Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Veteran US Senator Edward Kennedy, the brother of former President John F Kennedy, has died at 77, after a long battle with a brain tumour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8221686.stm

I wonder how long it took the family to report his death.

RIP Ted Kennedy.

Originally posted by KidRock
I wonder how long it took the family to report his death.

Chappaquiddick reference?

Why do the good ones always die young?


Seriously though, the last Kennedy bro has died. I feel a dark cloud coming over.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Chappaquiddick reference?

Yeah, good riddance Ted you piece of shit.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, good riddance Ted you piece of shit. Ted was one of the best.

You are a piece of shit.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
after a long battle with a brain tumour.


I'm picturing that like when Gandalf fought the Balrog.

lolz @ Jaden

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, good riddance Ted you piece of shit.

You know, I had the same reaction the day Reagan died, but even better because Creed broke up on the same day.


Kennedy wasn't perfect but he came from a classier era than almost anyone currently in congress. He really was elected for who he was and what he believed in, not on how much money he could raise.

Originally posted by KidRock
I wonder how long it took the family to report his death.

That was a LoL.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm picturing that like when Gandalf fought the Balrog.

This was a LoL too.

It's a sad day

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, good riddance Ted you piece of shit.
That's just cold. You may not like him but he did his job well. Let the guy rest in peace.

Despite his political record, which people have varying views on, the man got away with manslaughter as fact, because of his family's money and influence. That's the truly sad part.

A fat, murdering, cowardly, corrupt, adultorous "millionaire socialist" windbag. I hope he burns in Hell.

Originally posted by amity75
A fat, murdering, cowardly, corrupt, adultorous "millionaire socialist" windbag. I hope he burns in Hell.

No, he will just get reincarnated into a fundamentalist family.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, he will just get reincarnated into a fundamentalist family.
"just" get reincarnated? I'd say that punishment is actually worse.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"just" get reincarnated? I'd say that punishment is actually worse.

That was my point.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ted was one of the best.

You are a piece of shit.
Kicked out of Harvard for cheating
Mary Jo's death
fundraiser for the IRA
pompous liberal
Anti-British
Son of a bootlegger who failed to stand up to Hitler

Sorry I have no respect for the man.

Originally posted by amity75
Kicked out of Harvard for cheating
Mary Jo's death
fundraiser for the IRA
pompous liberal
Anti-British
Son of a bootlegger who failed to stand up to Hitler

Sorry I have no respect for the man.

You must hate the entire Bush family then.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's just cold. You may not like him but he did his job well. Let the guy rest in peace.

He was a murderer, I hope his skin doesn't burn easily because it must be hot where he is.

Originally posted by KidRock
He was a murderer, I hope his skin doesn't burn easily because it must be hot where he is.

If you do believe in that whole Heaven and Hell bit, then he's probably in Heaven, as it's easy to get in there, even for a coward like Ted Kennedy.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you do believe in that whole Heaven and Hell bit, then he's probably in Heaven, as it's easy to get in there, even for a coward like Ted Kennedy.

I dont but if I did then that murdering scumbag should certainly be there.

Originally posted by amity75

Son of a bootlegger who failed to stand up to Hitler


Not sure if holding Ted responsible for his father's Jew hating ways is the right thing to do.

Laura Bush killed a guy.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Laura Bush killed a guy.

Was it in Reno; just to watch him die?

No, it was her best friend. She ran a stop sign while she may have been drunk and killed him in a traffic accident when she struck his car.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
No, it was her best friend. She ran a stop sign while she may have been drunk and killed him in a traffic accident when she struck his car.

I know, was just being an ass with the Johnny Cash reference.

By all accounts, it was an accident, she failed to see the stop sign. What is odd though, there never was a single charge filed against her.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but killing someone even by accident is still criminal, right? Manslaughter is it?

We know, we know.

"(Republican) did it! That means it's okay if (Democrat) does it!"

Bush bombs Pakistan, BAD! Obama bombs Pakistan, GOOD!

