decision.

If you require intent for Murder II then it just becomes Murder I. I.

So your argument here seems to be that there should be no 2nd degree murder, only first degree.

I'm not going to waste time tracking down the legal requirements for attempted murder, but I'm pretty sure that if you bothered you'd find that it requires the intent to cause death.

 

[Lonewulf]

Then what, exactly, is the difference between Murder II and Manslaughter, and what is the difference in prison terms? Seems pretty messed up, to me.

I admit that I didn't realize that state law differed that radically.

 

[Bob Klase]

My main disagreement is in giving him a larger prison sentence for Murder II.

I do not agree that someone should be thrown in Murder II for what happens to their accomplice, unless they directly killed that person willfully. Manslaughter seems to be the only logical sentence in these circumstances.

Manslaughter can result from many things which aren't even criminal acts. Why should he be treated the same as someone who was merely negligent? If his criminal act results in a death why should it make any difference whether the dead person is his accomplice or a bystander?

I fail to see how some great new unveiling of some defined law is going to change that opinion, since it's not based on "what the law says", it's based on my own ideas of justice, fairness, etc.

Your opinion might not be based on "what the law says", but you keep arguing that the law is unfair. Hardly logical to have an opinion about what something says when you don't know what it says.

As well as logic. Once more, if one cannot "attempt" to kill their accomplice by taking them on a dangerous crime, then how can they willfully kill them?

You just said you don't care what the law says and here you're attempting to argue what the law says (again, without knowing what it says).

So, once again, there is no "willful" required.

Murder in the Second Degree is defined as:

"MURDER, SECOND DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of second degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated. Note that the elements are identical with those for 1st degree murder. The practical difference is the sentences are different. Which crime to charge is usually entirely up to the prosecutor¼s discretion. "

In what state does that definition apply? Not Floridia.

 

[Bob Klase]

Then what, exactly, is the difference between Murder II and Manslaughter, and what is the difference in prison terms?

Depends on the state since neither is a federal crime. I don't have time to search out the legal requirements for all of them (or any of them really). In general (although I'm sure you can find states that differ) I think it's safe to say that:

Murder 1 is intentional murder with premeditation (although the premeditation and intent may not be required in some circumstances in some states).

Murder 2 requires the intent to hurt or kill but doesn't require premeditation. (ie- you get in a bar fight and during the fight you grab a knife off the bar and stab the other person. You may not have intended to kill him, but you obviously meant to hurt him or you wouldn't have stabbed him. He died, so even if you only intended to hurt and not kill it can be Murder 2)

Manslaughter does not require intent or premeditation, just a "reckless disregard of human life." (ie- you dig a big hole in front of your front door because you're going to put in a swimming pool. You don't bother to mark it or put a fence around it and that night your neighbor comes over to borrow a cup of milk and falls in the hole and dies. That would be covered by manslaughter.)

http://askville.amazon.com/definition-manslaughter/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=13112755

A person may not have intended anyone to die but they didn’t care if they caused a situation where someone might die, and someone did in fact die.

As far as sentences, I really have no idea what is allowed for each. I think it's safe to assume that there are significant differences or there wouldn't be much point in making them different crimes. I believe Murder 1 is the only one with a death sentence or life without parole, and then only in certain circumstances. The best I remember is that 10-20 years is the maximum for manslaughter in cases I remember reading about in the past.

The type of conviction (1, 2 or manslaughter) also affects when and if you can be paroled.

Seems pretty messed up, to me.

Sure. Laws tend to get pretty messed up. Sometimes because they're written badly, sometimes because of the 'law' of unintended consequences, sometimes because they're applied badly. Probably other reasons I haven't thought of too.

I admit that I didn't realize that state law differed that radically.

That was pretty much my point about you not knowing what the law says. Despite not caring what the law says you keep basing at least some of your arguments in this thread on laws in other states or on things the law doesn't say. You can have an opinion that a law is unjust, but I don't see how you can have a valid opinion about what something (the law) says when you don't know what it says.

 

[Lonewulf]

Depends on the state since neither is a federal crime. I don't have time to search out the legal requirements for all of them (or any of them really). In general (although I'm sure you can find states that differ) I think it's safe to say that:

Murder 1 is intentional murder with premeditation (although the premeditation and intent may not be required in some circumstances in some states).

