Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Scourge of Ages on January 04, 2012, 04:48:08 pm
-
When two men appeared at McKinley's door the young widow, with an infant, called 911.
"This guy is up to no good. My husband just passed away. I'm here alone with my baby. Can I get a dispatch out here?" McKinley said.
According to police, Dustin Stewart and Justin Martin were the two men trying to enter McKinley's home.
"I've got my door locked. I've got guns in my hands. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in the door?" McKinley asked the 911 operator.
Police say the two men knocked for about 20 minutes and then tried to bust into the home.
McKinley said Martin had a 12-inch knife and came toward her.
McKinley said she then shot and killed him.
http://www.koco.com/r/30132763/detail.html
First, she pushed a couch in front of the front door.
Then, she grabbed her son and "walked over and got the 12-gauge, went in the bedroom and got the pistol and put the bottle in his mouth and then I called 911," she told ABC affiliate KOCO.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9948522-911-to-teen-mom-who-killed-intruder-protect-your-baby
-
Never come between a mother and her baby, that's just always a bad idea. I applaud this woman.
-
Sadly, knowing past history of things like this, it wouldn't surprise me that much if the relatives of the guy she shot don't come back and sue her for manslaughter or something along those lines. :(
-
The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.
I have no problem with her shooting the guy, but what I'd really like to know is why a call like this wasn't given immediate priority for police response? Even if she was out in the sticks, there's no way it should take over 20 minutes for police to respond to an armed intruder attempting to enter a locked home when the occupant calls.
-
This is exactly the proper response for that sort of thing. I wish it wasn't so exceptional and confined to US. In Europe, it might get the defender into a long and expensive trial, with no guarantee that she will win. Perhaps if people could defend themselves without fear of being sued, and self-defense training was more accessible, crime would somewhat decrease.
-
This is exactly the proper response for that sort of thing. I wish it wasn't so exceptional and confined to US. In Europe, it might get the defender into a long and expensive trial, with no guarantee that she will win. Perhaps if people could defend themselves without fear of being sued, and self-defense training was more accessible, crime would somewhat decrease.
Cite your sources, please. Both on the "self defence is a legal liability", as well as the "self-defence training decreases crime rates" issue.
-
This is exactly the proper response for that sort of thing. I wish it wasn't so exceptional and confined to US. In Europe, it might get the defender into a long and expensive trial, with no guarantee that she will win. Perhaps if people could defend themselves without fear of being sued, and self-defense training was more accessible, crime would somewhat decrease.
Cite your sources, please. Both on the "self defence is a legal liability", as well as the "self-defence training decreases crime rates" issue.
for him, "Poland" means Europe.
on the other hand, confidence in police in any case is very low, at least over here in Croatia.
-
Cite your sources, please. Both on the "self defence is a legal liability", as well as the "self-defence training decreases crime rates" issue.
The first one occasionally happens in Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe (newspapers sometimes report on them), I've also heard of cases like that popping up in UK. It's not a problem that self defense isn't allowed, but that laws regarding it are complicated enough for sues like that not to be thrown out outright. And there are lawyers who can make it seem like the victim was the attacker, especially in places like Poland. Police and judges are not very respected here. I could provide you a story about a man who shot and killed a burglar in Poland and how he was threated by authorities (not like he should be), provided you know Polish and I can find the article on the internet (I've read it in a newspaper).
The second one seems logical to me, but it's been argued over and over, sometimes on this very forum (hence "Perhaps"). I could most likely find sources for and against it.
-
The problem with the second assertion is that training in the artr of self defence is only one thing. Actually having the mentality necessary to use that training properly in a dangerous situation is a very different one. Hell, I did a couple years' worth of Judo, I still am no good in a fight.
-
The second one seems logical to me, but it's been argued over and over, sometimes on this very forum (hence "Perhaps"). I could most likely find sources for and against it.
The most frequently-cited measure is gun ownership, and the data for that measure as a crime-reduction tool is inconsistent across jurisdictions (compare individual US states and Canadian provinces sometime). I'm not aware of any studies that directly look at self-defense training in relation to crime rate, but I suppose countries with mandatory military service would be a good place to start.
