JMich3 152 Posted August 10, 2018 Every day i am further disgusted with the lack of respect and empathy that people have today. Every other day on the news is another poor bastard getting brutalized for some non sensical reason. With that thought in mind , if you knock someone out ( not in self defense) and that person dies from the consequences of being knocked out, should you face a murder charge? I hate the idea of more laws and more big brother , but what else do we do to make people think twice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Avalanche 42 Posted August 10, 2018 If you murder someone, yes - you should face a murder charge. Very simple. 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 509 Posted August 10, 2018 The law already has this figured out. There are different degrees of "murder", manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. The difference is in the premeditation and the intent of your actions. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TokenEntry 293 Posted August 10, 2018 If one were a victim of an assault or attempted murder in the state of CA, you'll get no justice from the courts there. Eric Clanton, the bike lock professor, took a plead bargain deal of 3 years probation instead of facing 11 years worth of felony charges. Whoever was the district attorney in the case should have been fired for even putting such a deal on the table. Link - The Daily Caller article Regards, TokenEntry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted August 10, 2018 2 hours ago, JMich3 said: With that thought in mind , if you knock someone out ( not in self defense) and that person dies from the consequences of being knocked out, should you face a murder charge? Simple answer.... YES... 2 hours ago, JMich3 said: I hate the idea of more laws and more big brother , but what else do we do to make people think twice? Exactly, civilization was a lot more "civil" when the "eye for an eye" was the law of the land. 2 hours ago, maintenanceguy said: There are different degrees of "murder", manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. The difference is in the premeditation and the intent of your actions. and this is where I have an issue... Dead is Dead... PERIOD. If you kill someone, for whatever reason, they are dead. You should suffer extreme legal consequences, without all this BS levels of murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted August 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Sniper22 said: And this is where I have an issue... Dead is Dead... PERIOD. If you kill someone, for whatever reason, they are dead. You should suffer extreme legal consequences, without all this BS levels of murder. No. Example 1. Cautiously driving down road sober at speed limit. Kid jumps out from between cars. You hit and kill him. Example 2. Loony toon walks down street. Finds first kid he sees and beats kid to death. Are they the same? Dead is dead. Intent has MAJOR impact. One is an horrible accident, one is premeditated murder. 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueLineFish 615 Posted August 10, 2018 Murder implies intent. There are levels. Murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide. Every state has different names and requirements. There are also levels to some of these charges like murder 1, murder 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted August 10, 2018 Another good reason to never get into a fight. One should avoid anti-social confrontations at all costs, but should be prepared to defend oneself with ruthless violence if faced with the threat of death or serious bodily harm. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WP22 1,558 Posted August 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, PeteF said: No. Example 1. Cautiously driving down road sober at speed limit. Kid jumps out from between cars. You hit and kill him. Example 2. Loony toon walks down street. Finds first kid he sees and beats kid to death. Are they the same? Dead is dead. Intent has MAJOR impact. One is an horrible accident, one is premeditated murder. Yep. It's @Sniper22 way of thinking that has lead us to zero tolerance policies and laws and we all know how well that turned out. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, PeteF said: No. Example 1. Cautiously driving down road sober at speed limit. Kid jumps out from between cars. You hit and kill him. Example 2. Loony toon walks down street. Finds first kid he sees and beats kid to death. Are they the same? Dead is dead. Intent has MAJOR impact. One is an horrible accident, one is premeditated murder. Except you're using a needle in the haystack as your examples with something that rarely happens. Regarding intent, how many of these situations include "intent", even if they're considered accidents? Let's try some more popular ones: Driving under the influence and killing someone? Speeding and losing control and killing someone? Texting while driving and crossing the yellow line and killing someone? Leaving a kid alone in a bathtub and they drown? Leaving a kid unattended in a backyard and they drown in a pool? Leaving a pot unattended on the stove that starts a fire and someone dies? Pushing someone during an argument, they trip and fall, hit their head and die? Is there any "intent" in those examples, or are all considered accidental? Is anyone who died a different type of dead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted August 10, 2018 33 minutes ago, Sniper22 said: Is there any "intent" in those examples, or are all considered accidental? Is anyone who died a different type of dead? No, they are not any different level of "dead". But as stated before, there are many different levels of intent. Leaving a pan on the stove, that results in a fire, shows FAR less malicious intent that pushing someone during an argument. One would reasonably assume that when you put a pan on the stove and go to take a piss, you have zero intention of anyone getting harmed. One would also reasonably assume that if you push someone in an argument, hard enough that they fall to the ground, you have at least SOME malicious intent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Sniper22 said: Except you're using a needle in the haystack as your examples with something that rarely happens. Regarding intent, how many of these situations include "intent", even if they're considered accidents? Let's try some more popular ones: Driving under the influence and killing someone? Speeding and losing control and killing someone? Texting while driving and crossing the yellow line and killing someone? Leaving a kid alone in a bathtub and they drown? Leaving a kid unattended in a backyard and they drown in a pool? Leaving a pot unattended on the stove that starts a fire and someone dies? Pushing someone during an argument, they trip and fall, hit their head and die? Is there any "intent" in those examples, or are all considered accidental? Is anyone who died a different type of dead? No, the vast majority of your "examples" all show criminal culpability. So yes there is intent. Hows about NOT speeding and losing control of your car and killing someone? Is that the same as speeding losing control and killing someone, from the perspective of punishment? Hows about hitting a baseball, that hits the pitchers chest killing him? Thays obviously the same as premeditated murder, right? Or maybe a strong clean tackle in football? Or leaving a dog toy on the stairs or ......