Murder 2 requires the intent to hurt or kill but doesn't require premeditation. (ie- you get in a bar fight and during the fight you grab a knife off the bar and stab the other person. You may not have intended to kill him, but you obviously meant to hurt him or you wouldn't have stabbed him. He died, so even if you only intended to hurt and not kill it can be Murder 2)

See, this definition of Murder 2 I was thinking of (the other definition I hastily ascribed much farther above was from a quick google link, and I was surprised as it seemed to list out what I thought of as Murder 1). It doesn't require premeditation, but it involves intentionally stabbing him. "You obviously meant to hurt him or you wouldn't have stabbed him".

In this case, he did not "obviously" stab the woman that was his accomplice. He did not "obviously" intend harm to her. He did not "obviously" do anything to her. She was his accomplice, along for the ride, and she happened to catch the bullet that was sent their way; it could have hit her, or it could have hit him, and it was all up to luck and chance. It was a high-risk crime, yes, but there was no "obvious stabbing", as you define here.

A failed Murder 2 would still fall under attempted murder, as far as I know. Intentionally stabbing or shooting someone, even if it fails to kill them, was still an attempted murder, because stabbing someone or shooting them is most times fatal and has the end goal of incurring fatal consequences.

Manslaughter does not require intent or premeditation, just a "reckless disregard of human life." (ie- you dig a big hole in front of your front door because you're going to put in a swimming pool. You don't bother to mark it or put a fence around it and that night your neighbor comes over to borrow a cup of milk and falls in the hole and dies. That would be covered by manslaughter.)

This seems to be the case. He showed a reckless disregard for his partner's life, both in his fleeing and his taking her on as his partner. This is the only justifiable conclusion that I can come to.

As far as sentences, I really have no idea what is allowed for each. I think it's safe to assume that there are significant differences or there wouldn't be much point in making them different crimes. I believe Murder 1 is the only one with a death sentence or life without parole, and then only in certain circumstances. The best I remember is that 10-20 years is the maximum for manslaughter in cases I remember reading about in the past.

The type of conviction (1, 2 or manslaughter) also affects when and if you can be paroled.

Then the question makes a huge difference, and shouldn't be lightly passed unless there was a major difference between what would be between Murder 2 and Manslaughter.

Sure. Laws tend to get pretty messed up. Sometimes because they're written badly, sometimes because of the 'law' of unintended consequences, sometimes because they're applied badly. Probably other reasons I haven't thought of too.

Indeed, since I still can't tell the difference between your self-defined Manslaughter, and the Murder 2 defined in the Florida laws.

That was pretty much my point about you not knowing what the law says.

Yes, and I admit fault here. I apologize. But I see a difference between the Murder 2 you suggest up above, and the Murder 2 on the Florida books.

Looking through Florida law, so much of it seems based on the "possibility" of "something bad occurring". I'm not sure if I agree with this general tendency on the books. I admit, though, I'm currently very tired and working on other studies as I talk, so I'm distracted.

 

[Lonewulf]

Manslaughter can result from many things which aren't even criminal acts. Why should he be treated the same as someone who was merely negligent?

Because the crime would be topped off with the other crimes he is accused of. It would be manslaughter + grand theft auto + attempted murder (if, indeed, he attempted to run over the person that was in front of the vehicle).

He wouldn't be suffering from the same consequences as someone who was only accused of manslaughter.

Suddenly charging him with intending to kill or harm her (as your own definition of Second Degree Murder suggests) is overkill.

 

[Bob Klase]

In this case, he did not "obviously" stab the woman that was his accomplice. He did not "obviously" intend harm to her. He did not "obviously" do anything to her. She was his accomplice, along for the ride, and she happened to catch the bullet that was sent their way; it could have hit her, or it could have hit him, and it was all up to luck and chance. It was a high-risk crime, yes, but there was no "obvious stabbing", as you define here.

First, it makes no difference who dies. The law applies the same whether it's an accomplice or a bystander that gets killed. If the bullet had hit him then she'd be in the same position that he's in.

