I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Emperor1956 -> I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:19:28 PM)

The very heated discussion in another thread here about testifying against one's Dom/sub got me thinking.  A number of people posted to the effect "I would never protect a murderer, even if it was my life partner" and some the corollary "I don't have to worry about this because I would never love a murderer."  I was thinking -- "Never" is a long, long time, and pretty absolute.  Consider:

Your life partner and you are passionately committed to some cause, be it animal rights, gay rights, B/D/S/M rights, stopping the war, assisting the conservative Contras in a third-world country, whatever.  In the course of furthering that cause, you and your lover join with several other passionate believers and plan a non-violent protest at the headquarters building of "EVERYTHING WE HATE ON CAMPUS"  or EW-HOC.  Accordingly, you and your lover and 7 passionate, well meaning, peaceful followers assemble at midnight at the front door of EW-HOC.  Your plan is to enter the building, and lay down on the floor in order to obstruct the evil business of EW-HOC the next day.  But, surprise of surprises, the door is locked!  Your beloved, with the strong character you adore, breaks open the door and you all file in.  In so doing your beloved commits several felonies against property.  But the cause is supreme, and no one is hurt.

Unknown to you, the door was not only locked, but wired with an alarm that rings in the local stationhouse.  Crime on campus is a big issue, and the police are out in force.   Unfortunately, one of those police is Officer Barney Fife, a complete incompetent only on the force because he is the Chief's nephew.  Office Fife carries an unauthorized .357 Magnum revolver loaded with illegal wadcutters.  On arriving at the scene, Officer Fife draws this weapon, and in his idiocy and confusion, waves it around, drops it and it goes off.  The bullet kills a young woman who was lying on the floor in protest of EW-HOC.

Your State, has a statute known as the "felony-murder" statute, which says, in essence, that when a person is killed in the commission of a felony, then the charge of manslaughter will be upgraded to murder.  (Most US jurisdictions have a "felony murder" statute). Your lover committed the felonies of breaking and entering and criminal damage to property.  The girl was killed in the commission (but for your lover's felonious acts, she would not have been there, and would not have been in the way of Fife's bullet.)   Your love is a murderer, so says the state. 

How do you plead?  If you posted (or thought) "I would never protect a murderer" or "I will never be in love with a murderer", would you like to take another pass?

E.




popeye1250 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:25:55 PM)

It would all depend on who the murderer killed.
If he killed a real bad guy like a drug pusher, rapist or a child molestor good for him or her!
Like the saying goes in Texas, "he needed killin'."




fergus -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:27:33 PM)

"depends" seems to be the key phrase for most people in this (and that other) thread.

fergus




juliaoceania -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:35:01 PM)

Isn't there a reason why a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their mate?




popeye1250 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:42:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fergus

"depends" seems to be the key phrase for most people in this (and that other) thread.

fergus


Fergus, correct.
Some people are so evil they should be slaughtered.
For most rapists when they're caught it's not for the first rape they committed.
Likewise for child molesters.
And look at all the people who die because of drug pushers.
A year or so here in S. Carolina a group of kids were out participating in an activity they called "Re-habing."
They'd go up to a drug dealor and ask for drugs and hand him a 20 dollare bill, when the druggie gave them the drugs, POW, they'd hit him over the head with a baseball bat and beat him to an inch of his life. Shot one too.
The police for years couldn't do anything about drugs but these kids did!
Good for them!
They unfortunately got caught but if I knew about what they were doing beforehand I wouldn't rat them out and if they get charged with anything I hope I'm on the jury.




fergus -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:45:14 PM)

Once again Mr. eye ... good on you.  I agree.

fergus




feylin -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:46:03 PM)

He's on his own.  He broke down a door to stage a non-violent protest?  I must have misinterpreted his passion for intelligence.  I might call his mom to make bail for him.

"...those who fear the coming of all hells are those who should be feared themselves.." ~ Book of Counted Sorrows (or my paraphrase:  don't date a zealot 'cause they're whacked.)

Wait..in the scenario I am supposed to be just as passionate...no, I can't get past the means to an end.  In the same vein, the PETA folks who throw paint on fur coats also boggle my mind although I am all for the naked picture campaign.  More men should give up wearing fur and take a stand against it and then..pose.




missturbation -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 9:47:55 PM)

The girl was killed in the commission (but for your lover's felonious acts, she would not have been there, and would not have been in the way of Fife's bullet.)   Your love is a murderer, so says the state. 

How do you plead?  If you posted (or thought) "I would never protect a murderer" or "I will never be in love with a murderer", would you like to take another pass?

Considering the police killed the girl and my lover is being charged with murder and no mention of me being charged with anything is made - well i wouldnt have to plead.
However if my lover is guilty then so am i as i planned the whole sit in with him. If he is guilty i am. In a situation like that you have to face up to the responsibilty that she wouldnt have been there had it not been for myself and my lover.




Emperor1956 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 10:16:28 PM)

quote:

missturbation:  Considering the police killed the girl and my lover is being charged with murder and no mention of me being charged with anything is made - well i wouldnt have to plead.


