- 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: Sentenced to Life for an Accident Miles Away
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:21 am to 4cubbies
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:21 am to 4cubbies
quote:Why are you calling the person who ran an accomplice?
The cyclists would be alive if the accomplice wouldn’t have ran.
Here is the definition of accomplice:
* One who participates in the commission of a crime.
* An associate in a crime; a partner or partaker in guilt.
You really don't think that a criminal partner should be held responsible for the actions of his accomplice that were caused as a result of the actions of the criminals in the commission of their MUTUAL crimes?
0
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:22 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Are we charging people based on what someone thinks he would have done in an alternative universe, or what he actually did? He stole from cars and was arrested.
No one was charged based on a hypothetical.
Those guys conspired with each other to commit a crime. Thus linking their actions together.
Then in the course of the commission of that crime, one of them indirectly caused the death of innocent bystanders.
That actually happened. It's not a hypothetical, and it's an actual law they were in violation of.
So they committed THAT crime just like they committed the crimes of conspiracy and theft.
You have no valid argument that they weren't in violation of the felony murder statute, and that is a fact.
You can express an opinion that you think the felony murder statute is not a valid law, but then I reiterate my question to you from earlier. When someone causes the death of someone else in the course of criminal activity, you really don't think there should be any consequences for that?
Let's say a guy who works at a paint factory is pissed off at management and decides to sabotage a batch of paint in such a way that he thinks will causes the paint to be the wrong color just to hurt the company's reputation, but what it actually does is cause it to give off toxic fumes that end up killing 12 people who buy it.
That wasn't his intention and it was an accident, but it was in the context of him already committing a crime.
Nothing happens to the guy for the deaths of those people?
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 9:31 am
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:22 am to Powerman
Yeah we should be softer on crime and softer on accomplices to murder. That's been working really well for us
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:22 am to stout
quote:
If they had held up a liquor store and the accomplice shoots the clerk should they both be charged with murder even if the other person had no intention of shooting the clerk? Shooting the clerk was a distinct action only one of the two engaged in.
Your analogy is missing some major details.
What if one robber surrenders and the other escapes and evades capture for a year. When he finally is caught a shootout occurs and a cop is killed. Would the robber who surrendered a year earlier be guilty of murder?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:24 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Running is a separate charge and a distinct action only one of the two engaged in.
When they conspired together to commit theft, their actions became linked at that point. Conspiracy is also a distinct crime.
Conspiracy
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 9:28 am
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:25 am to Robin Masters
quote:
and evades capture for a year.
You nulled your whole counterpoint with that one statement. No reasonable person would say a year gap should constitute the charge and that's not how the law reads. The law reads "during the commission of a crime"
Then you went on to write this silly fantasy
quote:
When he finally is caught a shootout occurs and a cop is killed. Would the robber who surrendered a year earlier be guilty of murder?
Now answer my original question please.
If they had held up a liquor store and the accomplice shoots the clerk should they both be charged with murder even if the other person had no intention of shooting the clerk?
Shooting the clerk was a distinct action only one of the two engaged in.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:28 am to Bourre
quote:
But they deserve it because they are part of the oppression. Right?
Of course not. How would that make any sense?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:29 am to stout
quote:
If they had held up a liquor store and the accomplice shoots the clerk should they both be charged with murder even if the other person had no intention of shooting the clerk?
I know you're not asking me, but my answer is yes.
Not only should they, but they absolutely would be.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:29 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You'd have to tell me, would this case conform to those criteria? If not, then I agree it's prosecutorial over reach.
It's gross prosecutorial overreach but the govt bootlickers here can't get enough.
Two dudes committing petty theft is not a felony. A seperate crime occurred when one guy fled arrest and during the ensuing chase killed some cyclists. The guy who surrendered did not take part in that crime and was should not have been charged with murder.
If the guy had escaped the police, fled into the mountains and set up camp and killed hundreds of hikers over the course of decades, the dipshits here would be calling the guy who surrendered on the scene a serial killer.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:30 am to self_service
quote:
Yeah we should be softer on crime and softer on accomplices to murder.
How was he an accomplice to murder while in police custody?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:31 am to 4cubbies
Makes as much sense as you downplaying burglary so it fits your narrative
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:32 am to stout
quote:
The law reads "during the commission of a crime"
Crime is still ongoing according to your logic. (Evading capture)
quote:
Now answer my original question please. If they had held up a liquor store and the accomplice shoots the clerk should they both be charged with murder even if the other person had no intention of shooting the clerk? Shooting the clerk was a distinct action only one of the two engaged in.
Is he guilty of murder? No.
Is it beneficial to charge someone with it as a deterrent? Probably.
But again, your analogy leaves out the crucial bit which was they murder occurred during the commission of a separate crime which only one is guilty of. (Running).
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:32 am to 4cubbies
quote:
How was he an accomplice to murder while in police custody?
The question no one can answer. But some butterfly effect scenario remders him guilty is the logic being used because of his criminal past. It's not very solid reasoning.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:32 am to 4cubbies
quote:
How was he an accomplice to murder while in police custody?
How was Timothy McVey responsible for a bombing when he was miles away at the time?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:32 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Propaganda? That’s a stretch.
Stretch? Did you overlook the “pulling on door handles” narrative, the omission of criminal history which is ALWAYS relevant for sentencing, the blatant effort to describe the involved parties with a focus only on their most compelling attributes, the irrelevant stories of family relationships, and so on?
It was the journalistic equivalent of using pictures of Trayvon Martin as a child in the context of behavior that led to his death as an adult.
Reasonable people can read more honest stories like this and still feel sympathy for Baxter and conclude lawmakers should make changes to the law as currently written. Reasonable people can also conclude that what happened was in accordance with the law, and the judge did try to help Baxter, a guy who could never overcome his own stubbornness and dedication to eventually become the victim that his chosen path would predictably lead to.
It’s a tough task to attempt a compelling narrative designed to portray a criminal as a victim. Doing so requires strategies like this author used, but it also requires readers willing to overlook propaganda strategies and the multiple decisions made by the story’s victim which led to his current circumstances.
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:33 am to Robin Masters
quote:
What if one robber surrenders and the other escapes and evades capture for a year.
With those sort of gymnastic skills, you're a shoo in for the Olympics...
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:33 am to self_service
quote:
Yeah we should be softer on crime and softer on accomplices to murder. That's been working really well for us
Who said anything about being softer on crime?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:34 am to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
It's gross prosecutorial overreach but the govt bootlickers here can't get enough.
Wasn’t this a trial by jury?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:34 am to oogabooga68
quote:
With those sort of gymnastic skills, you're a shoo in for the Olympics...
What is the time duration which relieves someone of culpability?
Posted on 12/13/23 at 9:34 am to Powerman
quote:
The question no one can answer.
It's been answered many times here.
Come on now...I consider you a reasonable person and have treated you as such on this thread.
You're much better than to join the likes of her to try to argue something as obviously false as that someone must be present at the scene of an event in order to be considered responsible for the event.
As I said before, there are reasons to not like this legal concept. This is not one of them.
This post was edited on 12/13/23 at 9:36 am
Page 14 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News