Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, in other words, you wouldn't do your duty as a jurist to decide if the prosecution met its requirement to show that the charges are proven to meet the law.
Hopefully you don't serve on many juries.
I believe the law, to be flawed, and thus would not vote guilty to 1st degree murder. I am not a robot, and the whole purpose of having a jury is for them to think for themselves, otherwise you might as well just hire judge Dredd.
Weird outcome. I'm no legal expert...I know that a suspect (shooter, driver, spotter etc) knowingly involved in a murder to an unintended victim--from a stray bullet for example--is still culpable for their death, but did not know that a suspect could be charged with murder if his/her accomplices die a "lawful death" as a result of a botched crime. To me it just seems like comeuppance.
Last edited by zortation; 04-01-2017 at 09:56 AM..
I believe the law, to be flawed, and thus would not vote guilty to 1st degree murder. I am not a robot, and the whole purpose of having a jury is for them to think for themselves, otherwise you might as well just hire judge Dredd.
Actually, no. A jury's purpose is to examine the evidence presented and make a determination if the, in this case, prosecution met the burden of proof to convict.
It's not a jury's job to make social protests against a law they disagree with or to register a protest about having too many of one or another population cohort in prison (which happens frequently in this area. There will be eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, ballistic evidence and even confessions and the defendant is found not guilty).
I predicted early in the thread that the pro-perpetrators would show up shortly. It took a bit longer than I thought but they're here in force now.
Just because I believe the statue of charging her with murder is flawed that makes me pro perpetrators? Come on now....
Let me ask you this, in Florida a woman got 20 years for firing a warning shot. Not proper use of a firearm? Yes. Does she deserve 20 years for it? Well I say no. But the law is the law that any crime done with a firearms is a mandatory sentence. If you were on the jury would you vote yes to sending her to 20 years just because the law is the law?
I believe the law, to be flawed, and thus would not vote guilty to 1st degree murder. I am not a robot, and the whole purpose of having a jury is for them to think for themselves, otherwise you might as well just hire judge Dredd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zortation
Weird outcome. I'm no legal expert...I know that a suspect (shooter, driver, spotter etc) knowingly involved in a murder to an unintended victim--from a stray bullet for example--is still culpable for their death, but did not know that a suspect could be charged with murder if his/her accomplices die a "lawful death" as a result of a botched crime. To me it just seems like comeuppance.
I agree, I'm from Oklahoma, very pro-second amendment, and hate criminals. But charging her with 1st-degree murder is stupid.
I would rather she be let go than for them to set this kind of precedent.
The problem won't go away until we abolish the whole background check crap. When criminals aren't given any second chance to reintegrate back to society, they go back to be criminals.
If we teach them skills in prison and get rid of background checks, we may actually make some real changes.
Even that gets complicated. If for example a hospital or doctor's office hires a convicted pedophile who subsequently assaults a child patient, they will be sued big time for not having screened him before hiring him. The kid's family won't care that the hospital didn't know he was a convicted pedophile. The employer who unwittingly hired someone as a driver with a DUI conviction will similarly be sued big time if that person causes a fatal crash while driving a company vehicle drunk. And on and on.
If employers are not allowed to know the criminal backgrounds of the people they hire and make their own judgements about it, then the govt. has to assume liability for any crimes that may subsequently be committed, and perhaps compensation to the employer for the reputational harm they will have suffered.
I agree, I'm from Oklahoma, very pro-second amendment, and hate criminals. But charging her with 1st-degree murder is stupid.
I would rather she be let go than for them to set this kind of precedent.
It is as though some here are blind to the vastness that lies between "pro-perp" and "charge them with murder and fry-'em!". Incredible and disturbing just on principle....not to mention the catastrophic results - the utter chaos - that we would see if this petrified, narrow view of criminal justice administration were applied widely.
Can't have two definitions of murder, and they weren't murdered according to the local laws. She should be charged as an accomplice to 'forcible entry' or whatever it's called there, and manslaughter.
Actually, no. A jury's purpose is to examine the evidence presented and make a determination if the, in this case, prosecution met the burden of proof to convict.
It's not a jury's job to make social protests against a law they disagree with or to register a protest about having too many of one or another population cohort in prison (which happens frequently in this area. There will be eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, ballistic evidence and even confessions and the defendant is found not guilty).
Yes it is. Although it's really about an overly harsh penalty. It's called Jury Nullification.
It is one thing to fail to understand what the definition of murder is. It is quite another to argue vehemently that that definition is inconsequential in criminal justice administration. It is one of those things that has to be seen to be believed.
This train wreck of a thread does serve a purpose....by helping to explain why the criminal justice system, generally, is respected so little by so many.
You seem to be the one of the few having difficulty understanding what the definition of murder is or how it applies to the administration of justice in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
I understand the statue, and if I were on the jury I would vote not guilty to 1st degree murder and vote guilty to other charges relating to robbery and such.
Unless you can prove she forced those guys to go rob someone and supplied weapons to them, then its on the guys who entered the house for their outcome.
The statute doesn't require that she forced anyone to do anything, so it seems you don't understand it after all. Under the statute, you are guilty of murder if you actively participate in a dangerous felony in which someone dies whether you pulled the trigger (or thrust the knife of whatever) or not, whether you forced anyone to do anything or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
Another thing, home robberies are rarely picked out just by random. Usually the perps know a situation of value in the home that makes it tempting. A lot of times people that were targeted for home invasion are drug dealers (criminals themselves).
So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
Really has not much to do with being a liberal or not, I voted for Trump, I am a die hard 2nd amendment supporter that supports owning and using a weapon like a AR-15 for self defense, and I don't support charging her with murder just because it went bad for those who entered the house. It is on those who entered the house, their choice and risk.
It was her choice to participate in a dangerous felony in which people ended up dead. We have laws designed to strongly discourage people from doing things like that, such as the one she's being charged with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I agree, I'm from Oklahoma, very pro-second amendment, and hate criminals. But charging her with 1st-degree murder is stupid.
I would rather she be let go than for them to set this kind of precedent.
You're a little late for that. The felony murder rule has been around for hundreds of years.
It's really simple: if you don't intend any and all of the foreseeable consequences of a dangerous felony, then don't participate in dangerous felonies.
Last edited by Bitey; 04-01-2017 at 12:55 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