-
Sometimes it is necessary to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger. As the girl herself said, had she not feared for the life of her child, she was unsure if she would have pulled the trigger. Even in the UK, despite a lot of confusion over what our rights are with regards to self- and home-defence, this would almost certainly be treated as such.
That said, it seems strange that no alarm bells were set ringing by the death of the dogs, was this reported? Did she mention the 'creepy man' at that time? Not trying to say that anything could have changed what happened, it's easy to judge in hindsight, but you would have thought someone at the PD would have at least thought, "we'll keep a patrol in the area for the next few weeks, because something is going on...."
-
The first one occasionally happens in Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe (newspapers sometimes report on them), I've also heard of cases like that popping up in UK.
If you're talking about Tony Martin, the jury was pretty convinced that he wasn't attempting to defend himself and simply decided to kill anyone who broke into his house even if they were only after his property. One of the victims was shot in the back after all.
If you're talking about Munir Hussain, that was a conviction for repeatedly beating an attacker, outside his house, with a cricket bat, after the attacker was already on the floor and witnesses told him to stop before he killed the man.
Neither case are that similar to this one.
-
go figure it morphed into a gun control thread.
-
What? No it didn't.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16434328
She won't be charged but the other guy who wasn't shot would be charged for first-degree murder. A happy ending
-
Eighteen year-old widow Sarah McKinley
Blanchard, Oklahoma
Sarah McKinley's 58 year-old husband
The jokes write themselves.
-
The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.
I have no problem with her shooting the guy, but what I'd really like to know is why a call like this wasn't given immediate priority for police response? Even if she was out in the sticks, there's no way it should take over 20 minutes for police to respond to an armed intruder attempting to enter a locked home when the occupant calls.
Until I left for school I lived in a place where it took more than 30 minutes to get to town, the sheriff's department, or any place they commonly patrol. And windy, one-lane roads means lights and sirens really don't help much.
-
The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.
I have no problem with her shooting the guy, but what I'd really like to know is why a call like this wasn't given immediate priority for police response? Even if she was out in the sticks, there's no way it should take over 20 minutes for police to respond to an armed intruder attempting to enter a locked home when the occupant calls.
Until I left for school I lived in a place where it took more than 30 minutes to get to town, the sheriff's department, or any place they commonly patrol. And windy, one-lane roads means lights and sirens really don't help much.
Yeah, I can easily envisage situations where it takes the police 20 minutes to respond, living out in the sticks myself. Especially if they're already busy.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16434328
She won't be charged but the other guy who wasn't shot would be charged for first-degree murder. A happy ending
Wait. What? :wtf:
-
The victim was not charged with any crime. The still living criminal was. This is generally considered to be a good thing and an example of the law actually working the way we'd like it to.
-
I think the problem is with the 'murder' aspect of it, since it implies that pre-meditation is no longer a factor in deciding whether a killing is murder or not. In other words, for the partner to be guilty of murder, he would have had to have attacked the house with the specific purpose of getting his friend shot.
Edit: Or, to put it another way, if this guy is guilty of Murder then it would imply the young mother as an accomplice, since it would have to have been arranged with her.
-
I think the problem is with the 'murder' aspect of it, since it implies that pre-meditation is no longer a factor in deciding whether a killing is murder or not. In other words, for the partner to be guilty of murder, he would have had to have attacked the house with the specific purpose of getting his friend shot.
Edit: Or, to put it another way, if this guy is guilty of Murder then it would imply the young mother as an accomplice, since it would have to have been arranged with her.
Depends how Oklahoman law is written on the subject. Common law principles anyone who assists (aids/abets) a crime is also culpable for the same crime as the person who committed it. In point of fact, the woman in this case is liable for murder, but self-defence provides an exemption from prosecution and conviction in these cases. The additional perpetrator who assisted in the crime is also liable for murder, and has not self-defence argument to fall back on.
EDIT: Pre-meditation of the killing itself is not always necessary for a first-degree murder charge - pre-meditation of a criminal act from which a murder results is sufficient, in some jurisdictions.