No, I think the moral of the story is: If you're rich and connected, you can get away with killing people.

If you're a politician, you can get away with killing millions and still get the Nobel Prize

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you're a politician, you can get away with killing millions and still get the Nobel Prize

Like Al Gore?

By proxy by not slapping the pen out of clinton's hand when he got NAFTA and GATT in front of him, yes. Absolutely Al Gore.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
By proxy by not slapping the pen out of clinton's hand when he got NAFTA and GATT in front of him, yes. Absolutely Al Gore.

Oh, I thought you were talking about all the money he is making from carbon credits. But that is way off topic, so I apologize.

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct me if I'm wrong, but killing someone even by accident is still criminal, right? Manslaughter is it?

Yes, but the possible sentences are much lower.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you're a politician, you can get away with killing millions and still get the Nobel Prize

In fact, I think that is one of the requirements now for Nobel Peace prize...considering some of the precipitants.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, but the possible sentences are much lower.

As low as getting off with no charges (Laura Bush) or getting 2 months in jail that you never have to serve (Ted Kennedy), that low?

Originally posted by Robtard
As low as getting off with no charges (Laura Bush) or getting 2 months in jail that you never have to serve (Ted Kennedy), that low?

Well if they don't convict you nothing happens. The maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is six years.

he will be missed

Originally posted by amity75
Kicked out of Harvard for cheating
Mary Jo's death
fundraiser for the IRA
pompous liberal
Anti-British
Son of a bootlegger who failed to stand up to Hitler

Sorry I have no respect for the man.

I don't either. He wasn't a self-made man; he was just Jack and Bobby's brother.

Originally posted by KidRock
He was a murderer, I hope his skin doesn't burn easily because it must be hot where he is.
How the hell is getting in a car crash the same as murder?

Originally posted by King Kandy
How the hell is getting in a car crash the same as murder?

Innocent people don't leave the scene of the crime and try to cover it up.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How the hell is getting in a car crash the same as murder?

Well if he caused it deliberately it would be murder.

Though that implies Ted Kennedy was, beside any faults, suicidally insane.

Originally posted by KidRock
Innocent people don't leave the scene of the crime and try to cover it up.
So you're theory is that he intentionally drove his car into the water, endangering his own life, in order to off someone he had few connections with? I am sorry but i'm finding it a bit hard to see any motive at all for that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well if he caused it deliberately it would be murder.

Though that implies Ted Kennedy was, beside any faults, suicidally insane.

Or drunk.

So it was an accident. I don't see the murder part here. At best it was manslaughter. Murder is something different. I don't see how drunk driving is murder.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So it was an accident. I don't see the murder part here. At best it was manslaughter. Murder is something different. I don't see how drunk driving is murder.

It was one or the other. There were rumors that she may have been pregnant. We have seen how infidelity could ruin a political career. Now imagine the pressure to succeed that must be on the shoulders of a member of one of those most prominent political families. Could be a motive to do something drastic and stupid.

Either it was intentional or it was him driving drunk. Both of them equally make him a scumbag that deserved to die and rot in hell.

Originally posted by KidRock
It was one or the other. There were rumors that she may have been pregnant. We have seen how infidelity could ruin a political career. Now imagine the pressure to succeed that must be on the shoulders of a member of one of those most prominent political families. Could be a motive to do something drastic and stupid.
I'm sorry, but when the best source you have is to say "there were rumors" it doesn't exactly seem the piercing truth to me.

Originally posted by KidRock
Either it was intentional or it was him driving drunk. Both of them equally make him a scumbag that deserved to die and rot in hell.
Really? You think intentional murder and drunk driving accidents are equally bad? I am having a hard time imagining you could honestly believe that there is no difference between the two. And even in that bizzare code of ethics, he still would not be guilty of murder as you initially claimed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Really? You think intentional murder and drunk driving accidents are equally bad?

YES!

Why is that hard to understand?



Originally posted by King Kandy
I am having a hard time imagining you could honestly believe that there is no difference between the two. And even in that bizzare code of ethics, he still would not be guilty of murder as you initially claimed.