The law that covers this situation specifies certain felonies where it applies. Generally those are the crimes that tend to result in people being hurt or killed and that any reasonable person would know has a high risk of someone being hurt or killed. Those cases would be included where I wrote "(although the premeditation and intent may not be required in some circumstances in some states)".

Intentionally stabbing or shooting someone, even if it fails to kill them, was still an attempted murder

Not necessarily. If you're in that bar fight and grab a knife and stab then, it's not necessarily attempted murder if they don't die. Attempted murder requires intent. Murder 2 does not.

This seems to be the case. He showed a reckless disregard for his partner's life, both in his fleeing and his taking her on as his partner. This is the only justifiable conclusion that I can come to.

The law doesn't agree (and neither do I). Manslaughter is something that happens because of your disregard, but what you do (or fail to do) may not be illegal in itself. There may not be a law requiring you to put a fence around that hole in front of your house, but that fact alone wouldn't automatically keep you from being charged with manslaughter. Committing a felony is always illegal in itself. If it's not illegal then it isn't a felony.

Then the question makes a huge difference, and shouldn't be lightly passed unless there was a major difference between what would be between Murder 2 and Manslaughter.

If the answer makes that much difference then you should find out what the correct answer is. I don't know and I don't have time to search Florida law to find it.

I think (and am not looking for or giving sources so feel free to ignore these if you want) that manslaughter (for DUI at least) has a maximum or 15 years. Don't know what the minimum is.

First degree murder has a minimum of either 30 or 40 years and a maximum of life (or death in some cases).

Second degree murder also has a maximum of life. No idea what the minimum is.

Indeed, since I still can't tell the difference between your self-defined Manslaughter, and the Murder 2 defined in the Florida laws.

Murder 2 requires the intent to harm or kill. Manslaughter does not. Can you tell the difference between those two?

You could also read this page although it's probably not much more valid than anything posted on this board:

http://askville.amazon.com/definition-manslaughter/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=13112755

First degree murder implies that someone thought about causing the death of another and went to where that person was and caused them to die by either their action or inaction. Second degree murder means that someone does something on purpose that could cause someone to die, knowing that it could cause someone to die, and someone does die. Manslaughter means that someone does something on purpose that could cause someone to die without thinking of that possibility and someone dies.

Yes, and I admit fault here. I apologize. But I see a difference between the Murder 2 you suggest up above, and the Murder 2 on the Florida books.

Exactly what difference do you see?

Florida law says:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0782/SEC04.HTM

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree

I wrote "Murder 2 requires the intent to hurt or kill but doesn't require premeditation". Obviously I wasn't quoting the law, but I see no difference in "without any premeditated design" and "doesn't require premediation".

Looking through Florida law, so much of it seems based on the "possibility" of "something bad occurring". I'm not sure if I agree with this general tendency on the books. I admit, though, I'm currently very tired and working on other studies as I talk, so I'm distracted.

That's true about many laws. Speeding 30 miles above the speed limit gets a much bigger penalty than going 10 miles above the limit because the "possibility" of something bad occurring is much greater at high speed. Speeding in a school zone or (in Florida) an area with road workers doing construction gets a bigger penalty than speeding on the interstate for the same reason.

Committing a robbery with a gun gets a worse penalty than robbery without a gun, even if you don't use or intend to use the gun, because there's a much greater possibility of someone getting hurt if the robber has a gun.

 

[Lonewulf]

You know, I run this conversation through my head over and over, and I simply cannot see this coming to a conclusion.

I just don't understand it. You say stuff like:

Murder 2 requires the intent to harm or kill. Manslaughter does not. Can you tell the difference between those two?"

Then you act surprised that I just don't understand how the passenger in the vehicle that was an accomplice and shot by a third party was "harmed or killed" with "intent" by the driver.

It really doesn't matter what analogy you make. It doesn't matter what way you explain it. It will never make sense to me, because it breaks everything I know about the words "intent", "harmed or killed", "third party", and everything and anything involved with those terms; you would have redefine them to the point of uselessness.

I just don't see this coming to a resolution.

 

[Bob Klase]

Suddenly charging him with intending to kill or harm her (as your own definition of Second Degree Murder suggests) is overkill.

