[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Murder is the intentional, unlawful, malicious, killing of a human being by another human being.
[/quote]
Whoa, wait a second now, I thought in order for it to be murder a person had to be convicted, otherwise as Kamui pointed out:
It just means that someone killed someone.
[/quote]
Yes.
In order for someone to be convicted of murder, the death they caused has to meet the criteria I listed.
Intentional.
Unlawful.
Malicious.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Murder is the intentional, unlawful, malicious, killing of a human being by another human being.
[/quote]
Whoa, wait a second now, I thought in order for it to be murder a person had to be convicted, otherwise as Kamui pointed out:
It just means that someone killed someone.
[/quote]
Yes.
In order for someone to be convicted of murder, the death they caused has to meet the criteria I listed.
Intentional.
Unlawful.
Malicious.
[/quote]
So if CNN airs a video where person A (in a Ski Mask) looks into the camera and says, “I’m going to kill this guy for fucking my wife.” And then proceeds to kill John Doe on tape. Can I call it murder or do I need to wait for a court ruling?
Edit: I’m not arguing how to “convict” someone of murder. I still am not clear when I can and cannot use the term.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him may have been killed in self-defense, he may have been killed by a cop on duty, or by a soldier on the field.
We have a specific process which (according to the principle of separations of powers) involves a court to determine if it was a murder or not.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine whether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
Its a court’s prerogative to convict and punish, but its my prerogative to draw my own conclusions. I have concluded OJ is a fucking murderer, which is my prerogative, I just don’t have the power to convict or punish him. And irrespective of what I think or a court finds, he objectively either is or isn’t a murderer if he killed someone and the facts otherwise meet the elements of murder.
I’m going to have to side with usmccds423 on this one.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[/quote]
Okay, fair points, however, there is vrey little chance I would come across this bullet ridden corps. Instead I’d hear about it on the news, where there will be other evidence as to whether it is a murder or not. For example, a police statement or an interview with the WWII vet.
Also, maybe MD has jaded me, but 27 holes isn’t gonna fly in MD for anything other than murder (espcially since sub-machine guns are illegal).
How about if I come across a guy taped to a chair with his throat slit, can I call it murder on the spot?
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you.
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you. [/quote]
Litigation is out of control in the U.S.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine whether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
Its a court’s prerogative to convict and punish, but its my prerogative to draw my own conclusions. I have concluded OJ is a fucking murderer, which is my prerogative, I just don’t have the power to convict or punish him. And irrespective of what I think or a court finds, he objectively either is or isn’t a murderer if he killed someone and the facts otherwise meet the elements of murder.
I’m going to have to side with usmccds423 on this one.
[/quote]
That Nicole was murdered was never in question. The forensic evidence was sufficient to establish that, just not good enough to establish the fact of OJ’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” in the minds of the twelve numbskulls who were bamboozled by one of the slickest lawyers money could buy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine whether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
Its a court’s prerogative to convict and punish, but its my prerogative to draw my own conclusions. I have concluded OJ is a fucking murderer, which is my prerogative, I just don’t have the power to convict or punish him. And irrespective of what I think or a court finds, he objectively either is or isn’t a murderer if he killed someone and the facts otherwise meet the elements of murder.
I’m going to have to side with usmccds423 on this one.
[/quote]
That Nicole was murdered was never in question. The forensic evidence was sufficient to establish that, just not good enough to establish the fact of OJ’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” in the minds of the twelve numbskulls who were bamboozled by one of the slickest lawyers money could buy.
[/quote]
But, no one was convicted for her murder, so it is just a killing, correct? That is what you said, correct Kamui?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[/quote]
Okay, fair points, however, there is vrey little chance I would come across this bullet ridden corps. Instead I’d hear about it on the news, where there will be other evidence as to whether it is a murder or not. For example, a police statement or an interview with the WWII vet.
Also, maybe MD has jaded me, but 27 holes isn’t gonna fly in MD for anything other than murder (espcially since sub-machine guns are illegal).
How about if I come across a guy taped to a chair with his throat slit, can I call it murder on the spot?
[/quote]
Was he a government informant or whistleblower? Then no. It would be a suicide.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[/quote]
Okay, fair points, however, there is vrey little chance I would come across this bullet ridden corps. Instead I’d hear about it on the news, where there will be other evidence as to whether it is a murder or not. For example, a police statement or an interview with the WWII vet.
Also, maybe MD has jaded me, but 27 holes isn’t gonna fly in MD for anything other than murder (espcially since sub-machine guns are illegal).
How about if I come across a guy taped to a chair with his throat slit, can I call it murder on the spot?
[/quote]
Their argument is solely process based.
Here is my fact pattern. Assume a person “D” guns down another person “V” unjustifiably and in cold blood while D is of sound mind and the result is V dies from the gunshot. D eludes the police.
Question: Is D a murderer?
Answer: Yes. His act meets the definition of murder.
Question: Is D a “convicted murderer”?
Answer: No. He was not been given the process that would lead to a conviction for murder.
A little parenthesis :
The english language is slighty ambiguous on this subject.
In english, someone is “found guilty” or “not guilty”.
Which would imply that he was already guilty before a court decision.
In French, the expression “trouvé coupable” doesn’t exist.
