re: Ninth Circus: Murder is not a crime of violence.

quote:

---

Again based ONLY upon the article, it seems that the “crime of violence” enhancement requires affirmative intent. Affirmative intent IS an element of the “attempted” offense, but is NOT an element of the 2nd degree homicide offense.

---

"the crime generally covers killings that:

- Are intentional but lack premeditation.

- Result from acts intended to only cause serious bodily harm.

- Result from acts that demonstrate extreme indifference to human life."

LINK

quote:

---

"the crime generally covers killings that:

- Are intentional but lack premeditation.

- Result from acts intended to only cause serious bodily harm.

- Result from acts that demonstrate extreme indifference to human life."

---

So, you're relying upon some general summary of murder law across all jurisdictions, rather than the specific statute at issue in this case? OK

Newsflash: This case turned upon two STATUTORY definitions, not some Cliffs Notes compilation.

As to the snide (now deleted) comment regarding my libertarian beliefs, I want you to read carefully and TRY to understand something VERY important ... which I suspect will go FAR over your head.

An ideology addresses the manner in which one thinks things SHOULD be ordered. If a person is incapable of SETTING ASIDE one's personal IDEOLOGY in order to evaluate the manner in which things actually ARE ordered, that person may well be an effective "ideologue," but should NOT be trusted to conduct ANY objective analysis of the real world. This is why all GOOD schools spend three full years beating this concept into students' minds with Socratic teaching.

quote:

---

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.

---

In an attempt to amplify what AggieHank and Tigerlaff have both already posted, below is a quote from the opinion which points out the issue that the 9th Circuit determined dictated the holding in the case.

quote:

---

Based on the facts of this case, it may be hard to understand how the shooting of Ben by Begay might not be a “crime of violence.” Under the categorical approach, however, we do not look to the facts underlying the conviction, but “compare the elements of the statute forming the basis of the defendant’s conviction with the elements of” a “crime of violence.” See Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 257 (2013). 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.”

---

It is a legal question looking at the language of the statute itself, NOT at the conduct of the defendant.

Your collective indignation is misplaced.

quote:

---

You can attack the messenger, or you can read the message. Your choice.

---

Or you can attack the message, which is a steaming pile of shite.