Oh, sure, there are differences. But both are murder.

Second degree.


I wanna say all sorts of names at you...but I resisted out of respect.



And, IMO, drunk driving MURDER should be prosecuted as first degree murder. You drank to the point of inebriation, you killed someone by getting into a car. That would certainly deter drunk driving.

What about drunk biking? The charge and penalty are the same in CO.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What about drunk biking? The charge and penalty are the same in CO.



Drunk biking.

On a bicycle or motorcycle?

That's important.


If it's a bicycle, that's a bit steep. I think the penalty for that should be paying for the bumper and window damage the biker causes to the driver, and then getting their video plastered on teh internetz, if they aren't dead from the crash.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm sorry, but when the best source you have is to say "there were rumors" it doesn't exactly seem the piercing truth to me.



So nobody has ever killed another person over a rumor they heard? People have never killed another because they thought they could potentially ruin their life and legacy?

Originally posted by King Kandy

Really? You think intentional murder and drunk driving accidents are equally bad?

Absolutely. There is no such thing as a drunk driving "accident".

In colorado, having a blood alcohol level of .08 while riding on a bicycle is public intoxication, reckless endangerment, and DUI. You get your driver's license suspended or revoked and face classes, fines, and possible jail time. The law does not discern by what kind of vehicle you're operating.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In colorado, having a blood alcohol level of .08 while riding on a bicycle is public intoxication, reckless endangerment, and DUI. You get your driver's license suspended or revoked and face classes, fines, and possible jail time. The law does not discern by what kind of vehicle you're operating. . So by Kidrock's definition, if I have 11 beers and then accidentally fall over onto a person next to me while I am on my Huffy while it is at a dead stop, then by the letter of the law, I have committed attempted murder.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
. So by Kidrock's definition, if I have 11 beers and then accidentally fall over onto a person next to me while I am on my Huffy while it is at a dead stop, then by the letter of the law, I have committed attempted murder.

http://raoworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/facepalm_implied.jpg

What "definition" are you even going by?

You said that all drunk driving deaths are murders, therefore all drunk driving accidents are attempted murders. Colorado treats any vehicular intoxication the same, so if a drunk person falls on another person while on top of a bike, it is attempted murder based solely on the letter of the law and your interpretation of it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You said that all drunk driving deaths are murders

Really, where?

Originally posted by Darth Jello


That is not saying all drunk driving deaths are murders.

Either you're planning to kill someone and you do it or you're impairing yourself and putting yourself in a position where you know you can very easily kill someone and then you do it.

And like I said above both make you equally a terrible scumbag person like Ted Kennedy was.

edit: nevermind the fact that your entire accident comparision is completely illogical.

Originally posted by Darth Jello


I see what you did there.





And, a drunk person on a bicycle can cause a death, other than themselves. It's the same, really. Just that the death of the driver/s is less likely than if he or she was behind the wheel of another car. So, yes, technically, it is still manslaughter if they cause a death from their drunkenness.

Yes but again, here there is no legal distinction. I've had more than one police officer tell me that technically, if you are drunk and walking your bike somewhere, it is still considered DUI.

same in Canada, Mr. Jello

its not enforced, and they would way rather you bike than drive, but it is still operating a vehicle under the influence

Originally posted by King Kandy
Really? You think intentional murder and drunk driving accidents are equally bad?

If not worse...

normally, a murder has a cause. It is tragic, but the victim often is not a random, who is only killed by the negligence of another.

Originally posted by KidRock
Innocent people don't leave the scene of the crime and try to cover it up. Umm, actually yeah they do.

They really do.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Umm, actually yeah they do.

They really do.

That makes no sense.

Originally posted by inimalist
If not worse...

normally, a murder has a cause. It is tragic, but the victim often is not a random, who is only killed by the negligence of another.

So hunting down and murdering someone else is not as bad as making a mistake that kills someone else? That strikes me as absurd.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That makes no sense.

Well then you'll have to show that everything people do make sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That makes no sense. ...