-
Oklahoma's definition of murder in the first degree:
ยง21-701.7. Murder in the first degree.
A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 843.5 of this title. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.
D. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
E. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.
B. applies in this scenario.
Also, can I just say how much I hate the various formats and variations between states when it comes to American law? Paging through a 597 page RTF document to find this sucked ass. Contrast to the Canadian Criminal Code, which applies everywhere in our fine country and is easy to find and sort through: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
-
Yup, I see what you mean, this was certainly a robbery with a dangerous weapon, so I'll agree that under Oklahoma law, this guys liable for murder. I sort of see the point, but it does, to my mind, seem to be a bit of an over-use of the term murder, I suppose that's why 'causing death through misadventure' and similar pleas are used in Europe instead.
-
Me thinks they're stretching the spirit of the law a bit, rather than the letter. But, eh. *shrugs*
By the way, I'm curious: What sort of weapons does Oklahoma state aren't dangerous? :p
-
Yup, I see what you mean, this was certainly a robbery with a dangerous weapon, so I'll agree that under Oklahoma law, this guys liable for murder. I sort of see the point, but it does, to my mind, seem to be a bit of an over-use of the term murder, I suppose that's why 'causing death through misadventure' and similar pleas are used in Europe instead.
It's also related to a semi-common American thing called "Felony Murder" which states that if somebody dies in the course of committing a felony then the addition of a murder charge to the previous charges is automatic. What exactly a murder charge means varies. It's used to prosecute armed robbers for causing heart attacks, people who discharged their weapon into the ceiling and hit somebody on the floor above, and things where a death is a direct result of criminal action but lacks the necessary intent to kill that would upgrade it from manslaughter to murder.
This is certainly a creative but not an incorrect application.
-
I know what it's based on but it's a pretty stupid application of the law. The criminal does deserve jail time for whatever the American version of agravated burglary is. i.e the only crime he committed.
-
I know what it's based on but it's a pretty stupid application of the law.
It's a quite erudite application of the law. They have a strong case for a violent felon who needs to be kept off the street, who demonstrated considerable forethought in his choice of targets (a recently widowed woman and her child in an area where police response was highly unlikely). They are going to throw the top count that will withstand the laugh test at him and hope he folds and pleads out so they can remove him from circulation quickly and without risking the only living witness' lives: aggravated burglary doesn't get you diddly for bail.
-
I'll be incredibly surprised if it survives an appeal. Meaning the guy will be back on the streets all the sooner.
I won't deny he needs to be off the street for a very long time but a murder prosecution is ridiculous. The law exists to protect innocent members of the public from the actions of criminals. Not to protect the criminals themselves.
-
how is this protecting criminals?
-
I'll be incredibly surprised if it survives an appeal.
You're making an assumption he'll be tried on that charge.
This does not have to happen. This is a tactic to ensure high bail/remand and a useful threat to force a plea. Though he was arraigned on this charge he does not have to be tried on it when it comes time for trial. Prosecutorial powers and discretion are quite wide in the United States, something that has been told to you before.
You always throw the top count you think you can sneak past a judge first and work downwards to a reasonable charge for trial. It's how the system works.
-
the smart move on his part would be to plea guilty on all charges except murder so that the whole of the case is about whether or not he can be charged with murder. if he goes and tries to pretend it didnt happen or pin it all on his dead friend then he just looks like hes trying to get away with it. then they will probibly just throw the book at him. he needs to say he did wrong but didnt intend for anyone to get hurt, and if he rides that he might just get the murder charge reduced to manslaughter or less.
-
Any smart lawyer is going to know that there is no way in hell the murder charge is going to stick. Hell, it's not even going to fly at manslaughter.
how is this protecting criminals?
They now know their accomplices are more likely to kill someone in their defence. Look at this case for instance. If the surviving criminal faces a murder charge regardless of whether his friend dies or he shoots the mother, which do you think he'll do given the choice?
The whole point of the law was to make sure that criminals didn't want their accomplices kill people during the commission of a crime because they wouldn't want to face a murder charge. If they face one either way, that goes away.