But what if you are compelled to testify?  If you don't, are you protecting a murderer?  

And you accept the concept of felony murder (which I do too, although this case, and similar ones, stretch the concept quite a bit).

E.




Emperor1956 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 10:18:41 PM)

Hey Popeye and Fergus:  ADDRESS the QUESTION.  Its easy to be all manly and talk about "people who need killing" and rapists and child molesters, but you two are stroking off here.   Your girlfriend, lover, light-of-your life is charged with murder.  In the scenario I outlined.  What do you do?   Your posts thus far are easy...lets look at a little more of a challenge, boys.

E




UtopianRanger -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 10:33:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

The very heated discussion in another thread here about testifying against one's Dom/sub got me thinking.  A number of people posted to the effect "I would never protect a murderer, even if it was my life partner" and some the corollary "I don't have to worry about this because I would never love a murderer."  I was thinking -- "Never" is a long, long time, and pretty absolute.  Consider:

Your life partner and you are passionately committed to some cause, be it animal rights, gay rights, B/D/S/M rights, stopping the war, assisting the conservative Contras in a third-world country, whatever.  In the course of furthering that cause, you and your lover join with several other passionate believers and plan a non-violent protest at the headquarters building of "EVERYTHING WE HATE ON CAMPUS"  or EW-HOC.  Accordingly, you and your lover and 7 passionate, well meaning, peaceful followers assemble at midnight at the front door of EW-HOC.  Your plan is to enter the building, and lay down on the floor in order to obstruct the evil business of EW-HOC the next day.  But, surprise of surprises, the door is locked!  Your beloved, with the strong character you adore, breaks open the door and you all file in.  In so doing your beloved commits several felonies against property.  But the cause is supreme, and no one is hurt.

Unknown to you, the door was not only locked, but wired with an alarm that rings in the local stationhouse.  Crime on campus is a big issue, and the police are out in force.   Unfortunately, one of those police is Officer Barney Fife, a complete incompetent only on the force because he is the Chief's nephew.  Office Fife carries an unauthorized .357 Magnum revolver loaded with illegal wadcutters.  On arriving at the scene, Officer Fife draws this weapon, and in his idiocy and confusion, waves it around, drops it and it goes off.  The bullet kills a young woman who was lying on the floor in protest of EW-HOC.

Your State, has a statute known as the "felony-murder" statute, which says, in essence, that when a person is killed in the commission of a felony, then the charge of manslaughter will be upgraded to murder.  (Most US jurisdictions have a "felony murder" statute). Your lover committed the felonies of breaking and entering and criminal damage to property.  The girl was killed in the commission (but for your lover's felonious acts, she would not have been there, and would not have been in the way of Fife's bullet.)   Your love is a murderer, so says the state. 

How do you plead?  If you posted (or thought) "I would never protect a murderer" or "I will never be in love with a murderer", would you like to take another pass?

E.


In the hypothetical you just presented, I could easily justify committing perjury in an attempt to safeguard my significant other.....and my conscious wouldn't bother me later.

I would also spend every dime I had, in order to mount a vigorous defense on her behalf.

The term ''hostile witness'' would take on a new definition by the time it was the DA's turn to question me. If it was my wife, you could expect behavior from me similar to that of Robert Cardassian.



 - R




missturbation -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 10:40:35 PM)

However if my lover is guilty then so am i as i planned the whole sit in with him. If he is guilty i am. In a situation like that you have to face up to the responsibilty that she wouldnt have been there had it not been for myself and my lover.

I believe your answer is there. Responsibilty must be taken for the actions. In your original post you never mentioned testifying - you asked about pleading !!
 
Yes i would testify in this situation although i do believe that full responsibility has to be shared between the officer who shot her, myself and my lover and also the girl who chose to be there. Ok i know shes dead and cant take responsibility but she chose to be there.
 
 




ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 10:47:36 PM)

You turn them in and then you hire the best attorney you can find. 




dcnovice -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 10:59:30 PM)

quote:

Your State, has a statute known as the "felony-murder" statute, which says, in essence, that when a person is killed in the commission of a felony, then the charge of manslaughter will be upgraded to murder.  (Most US jurisdictions have a "felony murder" statute). Your lover committed the felonies of breaking and entering and criminal damage to property.  The girl was killed in the commission (but for your lover's felonious acts, she would not have been there, and would not have been in the way of Fife's bullet.)   Your love is a murderer, so says the state. 


Charging the lover, who did nothing more than break down a door, with murder seems seriously whacked in this case. I'd certainly move heaven and earth to protect my lover. As for testifying, would I be entitled to take the fifth, even though I'd know I was protecting someone else rather than myself? I honestly don't know if I'd commit perjury. My hesitation, though, stems less from conscience than from doubt about whether I could carry it off. The idea also flashed through my head that I'd consider confessing to the door-breaking myself.

