Laser pointers banned after attacks

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: moribundman

Murder is an unlawful killing. By your definition the death penalty would allow murder.


In my jurisdiction, which is a death penalty jurisdiction, execution of a public duty is a statutory justification.

Thus, it would never be charged.


My point was ekpork's use of the term "murder." So you really need to talk to him about it and not to me.

 

[Win]

His analysis is accurate.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: moribundman
...

Murder is an unlawful killing. By your definition the death penalty would allow murder.

If you, after having killed an assailant who tried chibbing you, want to proclaim, "I have murdered this man in a case of affirmative defense," be my guest!

Trust me, I wasn't sleeping through law school


Your definition of any killing, including the aforementioned "affirmative defense" as "murder" leads me to believe otherwise.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Win
His analysis is accurate.


Aha, a killing in self defense is always murder. You guys stand by that? I won't be recommending your services then.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Trust me, I wasn't sleeping through law school,


I have to confess that I used to skip criminal procedure a lot to go Trout fishing.

 

[moribundman]

I bet you have legal reasons to spell trout with a capital T. Im sure the other scribe can and will Argue the case.

I'm outta here -- I gotta do my dirty laundry.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
I bet you have legal reasons to spell trout with a capital T. Im sure the other scribe can and will Argue the case.

I'm outta here -- I gotta do my dirty laundry.


Yep, skiped alot of classes I shoulda gon too! But I stayed at a holiday Inn express last night.

 

[Gary Allan]

So ...whether or not you hold murder synonymous with killing ..some blithering genius made it a statutory assignation automatically.


So, if I fall off a roof ..allegedly to my death ..and manage to kill someone else in the process ..but do not die (image of doing it just like Jason Borne down the stair well!) ..I just murdered the guy, right?

On the other hand, if some evil schizoid rampaging berserker comes upon me as 15th in line and I manage to defend myself, I've also murdered him, correct?

It's an odd system we have here. I once got sued over an auto accident. Her attorney sent me a paper asking me to list my assets. I sent it back to him telling him it was none of his business. Then my auto insurance attorney sent me the same document which I filled out. During the trial, the plaintiffs attorney brought my returned document to imply that I was some type of "bad person" and was trying to hide my assets. I clarified that while (NOW) I was sure that there was some reason why he was entitled to the information, that he was a hostile entity to my well being and that if he was successful he would take my assets and my property. I saw no reason to aid him in determining if the effort was worth it. I also stated (yes, on the stand) that although I'm sure that he's a law abiding person, that the only comparable act (me filling out the document) would be for me to walk in a dangerous neighborhood with a sign on my back pocket listing the amount of money in my wallet.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Win
His analysis is accurate.


Aha, a killing in self defense is always murder. You guys stand by that? I won't be recommending your services then.


Yes and no. Yes, you have to admit the elements of murder in order to assert self-defense. But if you successfully do, you're found not guilty, because the law sees the "excuse" as justified. So no, you don't get punished for murder. Got it now?

I appreciate referrals, but with over 200 cases open at the moment, you need not recommend me to anyone if you don't feel like it. {now, where's that raspberry emoticon when you need it...}

 

[moribundman]

Murder is an unlawful killing. Every murder is a killing, but not every killing is murder. If in current legalese this is not the case, well, then that's just utterly stupid.

If you say every killing is murder (I know you've backtracked to but not pointed out the particular elements of murder), then everyone who defends himself and causes a persons death is a murderer, no matter whether or not the killing was justified. That's totally insane.

While I'll gladly haggle over semantics (the meaning of words), I refuse to haggle with a professional word twister.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Trust me, I wasn't sleeping through law school


Your definition of any killing, including the aforementioned "affirmative defense" as "murder" leads me to believe otherwise.


1) Google "affirmative defense". That should help some. To recap: you kill someone on purpose (premeditated). That's murder, by definition. If you have a legally recognized affirmative defense (self defense, for example), and you prove it, you walk. Very simple really.

2) I spent three years getting my brain washed with this stuff in law school. Have you?

 

[moribundman]

I can tell your brain was washed well.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Murder is an unlawful killing. Every murder is a killing, but not every killing is murder. If in current legalese this is not the case, well, then that's just utterly stupid.

While I'll gladly haggle over semantics (the meaning of words), I refuse to haggle with a professional word twister.


Now, now. You're simply incorrect about the definition of murder, at least in part. Murder is INTENTIONAL PREMEDITATED killing, that may be unlawful (and I'd dare say usually is), but sometimes is not.
Originally Posted By: mori
Every murder is a killing, but not every killing is murder.
Of course not. But some killings are manslaughter, some are criminally negligent, and some are not crimes at all. You may, if you wish, define "murder" in your own terms, and that's fine. But on a technical level, Win and I are, indeed, correct. These carefully designed definitions are far from "utterly stupid". In fact, they serve well to ensure that when someone does get killed, society's response is just, fair, and in proper proportion to the actions that caused the death.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
To recap: you kill someone on purpose (premeditated). That's murder, by definition.


If I defend my life it's not a premeditated act (=planned beforehand). I can't talk to you anymore.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: mori
I can't talk to you anymore.
Oh, but I can still talk to you!

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
To recap: you kill someone on purpose (premeditated). That's murder, by definition.


If I defend my life it's not a premeditated act (=planned beforehand). I can't talk to you anymore, I feel slimy.


