Author Topic: Crummy situation - Murder from 30 miles away? (Read 1611 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #60 on:** July 24, 2007, 02:01:14 PM »

So you think that if not for the post office, I'd never pick up my dry cleaning at the Korean laundry. Thank goodness for snail mail.

If a cop is on his way to the arson scene and decides instead to respond to the kidnapping, he is responding to a kidnapping, not the arson.

Mitigating circumstance is why we have jury trials.

I defer to the jury in the thread starter case, as they have seen more evidence than I.

lazs2 · « **Reply #61 on:** July 24, 2007, 02:05:20 PM »

you guys got to leave out the accident and things not a felony.. those don't count in any case.

lazs

Neubob · « **Reply #62 on:** July 24, 2007, 02:14:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you think that if not for the post office, I'd never pick up my dry cleaning at the Korean laundry. Thank goodness for snail mail.

If a cop is on his way to the arson scene and decides instead to respond to the kidnapping, he is responding to a kidnapping, not the arson.

Mitigating circumstance is why we have jury trials.

There's a mis-communication somewhere.

The point is that, without the arsonist, in your example, the volunteer fighter does not get hurt. In my example, without the arsonist, the kidnapping victims do not get rescued nor does the family make it out of the Carbon Monoxide-filled home.

But for the arsonist, in your example, the firefighter remains intact, therefore the arsonist is liable for whatever does happen to the firefighter. The arsonist is not a direct cause of the injury, but indirect, and yet he is credited for the harm.

But for the arsonist, in my example, people are harmed or killed. Again, the arsonist is not a direct cause of the good deeds, but an indirect.

The question is: According to YOUR thinking, would the indirect positive effects of the arsonist even qualify as mitigating circumstances, or would the, according to your thinking, this information not even be worthy of submission to the jury? The guys

I just want to know if your theory works the same in both instances.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #63 on:** July 24, 2007, 02:24:00 PM »

There is no miscommunication, I understand what you are trying to say, I just think your circumstance is a bit far fetched.

If a cop responding to some felony gets misdirected and solves some other crime thus doing a good deed, I say the misdirection (the thing that makes him drop the emergency call to the original felony) is the impetus for the solution of the second.

I answered your question by saying mitigating circumstance is one of the reasons we have trial by jury. Should 12 people believe that some good has been done by doing bad, they can take that into account.

Neubob · « **Reply #64 on:** July 24, 2007, 02:34:00 PM »

So can we agree that in either situation, whether the resulting circumstances are good or bad, that it is the jury that should decide whether they mitigate or aggravate the defendant's offenses, rather than having the aggravation or mitigation be imposed statutorily?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #65 on:** July 24, 2007, 03:54:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
So can we agree that in either situation, whether the resulting circumstances are good or bad, that it is the jury that should decide whether they mitigate or aggravate the defendant's offenses, rather than having the aggravation or mitigation be imposed statutorily?

Armed Robbery is a statutory felony. It is decided by jury.

Felony Murder is a stautory felony. It is decided by jury.

Neubob · « **Reply #66 on:** July 24, 2007, 04:16:02 PM »

nevermind

Elfie · « **Reply #67 on:** July 24, 2007, 06:41:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
nevermind

I could have told you that 2 pages ago.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #68 on:** July 24, 2007, 07:21:07 PM »

I humbly apologize for believing that the felony murder law should be available to prosecutors and that juries should be able to decide whether the prosecutor has made the case.

I see now how that is patently unfair.

john9001 · « **Reply #69 on:** July 24, 2007, 07:29:38 PM »

rewind to the start, the badguy shoots once, hits no one, the cops shoot 60 times, hit one of their own, but not the badguy.

is there something wrong with the training of cops?

x0847Marine · « **Reply #70 on:** July 24, 2007, 07:48:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
It does seem to be a "stretch" interpretation of the law, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it gets overturned on appeal.

"Vicarious liability" has been used for dozens of years and stands on fairly solid legal ground, but I agree... not in this case.

After reading that the trooper had measurable alcohol in his system, I disagree with a "murder" charge. Normally any police officer "on duty" with even a "slight blood-alcohol level", would be in dereliction of duty, in violation of Dept policy and maybe even suspended / fired for conduct unbecoming.

I'm not sure how a trooper violating the mofo out of his dept policy to the point of borderline dereliction gets covered the same.

Back in the day when I got to take a city vehicle home, I was strictly forbidden from drinking while subject to call out, period. Even on my days off, if I brought a city police car home and was subject to call-out, I was getting bonus call out pay and was expected to be ready to roll at a moments notice. If I wanted to drink & party, I could "beg off" the call-out list as long as I had someone else to cover for me... or take myself off call and let someone else earn bonus pay.

There was NEVER any excuse, ever, to respond to a call-out in a police car with any measurable alcohol.. a dept that allows that is in need of some policy change IMO. It sucks that he's dead, but IMO the trooper should have known better.

AKIron · « **Reply #71 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:39:36 PM »

If I were making the law it'd probably be something like this: if a cop or anyone else is killed related to but not by direct action of the criminal then the crime commited would be punished with the most severe penalty allowed for the crime actually committed without tacking on the result of an accident which the criminal did not influence with his action directly.

Saintaw · « **Reply #72 on:** July 25, 2007, 12:10:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
rewind to the start, the badguy shoots once, hits no one, the cops shoot 60 times, hit one of their own, but not the badguy.

is there something wrong with the training of cops?

5-o's here officially shoot an average of 20 bullets/y. Some train during their private time at the gun range, but they are a minority. Of course, I am not in a gun-totting country et all... but...

Elfie · « **Reply #73 on:** July 25, 2007, 12:15:49 AM »

Quote

After reading that the trooper had measurable alcohol in his system, I disagree with a "murder" charge. Normally any police officer "on duty" with even a "slight blood-alcohol level", would be in dereliction of duty, in violation of Dept policy and maybe even suspended / fired for conduct unbecoming.

I'm not sure how a trooper violating the mofo out of his dept policy to the point of borderline dereliction gets covered the same.

Back in the day when I got to take a city vehicle home, I was strictly forbidden from drinking while subject to call out, period. Even on my days off, if I brought a city police car home and was subject to call-out, I was getting bonus call out pay and was expected to be ready to roll at a moments notice. If I wanted to drink & party, I could "beg off" the call-out list as long as I had someone else to cover for me... or take myself off call and let someone else earn bonus pay.

There was NEVER any excuse, ever, to respond to a call-out in a police car with any measurable alcohol.. a dept that allows that is in need of some policy change IMO. It sucks that he's dead, but IMO the trooper should have known better.

I've been wondering about this myself from the minute I saw that he had alcohol in his system.

In light of what you posted, I don't think the criminal should have been charged with the murder of this officer.

lazs2 · « **Reply #74 on:** July 25, 2007, 08:30:25 AM »

neubob... I would agree that a jury that was as it should be should decide all cases.

The problem comes from activist judges who "instruct" the jury with false law.

The jury is not bound to decide only guilt soley based on the law.

For instance.. the law says a that it is murder to kill someone not in self defense yet.. juries let husbands who catch in the act, and shoot, wives and their lovers go all the time. People who kill or seriously injure those who harmed their children... lots of things where the circumstance should be up to a jury.

The mandatory sentencing comes about because of activist judges who feel they need to get an outcome based on their law. not what was intended of the jury system.

The jury system was meant to be a "reasonable man" one not a strict judges interpretation... the judges would like nothing better than to have no jury at all.. for them to tell us what the law is and decide "guilt" and penalty.

lazs