We say that someone is “déclaré coupable”. ie “declared guilty”.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[/quote]
Okay, fair points, however, there is vrey little chance I would come across this bullet ridden corps. Instead I’d hear about it on the news, where there will be other evidence as to whether it is a murder or not. For example, a police statement or an interview with the WWII vet.
Also, maybe MD has jaded me, but 27 holes isn’t gonna fly in MD for anything other than murder (espcially since sub-machine guns are illegal).
How about if I come across a guy taped to a chair with his throat slit, can I call it murder on the spot?
[/quote]
Their argument is solely process based.
Here is my fact pattern. Assume a person “D” guns down another person “V” unjustifiably and in cold blood while D is of sound mind and the result is V dies from the gunshot. D eludes the police.
Question: Is D a murderer?
Answer: Yes. His act meets the definition of murder.
Question: Is D a “convicted murderer”?
Answer: No. He was not been given the process that would lead to a conviction for murder. [/quote]
Ya, I think thats Varqanir point and it makes sense and I have no problem with that.
However, I was told my use of murder was wrong earlier because no one was “convicted”. So there is still a disconnect here.
[quote]kamui wrote:
A little parenthesis :
The english language is slighty ambiguous on this subject.
In english, someone is “found guilty” or “not guilty”.
Which would imply that he was already guilty before a court decision.
In French, the expression “trouvé coupable” doesn’t exist.
We say that someone is “déclaré coupable”. ie “declared guilty”.
[/quote]
So if he was already guilty before the court proceeding I can say murder right? So if a person was without a shadow of a doubt murdered, in a cold case, then it was not just a killing and in fact there can be unsolved murder, correct?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s your prerogative to think whatever you want.
But it’s not your prerogative to call “guilty” someone who hasn’t been convicted.
Publicly call him a murderer and he may rightfully sue you. [/quote]
Litigation is out of control in the U.S. [/quote]
But at least that would be fair.
Otherwise, anyone could call you a rapist and there is nothing you could do about it.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[/quote]
Okay, fair points, however, there is vrey little chance I would come across this bullet ridden corps. Instead I’d hear about it on the news, where there will be other evidence as to whether it is a murder or not. For example, a police statement or an interview with the WWII vet.
Also, maybe MD has jaded me, but 27 holes isn’t gonna fly in MD for anything other than murder (espcially since sub-machine guns are illegal).
How about if I come across a guy taped to a chair with his throat slit, can I call it murder on the spot?
[/quote]
Their argument is solely process based.
Here is my fact pattern. Assume a person “D” guns down another person “V” unjustifiably and in cold blood while D is of sound mind and the result is V dies from the gunshot. D eludes the police.
Question: Is D a murderer?
Answer: Yes. His act meets the definition of murder.
Question: Is D a “convicted murderer”?
Answer: No. He was not been given the process that would lead to a conviction for murder. [/quote]
“Suspected murderer”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Yes. And that’s why he said “unlawful”. [/quote]
Well, now I’m really confused. How is this:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It still means SOMEONE murdered SOMEONE.[/quote]
Wrong then?
If someone unlawfully kills someone, it’s murder, right?[/quote]
Right.
But in our current system, it’s a court prerogative to determine wether someone has been killed unlawfully or not.
[/quote]
So I can’t just assume John Doe with 27 bullet holes in him was murdered? I HAVE to wait for a court to tell me it was murder?[/quote]
Perhaps he was high on PCP and attacking five police officers, who all unloaded their magazines on him.
Perhaps he was running with a knife at an old wheelchair-bound World War II vet who just happened to be holding a sub machine gun.
Maybe justifiable homicide…if perhaps a bit excessive.
You wouldn’t be able to tell just by looking at his bullet-riddled corpse on a slab.
[/quote]
Okay, fair points, however, there is vrey little chance I would come across this bullet ridden corps. Instead I’d hear about it on the news, where there will be other evidence as to whether it is a murder or not. For example, a police statement or an interview with the WWII vet.
Also, maybe MD has jaded me, but 27 holes isn’t gonna fly in MD for anything other than murder (espcially since sub-machine guns are illegal).
How about if I come across a guy taped to a chair with his throat slit, can I call it murder on the spot?
[/quote]
Their argument is solely process based.
Here is my fact pattern. Assume a person “D” guns down another person “V” unjustifiably and in cold blood while D is of sound mind and the result is V dies from the gunshot. D eludes the police.
Question: Is D a murderer?
Answer: Yes. His act meets the definition of murder.
Question: Is D a “convicted murderer”?
Answer: No. He was not been given the process that would lead to a conviction for murder. [/quote]
“Suspected murderer”.
:)[/quote]
Lol, you’re good you…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A coroner may rule “wrongful death” but cannot always, just from looking at a corpse, determine that the death was committed in a malicious or premeditated manner.
[/quote]
Frankly, I’m stepped in here late and probably shouldn’t have commented because I’m not following this thread so I’m not really clear what the point of this discussion is, so, sorry, carry on. [/quote]
It was about people stealing from Wal-Mart.[/quote]
Actually the thread was originally about how Walmart in LA could not have known that those people didn’t have the balances to buy all that shit when the the Walmarts in every other state did.
“How Do You Feel About WalMart?”