-
or to look at it a different way, they should be less inclined to go break in at all if they think they will get slapped with a murder charge. there's no way to predict how someone will react. so forget about that and do what the original thought here is: punish the criminal. i agree that it almost certainly won't stick, but it's still gratifying to see them try.
-
Any smart lawyer is going to know that there is no way in hell the murder charge is going to stick. Hell, it's not even going to fly at manslaughter.
Incorrect. A smart lawyer is going to advise the accused plead for a sentencing deal. Anyone who believes the charges won't stick or will be overturned on appeal is reading the statute incorrectly:
A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice
if the death of a human being results from
robbery with a dangerous weapon
Those are the elements of the offense. Whether the human death is an accomplice, target, or bystander is irrelevant, as are the actions of the accused. In Oklahoma, according to state law, if someone commits robbery with a weapon and a person dies in the process, the accused is guilty of first-degree murder. Intent is not a necessary component, as indicated by the phrase "regardless of malice." Intent is only necessary to establish the actus reus element of the robbery, not the murder. To elaborate, the way the statute is written the prosecution will need to prove the following to ensure a first-degree murder conviction:
1. Accused intended to commit robbery.
2. Accused took action to attempt a robbery.
3. Said action included the use of a dangerous weapon.
4. A human death resulted from the robbery.
If those four conditions are met in the prosecution's case, the accused must be found guilty of first-degree murder under Oklahoman law.
In order for the charge to be found invalid or overturned on appeal, a challenge would have to be made against the statute itself to show it is inconsistent with the state or federal constitutions.
This isn't creativity on the part of the charging agency or DA, under state law it is a perfectly acceptable charge.
-
As was stated before though, it is letter of the law used against spirit of the law.
If you want to prove it would work, find me a successful case of the prosecution for the self-defence killing of an accomplice.
-
As was stated before though, it is letter of the law used against spirit of the law.
If you want to prove it would work, find me a successful case of the prosecution for the self-defence killing of an accomplice.
How exactly is this letter versus spirit? Do you have some knowledge we all lack on how Oklahoma's state legislators intended this to be applied? The statute is pretty damn clear on the subject, as I've laid out. If you'd like to argue the way this law works outside of what is written in the statute, the onus sits on you to find an appellate court decision that refutes this particular application. That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them. In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.
So, the onus in this case falls on you to prove it won't work. I don't need to find a precedent decision to show the law works as it is written de facto - convictions are established on the letter of the law. As I painfully explain all the time to the people who break the laws that I deal with: what the law intended to say (spirit) is irrelevant. What it does say (letter) is legally binding until an amendment, case law decision, or it is struck-down by the courts.
EDIT: And once again, to be struck down the law would have to be found unconstitutional or in violation of a higher law, and I can't envision a situation where constitutional arguments would enter this case.
EDIT2: In the event you actually do decide to look for an appellate decision that would prevent this statute from applying to the circumstances it explicitly describes, this appears to be a search engine for Oklahoman state case law decisions: http://oklegal.onenet.net/sample.basic.html
-
Personally, I think where the trouble lay with the law is when it is applied in less cut-and-dry situations than this, since threatening someone with a charge of murder in the hope that they'll cop some lesser charges instead is not, to my mind, a very good way of ensuring you are catching the right person, though I'll admit, this is far from the only instance, or police force, in which that has happened.
That said, this isn't really about what we think of the law and the way it works, it's about what the law states, which is that if someone is killed in the execution of a robbery whilst in possession of a weapon, that any accomplices are considered responsible for that death. I'm not certain I'm a massive fan of it, but in this particular case, it seems to be the standard path such cases take.
-
That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them. In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.
And given that my entire point is that a appeals court would overturn any murder verdict, I fail to see how the onus isn't on you to prove it. You're attempting to claim that my opinion is incorrect, you can only do that by providing facts contrary to that opinion. So the onus is on you to prove that such a conviction has
1) Ever been secured.
2) Survived an appeal.
-
That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them. In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.