You mentioned, Emperor, that many states have felony-murder statues, so I'll take it on faith that they have some merit. That's hard to see from this hypothetical, though.




dcnovice -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/18/2006 11:20:49 PM)

For another take on this theme, check out "A Jury of Her Peers," a mind-exercising short story by Susan Glaspell.




seeksfemslave -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 7:31:02 AM)

Exactly what charge could be brought after this incident depends on the exact wording of the particular statute and how it describes the "who is doing what" when the homicide takes places. So....quote the statute LOL!!

I suspect peoples attitude would vary depending on how  they interpret the definition of murder.. Does this mean what is addressed by Law, in which case as I understand the US legal system the situation  will vary state to state or does it mean murder in everyday parlance where any homicide could/should be treated as murder. Thre is no concensus on what constitutes murder.


A relevent situation occured near where I live when an animal rights protester was run over and killed when trying to stop live calves being exported to Europe. As far as I recall no one was charged , would US jurisdiction result in the lorry driver
being prosecuted ?




marieToo -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 8:04:16 AM)

oops . Holy crap, I accidentally pasted something that my kid had on a clip board.  Had to get that out quickely...

Anyway....what I was saying is that I would absolutely lie, to protect a loved one who may have commited "murder".  But I would also understand the person who would think this is wrong no matter what the circumstances.  It all depends on our own particual set of values and their place on our own list of priorities.




popeye1250 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 8:12:23 AM)

I wouldn't rat them out.




afeathr -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 8:14:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

The very heated discussion in another thread here about testifying against one's Dom/sub got me thinking.  A number of people posted to the effect "I would never protect a murderer, even if it was my life partner" and some the corollary "I don't have to worry about this because I would never love a murderer."  I was thinking -- "Never" is a long, long time, and pretty absolute.  Consider:

Your life partner and you are passionately committed to some cause, be it animal rights, gay rights, B/D/S/M rights, stopping the war, assisting the conservative Contras in a third-world country, whatever.  In the course of furthering that cause, you and your lover join with several other passionate believers and plan a non-violent protest at the headquarters building of "EVERYTHING WE HATE ON CAMPUS"  or EW-HOC.  Accordingly, you and your lover and 7 passionate, well meaning, peaceful followers assemble at midnight at the front door of EW-HOC.  Your plan is to enter the building, and lay down on the floor in order to obstruct the evil business of EW-HOC the next day.  But, surprise of surprises, the door is locked!  Your beloved, with the strong character you adore, breaks open the door and you all file in.  In so doing your beloved commits several felonies against property.  But the cause is supreme, and no one is hurt.

Unknown to you, the door was not only locked, but wired with an alarm that rings in the local stationhouse.  Crime on campus is a big issue, and the police are out in force.   Unfortunately, one of those police is Officer Barney Fife, a complete incompetent only on the force because he is the Chief's nephew.  Office Fife carries an unauthorized .357 Magnum revolver loaded with illegal wadcutters.  On arriving at the scene, Officer Fife draws this weapon, and in his idiocy and confusion, waves it around, drops it and it goes off.  The bullet kills a young woman who was lying on the floor in protest of EW-HOC.

Your State, has a statute known as the "felony-murder" statute, which says, in essence, that when a person is killed in the commission of a felony, then the charge of manslaughter will be upgraded to murder.  (Most US jurisdictions have a "felony murder" statute). Your lover committed the felonies of breaking and entering and criminal damage to property.  The girl was killed in the commission (but for your lover's felonious acts, she would not have been there, and would not have been in the way of Fife's bullet.)   Your love is a murderer, so says the state. 

How do you plead?  If you posted (or thought) "I would never protect a murderer" or "I will never be in love with a murderer", would you like to take another pass?

E.


You have hit the nail on the head when it comes to the "always" and "never" concept.  Most people don't really understand what they are saying when they make blanket statements, such as the ones you have stated.  You have also shown the power of circumstance.

If people could learn to be less judgemental and more circumspect, the world would be a better place.




afeathr -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 8:19:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Your State, has a statute known as the "felony-murder" statute, which says, in essence, that when a person is killed in the commission of a felony, then the charge of manslaughter will be upgraded to murder.  (Most US jurisdictions have a "felony murder" statute). Your lover committed the felonies of breaking and entering and criminal damage to property.  The girl was killed in the commission (but for your lover's felonious acts, she would not have been there, and would not have been in the way of Fife's bullet.)   Your love is a murderer, so says the state. 


Charging the lover, who did nothing more than break down a door, with murder seems seriously whacked in this case. I'd certainly move heaven and earth to protect my lover. As for testifying, would I be entitled to take the fifth, even though I'd know I was protecting someone else rather than myself? I honestly don't know if I'd commit perjury. My hesitation, though, stems less from conscience than from doubt about whether I could carry it off. The idea also flashed through my head that I'd consider confessing to the door-breaking myself.

You mentioned, Emperor, that many states have felony-murder statues, so I'll take it on faith that they have some merit. That's hard to see from this hypothetical, though.


LOL - unless you have studied law, you can't fathom how crazy some of the statues really are.  I can attest that there *are* such laws as this in many states.  And some that are even crazier sounding that this one.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875