I thought I made it clear when I wrote "In general" and "although I'm sure you can find states that differ" that I wasn't giving statues. The Florida definition of Second Degree Murder specifically allows the charge to be used in cases like this one.

Perhaps you'd be happier if the Florida legislature created a specific name for charging someone with unlawful death in cases like this. They could call it "non-degree murder" and give it the same maximum sentence as second degree murder.

The most significant difference between first and second degree murder is premeditation, not intent.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0782/SEC04.HTM

 

[Bob Klase]

Then you act surprised that I just don't understand how the passenger in the vehicle that was an accomplice and shot by a third party was "harmed or killed" with "intent" by the driver.

That one could be my fault. I gave a general definition of 2nd degree murder, not a complete legal definition. In simple (non legal terms) I guess it's easier to say that the intent to kill or harm is not required in this case, but there is the intent to commit a felony that is covered by the murder law that charges you with 2nd murder in this case.

I just don't see this coming to a resolution.

Okay. I'll agree with you on that.

 

[Lonewulf]

I thought I made it clear when I wrote "In general" and "although I'm sure you can find states that differ" that I wasn't giving statues. The Florida definition of Second Degree Murder specifically allows the charge to be used in cases like this one.

Perhaps you'd be happier if the Florida legislature created a specific name for charging someone with unlawful death in cases like this. They could call it "non-degree murder" and give it the same maximum sentence as second degree murder.

If I do not view the crimes as the same, I fail to see why I would wish for the same sentence to be passed.

 

[Lonewulf]

Okay. I'll agree with you on that.

Then so be it.

It's sad to see someone get such a strict penalty for someone else's actions, though. Because the funny thing is, if he did this alone? The penalty would be MUCH shorter. Yet his actions and motivations would have been the same. The only real problem was that someone else wanted in on the deal, and chose to do so.

 

[SezMe]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any circumstances in which someone might contribute to his own wrongful death.

Just playing with ideas here, Beeps, suppose someone tries to rob a bank in Georgetown. It goes south and he tries to shoot a guard but he misses. The bullet ricochets off some thick skulled Republican senator and comes back and kills himself. Isn't that a case you are looking for.











OK, forget the Republican part. Substitute "dense, whiney liberal" if it makes the scenario work better.

 

[Lonewulf]

Substitute "dense, whiney liberal" if it makes the scenario work better.

Hey, who are you calling "whiney"?

 

[BPSCG]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any circumstances in which someone might contribute to his own wrongful death.

Just playing with ideas here, Beeps, suppose someone tries to rob a bank in Georgetown. It goes south and he tries to shoot a guard but he misses. The bullet ricochets off some thick skulled Republican senator and comes back and kills himself. Isn't that a case you are looking for.

No. What you're describing is someone who gets himself killed while committing a crime. He gets killed while trying to kill someone else, so his death can not be considered wrongful.

I'd like to posit two scenarios, that differ in only one crucial element (what a scientist would do while testing a hypothesis):

Scenario A: Guy swipes SUV, drives at owner, owner shoots, unintentionally kills driver's willing accomplice.

Scenario B: Guy swipes SUV, drives at owner, owner shoots, unintentionally kills driver's unwilling hostage.

In scenario B, I think most people agree that the driver/thief should be charged with murder in the woman's death, as the woman's death was wrongful - she was utterly innocent - and he was the only person committing a crime.

In scenario A (which is the actual event described in this thread), the situation is muddier, because the victim was partially responsible for her own death, in that she willlingly participated in the car theft that resulted in her death.

The only difference between the two scenarios is that the woman is not at all responsible in the first instance, and partially responsible in the second. A scientist would say that whether the woman was a willing participant is the single control of the "experiment."

Therefore, the question is simple: Should a person committing a felony be punished for the unintended death of someone who was a willing participant in that felony? Or, to put it another way: Should someone be charged with murder when the victim was herself partly responsible for her own death, due to her participation in the felony?

Note I said the question is simple. I don't know that the answer is.

 

[ingoa]

I have not read all the thread. My 2 cents:

The victim was not murdered. Otherwise the car owner would be charged with murder. If a murder did not happen at all, how can the second criminal be charged for it?

On the other hand I am fine if all the perps are charged with murder if ONE of THEM murders somebody.