And given that my entire point is that a appeals court would overturn any murder verdict, I fail to see how the onus isn't on you to prove it. You're attempting to claim that my opinion is incorrect, you can only do that by providing facts contrary to that opinion. So the onus is on you to prove that such a conviction has
1) Ever been secured.
2) Survived an appeal.
This is fallacious, btw.
-
That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them. In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.
And given that my entire point is that a appeals court would overturn any murder verdict, I fail to see how the onus isn't on you to prove it. You're attempting to claim that my opinion is incorrect, you can only do that by providing facts contrary to that opinion. So the onus is on you to prove that such a conviction has
1) Ever been secured.
2) Survived an appeal.
You are failing to understand how the legal process works, apparently.
When a statute is written by legislators, the written meaning of that statute becomes law. The only means the written meaning of that law can change is by:
1. An amendment by the legislative body.
2. A court interpretation of the law that clarifies ambiguities open to interpretation.
3. A court rejection of the law based on constitutional or common law grounds where the statute, as written, violates codified legal rights.
In the absence of an appellate court decision that applies points 2 or 3, the statute stands precisely as written.
Now, if you want to assert that the statute does not stand as written and a conviction would not survive an appeal, you are the one making the claim that is unsubstantiated in law. That means that you have an obligation to back up your assertion by finding an appellate decision that substantiates your point.
Under no circumstances do I have to prove there isn't one (not to mention the silliness to trying to tell me to disprove the existence of something that may not exist). If a defense attorney or an accused wanted to argue the application is invalid, they would have to do exactly what you have to do - prove the statute as written is invalid.
If your point is that a court would overturn the verdict, as you've stated (with no grounds other than a mistaken interpretation of "spirit" and "letter" - for that argument to apply, one would have to show that legislators did not intend for first-degree murder convictions to result in this case, which would require a statement of intent in the legislation itself), the obligation is on you to show the grounds under which it would do so. You are pulling a luis and making claims about how a process works without backing it up. I have nothing to back up in this scenario - the statute applies unless a person challenging i (i.e. you) can prove it doesn't.
EDIT: And no, I am not spending my time researching appellate decisions for you. If you want to assert this would not survive an appeal, the onus is on you to show why that is the case - this is how Common Law systems work. I look forward to seeing the evidence used to back up your claims thus far in this thread.
EDIT2: And while I remember, so long as a statute is codified in law, it is not necessary to show a conviction has ever been secured under it to prove it valid. If a law is on the books and has not been amended, repealed, or interpreted by case law, it can be used as a valid charge without any sort of precedent whatsoever. So no, I don't have to prove a conviction has been secured, either.
-
As far as I'm concerned you're the one asking me to prove a negative. If a conviction has been secured under similar conditions that should be easy to find. But this could easily be the first time someone has been prosecuted under these circumstances meaning that the law is untested and there are no previous cases. Basically when it comes to convictions you could very easily be asking me to prove a negative.
If neither of us is willing to do the work, we're basically going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
-
agree to disagree
I don't think you can do that on HLP. At least, I've never seen it happen before.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-pharmacist-dead-robbers-accomplices-life-prison/story?id=14053802#.Two-dOSDiCI
Here's an example of someone being prosecuted for murder when their accomplice in an armed robbery was killed during the commission.
TL;DR - three dudes try to hold up a pharmacist. It's Oklahoma, though, so the pharmacist is armed and shoots the first one to point a gun at him in the head. The other two freak and run. The pharmacist dude then gets a different gun and coup-de-graces the downed perp. Five times. All three surviving dudes are convicted of murder, the two surviving perps for participating in armed robbery resulting in a death, and the pharmacist for going back and shooting the guy once he was down.
Notable, for Oklahoma, nobody involved got the death penalty. Oklahoma does that to people a lot.
This lines up with the young widow scenario in all respects but one: she (reportedly, I wasn't there, I didn't see, I don't know, but it sure seems to be the case...) didn't shoot the guy again. As such, she only acted in self defense, and is probably completely in the clear legally, though her homeowners insurance rates may spike a bit.