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 509 Posted August 10, 2018 Beware of the human need to always figure out who's fault something is. I have heard lots of people say "somebody needs to be held accountable!". That's not always true. Sometimes accidents are just accidents and nobody is accountable. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, PeteF said: Hows about NOT speeding and losing control of your car and killing someone? Is that the same as speeding losing control and killing someone, from the perspective of punishment? So, should the punishment be the same in each of those or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted August 10, 2018 56 minutes ago, Sniper22 said: So, should the punishment be the same in each of those or not? No. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handyman 5,682 Posted August 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Sniper22 said: Except you're using a needle in the haystack as your examples with something that rarely happens. Regarding intent, how many of these situations include "intent", even if they're considered accidents? Let's try some more popular ones: Aside from intent, there is also an issue of negligence. Even if you have no intent but a reasonable person could conclude your action would lead to a bad outcome for someone, you still earned some blame. I might have no intent to hurt you if I try to shoot an apple off your head, but when it doesn't go well, there will be some 'splaining to do. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Handyman 5,682 Posted August 10, 2018 8 hours ago, TokenEntry said: If one were a victim of an assault or attempted murder in the state of CA, you'll get no justice from the courts there. I'm not 100% sure that is the case. If a 2A supporter cracked a liberal college professor's head open with a lock, I'm pretty sure they would throw the book at him (unless perhaps the 2A supporter was in the country illegally). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted August 14, 2018 On 8/10/2018 at 0:21 PM, Sniper22 said: Except you're using a needle in the haystack as your examples with something that rarely happens. Regarding intent, how many of these situations include "intent", even if they're considered accidents? Let's try some more popular ones: Driving under the influence and killing someone? Speeding and losing control and killing someone? Texting while driving and crossing the yellow line and killing someone? Leaving a kid alone in a bathtub and they drown? Leaving a kid unattended in a backyard and they drown in a pool? Leaving a pot unattended on the stove that starts a fire and someone dies? Pushing someone during an argument, they trip and fall, hit their head and die? Is there any "intent" in those examples, or are all considered accidental? Is anyone who died a different type of dead? One of the things about intent is the level of risk to society. That's why justifiable homicide exists. The dude who offed someone who tried to attack him with a deadly weapon out of nowhere, but leaves people alone as the default, is not a threat to society. DUI? You are a threat, but a mixed threat. So it tends to be treated more leniently. Speeding and losing control? Not terribly common, and most often the only one at risk is yourself. But screw up bad enough and it is someone else you get vehicular manslaughter for being irresponsible. We'll also make it harder for you to drive, which seems to be your problem. Texting and driving, see speeding. Leaving a kid in the bathtub? Negligence. But you really aren't likely to be a risk to anyone else's kids. So. Once again, punished much less harshly than someone who is a broad threat to the public. Leaving a pot on a stove. Probably won't start a fire. So it's both negligence and bad luck, and will probably be written off as an accident and left up to civil liability to teach you a lesson. Shove someone and they die. Well you did it once, you may do it again. It'll be punished more harshly, but not as harshly as someone who straight up intended to kill someone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted August 14, 2018 Same penalty for all deaths has to be one of the dumber ideas I have heard in awhile.Murder is Premeditated that would be the worst scenario. One planned it. Maybe multiple times. They are the greatest risk to society and thus should be removed from society. Some states separate murder 1 and 2. Serial Killers would be murder 1 anywhere.Manslaughter Killed someone but didn't plan it ahead of time. Still intended to kill them. Walked in caught your wife in bed and you killed the guy.Involuntary Manslaughter is situation at hand. Low level felony that results in death but didn't intend to kill. Punch someone in face and knock them and they die Involuntary Manslaughter is the charge. Moral of the story don't go around punching people for no reason, and if you knock someone out try and catch them so they don't hit the back of their head on the pavement.Reckless Homicide you did something stupid that most people would realize could result in the death of another. Drinking and driving and you kill someone.Negligent Homicide you did something stupid and it resulted in someones death. Fell asleep with a lit cigarette.Justifiable Homicide You were justified in killing the person. Self defense.Felony murder while committing a felony someone dies. Rob a store while escaping in the getaway car you run someone over. Felony murder usually same penalty as murder.Now why exactly should a serial killer and someone who accidentally burned down a house serve the same penalty? How does that serve society? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,259 Posted August 14, 2018 On 8/10/2018 at 6:48 AM, JMich3 said: Every day i am further disgusted with the lack of respect and empathy that people have today. Every other day on the news is another poor bastard getting brutalized for some non sensical reason. With that thought in mind , if you knock someone out ( not in self defense) and that person dies from the consequences of being knocked out, should you face a murder charge? I hate the idea of more laws and more big brother , but what else do we do to make people think twice? yes to murder. there is no need for new laws, 'cause if you knocked him out, and he died, then you killed him, now didn't ya? not you personally....you know what i mean.... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted August 14, 2018 yes to murder. there is no need for new laws, 'cause if you knocked him out, and he died, then you killed him, now didn't ya? not you personally....you know what i mean....But nowhere will you be charged with murder because there is no premeditation to kill.Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted August 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, capt14k said: But nowhere will you be charged with murder because there is no premeditation to kill. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk NJSA 2C:11-3. Murder. a. Except as provided in N.J.S.2C:11-4, criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (1) The actor purposely causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death; or 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted August 14, 2018 NJSA 2C:11-3. Murder. a. Except as provided in N.J.S.2C:11-4, criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (1) The actor purposely causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death; or He didn't purposely cause death. That was not his intent. Serious bodily injury that results in death would be curb stomping someone not a single punch. Also you need to read the entire law. Except as provided for in 2C:11-4 2C:11-4 Manslaughter. 2C:11-4. Manslaughter. a. Criminal homicide constitutes aggravated manslaughter when: (1) The actor recklessly causes death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life; or (2) The actor causes the death of another person while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer in violation of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:29-2. Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, the actor shall be strictly liable for a violation of this paragraph upon proof of a violation of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:29-2 which resulted in the death of another person. As used in this paragraph, "actor" shall not include a passenger in a motor vehicle. b. Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: (1) It is committed recklessly; or (2) A homicide which would otherwise be murder under section 2C:11-3 is committed in the heat of passion resulting from a reasonable provocation. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted August 14, 2018 1 minute ago, capt14k said: He didn't purposely cause death. That was not his intent. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk That would be argued, but it's whether or not you knew your actions could lead to death. If your purpose was to knock someone out, and let their head hit the pavement... then you should reasonable assume your actions could lead to death. The line of reasoning has to begin and end somewhere... Like i intended to stab him, just not kill him.... i cant believe he died! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted August 14, 2018 That would be argued, but it's whether or not you knew your actions could lead to death. If your purpose was to knock someone out, and let their head hit the pavement... then you should reasonable assume your actions could lead to death. The line of reasoning has to begin and end somewhere... Like i intended to stab him, just not kill him.... i cant believe he died! Yes but the law provides for that as well. Notice the criminal Homicide of murder requires serious bodily injury not significant bodily injury. Substantial risk of death would be hard to prove. Majority of one punch knockouts don't end in death. No permanent disfigurement. Protracted loss of impairment bodily member or organ you could argue to brain but it wasn't his intent to stop his brain. b. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ; c. "Deadly weapon" means any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury or which in the manner it is fashioned would lead the victim reasonably to believe it to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury; d. "Significant bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a temporary loss of the function of any bodily member or organ or temporary loss of any one of the five senses. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted August 14, 2018 ""Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or..." Losing brain function temporarily does create substantial risk of death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted August 14, 2018 ""Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or..." Losing brain function temporarily does create substantial risk of death. However one punch would not create a substantial risk of death is the argument and easy to defend. Substantial risk would mean the vast majority of the time one punch results in a risk of death. Find me one case where someone was convicted of murder 1 (since nj doesn't differentiate between levels of murder) who wasn't a professional boxer or martial artist for throwing one punch. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted August 14, 2018 2 hours ago, capt14k said: Now why exactly should a serial killer and someone who accidentally burned down a house serve the same penalty? Because dead is dead. Are there different levels of dead in your world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted August 14, 2018 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minn-teen-gets-10-years-for-fatal-knock-out-game-punch/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-2nd-teen-charged-in-2012-knockout-game-killing-gets-30-years-20140204-story.html It's called the "Knock Out Game", so unforturnately the individual cant pretend that he didn't think his punch would do enough harm to render a person unconscious. (not so easy to defend when the sole purpose of your one punch is to knock someone out) Whether he believed that would lead to death is irrelevant, what is relevant is if a reasonable person would believe an unconscious person, falling and hitting their head could lead to death. The answer to that is, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted August 14, 2018 Because dead is dead. Are there different levels of dead in your world? There are different levels of culpability in the free world. Punishment is supposed to be to rehabilitate. Someone who accidentally burned down a house needs the same rehabilitation as a serial killer? Cruel and Unusual Punishment would apply if accidents are punished the same as intentional. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minn-teen-gets-10-years-for-fatal-knock-out-game-punch/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-2nd-teen-charged-in-2012-knockout-game-killing-gets-30-years-20140204-story.html It's called the "Knock Out Game", so unforturnately the individual cant pretend that he didn't think his punch would do enough harm to render a person unconscious. (not so easy to defend when the sole purpose of your one punch is to knock someone out) Whether he believed that would lead to death is irrelevant, what is relevant is if a reasonable person would believe an unconscious person, falling and hitting their head could lead to death. The answer to that is, yes.I read 2nd degree. 10 year sentence would be unlikely for 1st degree. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites