- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ninth Circus: Murder is not a crime of violence.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:16 pm to FalseProphet
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:16 pm to FalseProphet
These judges be like
0
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:18 pm to hogcard1964
“Judges should judge, and legislators should legislate.”
quote:
That's some insane/liberal reasoning right there.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
“Judges should judge, and legislators should legislate.”
Did you feel the same way about Roberts and the ACA?
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:24 pm to FalseProphet
Why is the 9th even involved in this? Per the article this happened in the Navajo Nation. The are their own sovereignty with their own laws and courts.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
support.
I read the information in the link. I am not an attorney. But, I do get the concept. The fact that the statute included "recklessness" in M2 can make that not a crime of violence. I can wrap my head around it.
Also, the OP should amend the thread title to say "Murder TWO is not...". Because, to say "Murder" alone is not really a fair representation of the ruling.
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:29 pm to hogcard1964
quote:I feel the same way about all judicial activism.quote:Did you feel the same way about Roberts and the ACA?
Judges should judge, and legislators should legislate.
For example, ideologically I support early-term abortion rights, but feel that Roe was poorly-reasoned and unconvincing.
I do not find the ACA debate interesting, so I’ve not bothered to analyze the various opinions, dissents and concurrences. As such, I cannot opine as to whether Roberts’ role constituted “judicial activism.”
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:33 pm to Hester Carries
How can any murder or manslaughter be non-violent? I get that it might not be intentional, but if it’s not violent then how in the hell did someone end up dead?
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:36 pm to AggieHank86
quote:idiots here always choose attack the messenger
You can attack the messenger, or you can read the message. Your choice.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:36 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I do not find the ACA debate interesting, so I’ve not bothered to analyze the various opinions, dissents and concurrences.
Of course.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:36 pm to jchamil
quote:For the “violence” enhancement to apply, the term “violence” must be defined in the statute. Here, it appears that the definition was a bit sloppy.
How can any murder or manslaughter be non-violent? I get that it might not be intentional, but if it’s not violent then how in the hell did someone end up dead?
Posted on 8/21/19 at 12:41 pm to FalseProphet
And yet AggieHank and other leftists would have us believe that judges just like these are the ultimate arbiter of what is, and is not constitutional.
I get called an absolutist, hindering the exercise of our 2A rights, because I believe that any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment, when the plain English of the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But because some tyrannical legislators and judges have given themselves permission to violate the Second Amendment, I am an absolutist, who is harming the exercise of the right.
At some point, Americans are going to return to hanging, shooting, electrocuting, or tar and feathering those who abuse their power. In the meantime, we should have enough balls to demand that these judges are removed from the bench.
Legislators are elected by their constituents, so they are a little different matter. They must be brought to trial for sedition and treason when they fail to uphold their oath.
I get called an absolutist, hindering the exercise of our 2A rights, because I believe that any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment, when the plain English of the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But because some tyrannical legislators and judges have given themselves permission to violate the Second Amendment, I am an absolutist, who is harming the exercise of the right.
At some point, Americans are going to return to hanging, shooting, electrocuting, or tar and feathering those who abuse their power. In the meantime, we should have enough balls to demand that these judges are removed from the bench.
Legislators are elected by their constituents, so they are a little different matter. They must be brought to trial for sedition and treason when they fail to uphold their oath.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 1:06 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
"The defendant’s crime cannot be a categorical “crime of violence” if the conduct proscribed by the statute of conviction is broader than the conduct encompassed by the statutory definition of a 'crime of violence.'"
While the ultimate result is absurd, the legal reasoning is correct and even admirable. The judges looked at the binding supreme court precedent and the actual letter of the laws involved and applied it.
An activist court would have said "yeah, we may not be following the statutes or the opinions of higher courts, but the spirit of the law allows us to convict this guy because we all know better."
The ire against this ruling is more properly directed towards the legislature that wrote the underlying criminal statute, not the court that is duty bound to apply it.
ETA: This may be the first time I have ever had to agree with AggieHank... but he is right.
This post was edited on 8/21/19 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 8/21/19 at 1:31 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
While the ultimate result is absurd, the legal reasoning is correct and even admirable.
Intent can be inferred. In this case, the dude was witnessed bitching about ole boy sleeping with his girlfriend.
He was armed. frick all that dancing around the issue.
To quote Harry Callahan when asked how he ascertained the intent to rape - "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."
Posted on 8/21/19 at 1:37 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
While the ultimate result is absurd, the legal reasoning is correct and even admirable. The judges looked at the binding supreme court precedent and the actual letter of the laws involved and applied it.
No they didn't. The dissent spells out exactly how the majority ignored the meaning of murder and its mens rea requirement.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 1:44 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
This is a sober and well reasoned argument downvote
That’s why it doesn’t belong on this board.
However, you have been absent from the PB. Hope to see you more in campaign season.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 1:45 pm to jchamil
quote:
How can any murder or manslaughter be non-violent? I get that it might not be intentional, but if it’s not violent then how in the hell did someone end up dead?
Because thats the definition of violence?
quote:
Violence is an extreme form of aggression, such as assault, rape or murder.
If you accidently kill someone that wasnt necessarily violence, even if it was negligent homicide....by definition.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:12 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Intent can be inferred. In this case, the dude was witnessed bitching about ole boy sleeping with his girlfriend.
He was armed. frick all that dancing around the issue.
To quote Harry Callahan when asked how he ascertained the intent to rape - "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross."
Agree with all you said here, but that isn't how they are bound to apply the "categorical approach." As absurd as the result is, it was not a question of whether this man committed a crime of violence (he did). It was a question of whether or not the 2nd degree murder statute neatly met the requirements of the "crimes of violence" statute. Unfortunately it did not.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:17 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
No they didn't. The dissent spells out exactly how the majority ignored the meaning of murder and its mens rea requirement.
This is a good argument, but I think it really goes to "what the 2nd degree murder statute should read like based on our common law understanding of murder" as opposed to "what the murder statute actually says."
We all know what murder is and what intent is required by definition, but the idiotic statute is worded in a way that does not reflect that clear understanding. As we all know, in criminal cases, you are bound to apply the letter of the penal statute, not the intent of the statute as commonly understood by the public.
Posted on 8/21/19 at 2:42 pm to FalseProphet
could be both. Some could be a crime of passion and some could be a crime of violence where someone just is a violent person and enjoys killing people.
That is the only thing i can think of though. sounds like dude wants TV time. Judge Judy is getting old
That is the only thing i can think of though. sounds like dude wants TV time. Judge Judy is getting old
Posted on 8/21/19 at 3:14 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:Thanks for the backup.
Agree with all you said here, but that isn't how they are bound to apply the "categorical approach." As absurd as the result is, it was not a question of whether this man committed a crime of violence (he did). It was a question of whether or not the 2nd degree murder statute neatly met the requirements of the "crimes of violence" statute. Unfortunately it did not.
You realize that you are wasting your time, right? These people are incapable of performing an objective analysis of anything.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News