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

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



Message

marieToo -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 8:22:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: afeathr

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.


Mostly, this is exactly what comes to mind my as well.  But as much as some people expect others to be open-minded about circumstances, there are others who wish that some would be more black and white when it comes to having certain convictions. 

I do believe that there are people out there who really mean it when they say they would never lie on a witness stand, no matter what.  I mean, there are some people who place that much value on the truth regardless of who is going to pay the price for the truth being exposed, even if it is themself who is going to pay.  It may be hard for us to fathom,  but there are people walking the face of the earth who dont give fuck-all about a particular set of circumstances and who believe that being honest is not something that should ever waiver.  Im not one of them, frankly, but I can understand and highly respect those who may feel this way, and I'd not spend a minute of my life trying to convince them that they should believe otherwise.



popeye1250 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 8:29:21 AM)

afeathr, yes there are some crazy laws out there.
Look at the two border guards in Texas who were convicted of shooting a drug smuggler trying to cross the border.
If they'd killed him instead of wounding him he'd be rotting in the desert now.
I'll call my congressman and senators offices (again) tommorrow about that.
The prosecutors in that case need to be fired!
Maybe (they) need to go to jail for that.
I don't want people like that working for me.



fergus -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 9:33:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

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.


Hey E, sorry mate, I had thought it clear from my other posts that I would *NOT* testify against my lover.

fergus



Chaingang -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 11:10:33 AM)

I'd say the real criminal is the cop. What is breaking and entering compared to manslaughter because of incompetence? Someone may have the necessary intent to break and enter without having the necessary intent to murder in doing so. Intent is a critical matter in law. Linking the two events through statute is an attempt to make an end run around intent. I would never convict on that basis. It's bullshit.

Digressing...

I dislike police. Most police persons are assholes. That's why they take the job. Police are basically the private security of incorporated cities.

We are a long way from common law enforcement officers like sheriffs and their deputies. I expect most of you have never considered these distinctions in terms of what officers are called, how they are elected to their duties, or to whom they are responsible. It makes a difference.



seeksfemslave -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 11:27:21 AM)

Another point about this thread is that I certainly do not appreciate reading the irresponsible libelling  of that fine upstanding Police Officer and citizen Mr Barney Flint, based solely on hearsay, rumour and malicious intent.

The "facts" of this case a not as presented by the original poster and in my opinion Mr Flint is in a very strong position, should he so decide, to take legal action to protect his  reputation. It is a well known fact for instance that Mr Flint has "ticketed" as many traffic/parking violations as could be expected from any enthusiastic Police Officer.

Justice for all I say, especially Police officers.



Kalira -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 12:36:32 PM)

I have said my piece. I refuse to say more.

Have a nice evening ya'll.



Sinergy -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 9:05:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emperor1956

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



I dont know what I would do.

I am generally opposed to crime and those who commit criminal acts.

But adrenalin stress shuts off higher cognitive function, and I have never been asked to make this choice.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy



RiotGirl -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/19/2006 9:10:31 PM)

ditto

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I wouldn't rat them out.



Emperor1956 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/21/2006 8:15:45 AM)

quote:

dcnovice:  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.


DC, and all:  Is "felony-murder" a good idea?  The history of the felony-murder doctrine is one of many that show how a "good idea" in the law can turn wrong if rigidly applied.  The original concept -- that a death occuring in the course of a felony should be upgraded to a murder charge -- makes some sense.  For example, a gun held by one of the robbers goes off during a bank robbery, and the bullet ricochets and kills a bystander.  Manslaughter?  Negligence?  The doctrine says "no, the death occured during the commission of a felony, we want to discourage that sort of dangerous conduct, therefore we charge it as murder."  I have no problem there.

Now, the gun goes off, but this time it kills a fellow robber?  Same result.  Are you troubled by that?  The gun goes off and the bullet strikes no one, but during the robbery, an elderly customer of the bank has a fatal heart attack.  Same result.  Does THAT one trouble you?  No gun is used, in fact the robbers are not armed, but the same elderly customer has a grabber, and dies.  Felony-murder?  You bet.  How does that case sit with you?

The hypothetical in the OP is based on some actual cases.  Among my favorite "Felony-murder" dilemmas are like the hypo in the OP where the only violence against anyone in the commission of the felony is that an incompetent cop kills a "co offender". 

Another favorite is a real case in Pennsylvania where an arson-for-hire scheme goes wrong.  The owner of a warehouse hires a guy to torch the warehouse (a felony).   The hired torch hires his brother-in-law to do it, and gives bro.inlaw very specific instructions on how, because bro.inlaw is pretty clearly mentally challenged.  The instructions in essence are:

1.  Set the UNPLUGGED hotplate on the pile of dry lumber in the warehouse.
 
2.  Fill the large metal pan with gasoline.
 
3.  Put the pan full of gasoline on the COLD, UNPLUGGED hotplate.
 
4.  Set the hotplate to HIGH.
 
5.  Plug in hotplate.
 
6.  Get the hell out of the building, get in your car, and drive home.
 
However, bro.inlaw doesn't QUITE get it, starting instead with step 4, going on to step 5, and THEN filling the pan with gas and putting it on the already quite hot plate.  This causes a flashover, and bro.inlaw is incinerated.  The legal outcome?  The warehouse owner, sitting 40 miles away in his comfy armchair is tried and convicted for the murder of the hapless arsonist.  The charge is murder based on the arsonist's death in the commission of a felony.
Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

E.



popeye1250 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/21/2006 9:22:52 AM)

All you need to remember is three words when compelled to testify; "I don't recall."
That's what the former Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts and former President of the Massachusetts State Senate William J. Bulger replied when asked questions under oath about his brother James "Whitey" Bulger who was the Godfather of the Irish Mafia in Boston and is now on the F.B.I.'s "Most Wanted" list.
"I don't recall."



JerseyKrissi72 -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/21/2006 1:59:56 PM)

I am a mother of four beautiful sons and even though I would do anything to protect them I WOULD NOT protect them if they killed someone...I cannot see any reason to take another human life unless it's in self defense or the law decided on the death penalty..This is NOT the wild west and we have to leave it up to the law and God for punishment.



LaTigresse -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/21/2006 2:33:15 PM)

E, great thread! There are wayyyyyyyyyyy too many gray areas to give such a black and white answer. So many of those "w" words that would need to be answered before I would even come close to saying yes or no.

In some cases of course I would turn them in and testify against them. In others I would probably be the instigator of smuggling them off to Belize or somewhere.

It is too complex of a question to answer simply.



dcnovice -> RE: I would NEVER protect a murderer, and other grandiose fallacies (11/21/2006 9:18:25 PM)

quote:

The gun goes off and the bullet strikes no one, but during the robbery, an elderly customer of the bank has a fatal heart attack.  Same result.  Does THAT one trouble you?  No gun is used, in fact the robbers are not armed, but the same elderly customer has a grabber, and dies.  Felony-murder?  You bet.  How does that case sit with you?


Not well.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125