For the record, I googled for less than five minutes. Please at least pretend to do research next time. Seriously, googling 'Oklahoma self-defense murder accomplice robbery' brought it up on the first page or so.
-
agree to disagree
I don't think you can do that on HLP. At least, I've never seen it happen before.
at least someone has tried now. we're making progress.
-
Damn! American law is more ****ed up than I'd realised!
-
yes why don't we just adopt british law?
-
yes why don't we just adopt british law?
Probably because it works in the exact same fashion as described by MP-Ryan for American law, as common law as a system originated in the Britain in the middle ages and is still practiced there and pretty much everywhere that owes anything to that country in terms of government.
So you see, not only has demonstrated he doesn't understand how the American legal system works, he doesn't get his own. And then asks us to do his research for him.
(Hint, that's why it was fallacious. You made an extraordinary claim, Karaj, which was that you understood how US legal systems and common law actually worked when it has been incumbent upon us for the second thread in a row to explain these things to you.)
-
As far as I'm concerned you're the one asking me to prove a negative. If a conviction has been secured under similar conditions that should be easy to find. But this could easily be the first time someone has been prosecuted under these circumstances meaning that the law is untested and there are no previous cases. Basically when it comes to convictions you could very easily be asking me to prove a negative.
If neither of us is willing to do the work, we're basically going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
If the law is untested, then the scenario as I've described it holds true - as I already explained, precedent is not required to secure a conviction under a written statute. If the law had been overturned on appeal, it would have been repealed or amended (and as the quote I posted is on the books at present, that isn't the case).
Regardless, for your point - that a conviction would be overturned on appeal or never obtained - to hold true, there must either be precedent established in case law that interprets the written statute, which you should be attempting to find in order to back up your claim, or you own a crystal ball that is tapped into the Oklahoman legal system. I find the latter scenario unlikely.
Frankly, I haven't just let this go because you rightly hound the usual suspects around here for making a claim and then failing to back up their assertion, and you have just done the same thing yourself. If you want to say that a conviction would never be obtained or would be overturned that is your choice, but you had best be able to back up that claim if you're going to argue that the statutory application of the law is not valid. There is no agree to disagree here, unfortunately - either you back up your "point," or you concede that you are presenting your personal opinion without any supporting evidence. No further evidence for my position - that the charge is valid and a conviction is entirely possible if not likely based on Oklahoma's definition of the offence of first-degree murder - is necessary as I have already posted the exact wording of the statute and a simplified explanation of how the sections are legally read.
Not agreeing to disagree may sound obstinate on my part, but I am a firm believer that if you hold other people to a standard - that opinion claims must be either stated as such or backed up with supporting evidence - then you should do the same with yourself. kara, sorry, but in this thread you have not been doing so.
-
Damn! American law is more ****ed up than I'd realised!
I've got three words for you: British Libel "Law."
Note: Specifically in the context of forum shopping. If you want, I'll give examples. Because that's what you do when you criticize things.
-
MP-Ryan and NGTM-1R, do you actually agree with the charge of murder or are you just pointing out that it has legal precedent/related law?
Because to me it seems stupid that he be accused of murder. I mean, I could buy him being charged with attempted murder of the woman and infant, but his own accomplice's death?
-
MP-Ryan and NGTM-1R, do you actually agree with the charge of murder or are you just pointing out that it has legal precedent/related law?
Because to me it seems stupid that he be accused of murder. I mean, I could buy him being charged with attempted murder of the woman and infant, but his own accomplice's death?
I'm pointing out that the charge is valid and a conviction should be expected.
As far as my opinion on the definition of murder goes, I do not agree with how Oklahoma has defined it (deaths which are criminal but not intended are typically manslaughter in most places), but my opinion has zero bearing on both the charge and likelihood of conviction in the case. We can all rant and rave until we're blue in the face that charging the guy with murder is excessive, but our opinions (unless anyone here is an Oklahoman of voting age or appellate court judge) count for precisely squat.
In the absence of collective irrelevant outrage, we have only the facts that the charge is legal and, given the evidence available just in the media, a conviction is exceedingly likely unless the prosecutor is incompetent.