You're going to have to repeat this class...

Legally, premeditation only requires the briefest moment of thought ahead of time. A second or two will do. All you have to do is in some fashion form a thought along the lines of, "I'm going to kill this guy..." and that's it -- premeditation complete. So you certainly can premeditate the intent to kill while defending yourself. By contrast, lashing out in a flash of anger, without the conscious intent to kill will be non-premeditated murder (various names and definitions, depending upon jurisdiction). Committing a grossly reckless act that results in a death will usually lead to a manslaughter charge.

Now, if you actually do lengthy, extended planning ahead of time, that can be a basis for the "cold, calculated, and premeditated" aggravator, which can support a death sentence. CCP is one of the commonly seen DP aggravators, along with HAC (heinous, atrocious and cruel), FPG (for pecuniary gain), and WE (witness elimination).

 

[Gary Allan]

Hmm ..just what assumes that just because I kill someone, in self defense, that I intended for him to die? ..hmmm..or rather, is it mandated that if a death occurs in the act of defending yourself, that you premeditated the act of murder merely due to the outcome.

As an example: A man tries to kill me ..or at least I believe that he will. I manage to get in my car, and in fear, I floor it to get away in reverse. The attacker, being a berserker on crack plods forth trying to rip my throat out and doesn't move out of the way of the car. I don't stop out of common courtesy in this instance. He dies.

Did I murder him?

Essentially I don't see how a death in self defense mandates that I intended to kill. aka, murder. I could have merely been trying to have the murdering person stop and allow me to escape. He may die from my efforts required to do that.

 

[ekpolk]

Gary:

I didn't say that if you kill someone in SD, you necessarily intended for him to die. I said that one CAN intend to kill in SD, and still use the defense. In your example, if the cops and prosecutors didn't buy your explanation, you'd probably be charged with manslaughter or vehicular homicide, but you'd still have SD available as a defense at trial.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Nice try at distinguishing, but not persuasive. If you turn a high power laser on, and put your eyes in front of it, you'll get zapped. As with plutonium and poison gas, it's about two things: 1) inherently dangerous stuff, that's 2) in the hands of the wrong person. Sure I could possess a laser cannon for years and harm no one, just as I could possess a container of plutonium or VX and harm no one. But does that mean I should be allowed to purchase plutonium or VX?

How is it not distinguishing? Rocks are just rocks until you pick one up and throw it at someone. At that point it becomes a weapon. And what good are rocks? Decoration, popping tires, breaking windows, skull basher? A lot of down sides with little gain to having rocks around. We should ban them. Diesel fuel and fertilizer is dangerous in the wrong hands as well.

Since you and Win are attorney types it does not surprise me that you look at the murder topic from that angle. I think that most other people (my self included) look at the murder vs. self defense from a morality angle which can be very different from a legal one. All this (and my recent dealings with the "system")has reminded me why I didn't become a lawyer.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Nice try at distinguishing, but not persuasive. If you turn a high power laser on, and put your eyes in front of it, you'll get zapped. As with plutonium and poison gas, it's about two things: 1) inherently dangerous stuff, that's 2) in the hands of the wrong person. Sure I could possess a laser cannon for years and harm no one, just as I could possess a container of plutonium or VX and harm no one. But does that mean I should be allowed to purchase plutonium or VX?

How is it not distinguishing? Rocks are just rocks until you pick one up and throw it at someone. At that point it becomes a weapon. And what good are rocks? Decoration, popping tires, breaking windows, skull basher? A lot of down sides with little gain to having rocks around. We should ban them. Diesel fuel and fertilizer is dangerous in the wrong hands as well.
Rocks exist in abundance in the natural world -- very different from these laser cannons. Trying to ban them would be absurd. Very different from a high-tech killing device like these lasers. Diesel and fertilizer are totally different, as they both have tremendous positive value, whereas the laser cannons we're talking about simply don't.

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Since you and Win are attorney types it does not surprise me that you look at the murder topic from that angle. I think that most other people (my self included) look at the murder vs. self defense from a morality angle which can be very different from a legal one. All this (and my recent dealings with the "system")has reminded me why I didn't become a lawyer.


No, just because there are technical legal reasons for the existence of the self-defense defense, does not mean that we lawyers have lost our moral compasses. Unjustified murder is the most immoral of offenses against society. Valid self-defense takes a killing into an entirely different place (not good, but at least justified, morally and legally). What's so hard about that? There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the way the self-defense mechanism works. You've simply got to admit the basic allegations for an affirmative defense to work.

Or would you like to go to court and find yourself saying something like, "well I didn't do it, but if I did, it was self-defense." Think about that for a moment, and you'll see why that's a joke told in in law school (but abandoned as sophistry by experienced practitioners).

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Gary:

I didn't say that if you kill someone in SD, you necessarily intended for him to die. I said that one CAN intend to kill in SD, and still use the defense. In your example, if the cops and prosecutors didn't buy your explanation, you'd probably be charged with manslaughter or vehicular homicide, but you'd still have SD available as a defense at trial.


Okay. It just seemed like this was some "automatic" thing. That just because I caused a death in self defense that I HAD to commit murder. That is, that any unsanctioned homicide. intentional or otherwise, was automatically a murder.

Thanks for the clarification.

I thought that this was one of those "default" things that don't make sense from outside the black box (like disclosing my assets to a hostile attorney).