If you're a suspect, and lawyers have been stereotyped as coming up with bullshit to prove anyone guilty, and you're one of those crazy people who believe jail, and a bad reputation is bad, then yeah, you'd cover it up.

Even if it makes you look even more guilty, there are people who do that kind of thing.

That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...Well then you'll have to show that everything people do make sense.

So, highly intelligent, well educated Senators, do things that make no sense? Perhaps you are right.

Originally posted by KidRock
So nobody has ever killed another person over a rumor they heard? People have never killed another because they thought they could potentially ruin their life and legacy?
So now you're saying kennedy killed her because he heard some rumors about her being pregnant? Indeed, this scenario is possible, but if you have nothing more than rumors to support it I don't think it's very credible.

Originally posted by KidRock
Absolutely. There is no such thing as a drunk driving "accident".
So all the people who become disabled drunk driving ruined their lives on purpose?

Seriously now, love or hate his politics, the man caused an accident that took the life of a woman and he fled the scene/tried to cover it up. That's cowardice and shows a lack of character.

It's also very, very sad that due to his families influence and prestige, he didn't even serve the measly two-month sentence he was levied.

Edit: If the guy had any sense of justice, he'd have insisted he serve jail time, it's not like he would have gone to a 'pound-me-in-the-ass' prison.

We've had semi-serious discussions with local Boulder police on the subject of DUI and how Boulder interprets its laws, granted there is a lot leniency towards cyclists in that city (WAAAAAY to much in fact), we were actually told that by the strictest interpretation of local law, if you pass out drunk in a bed, if the bed has wheels on it, you can be arrested for DUI. According to local law, the presence of wheels defines it as a vehicle and sleep is the typical way in which a bed is "operated".

Regardless, I apologize for getting off topic, and would love to discuss ridiculous judicial interpretation in another thread.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So hunting down and murdering someone else is not as bad as making a mistake that kills someone else? That strikes me as absurd.

This is where your logic is flawed.


Getting inebriated wasn't an accident.

Getting into a vehicle drunk, is not an accident.

I have to agree on the whole "it was an accident" in regards to drunk drivers, they typically drove to the place they'd be drinking.

But using the same logic, why is a confession under chemical coersion not admissible in court?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where your logic is flawed.


Getting inebriated wasn't an accident.

Getting into a vehicle drunk, is not an accident.

But killing someone was not intentional. Very sad, of course, and not a way of dismissing wrong doing but not nearly so dangerous or bad as a person who's willing to hunt down another person with the specific intention of killing that person, which you equated it to.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have to agree on the whole "it was an accident" in regards to drunk drivers, they typically drove to the place they'd be drinking.


It's called "drink responsibly" and get a cab.


If the person wants to get drunk, you ****in have a designated driver for your little group.


It's not really hard. If you plan to drink to drunkenness, make sure you set aside money to call a cab AFTER you drive your stupid ass to the place of drunkenness.



If it just happens, randomly at a party, you're not only ****ed, you're stupid.


Let's put it this way: there is absolutely no reason any innocent random person should have to pay for your irresponsibility, with their life.



Accident or not, it's manslaughter.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
But using the same logic, why is a confession under chemical coersion not admissible in court?

Probably due to the fact that a chemical (a foreign agent) is making them confess and there could be grounds that the confession is therefore not their own.

Like torture, you torture someone long/hard enough; they'll confess to anything you ask of them.

and manslaughter is unintentional

Originally posted by Darth Jello
and manslaughter is unintentional

50% correct.

There's voluntary and involuntary.

IMO, they should all be charged with first degree murder and serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years in a feral pen.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably due to the fact that a chemical (a foreign agent) is making them confess and there could be grounds that the confession is therefore not their own.

Like torture, you torture someone long/hard enough; they'll confess to anything you ask of them.

Shakespeare said something like that. Something like a man racked with confess to anything.

The actual quote is MUCH more elegant. lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
50% correct.

There's voluntary and involuntary.

IMO, they should all be charged with first degree murder and serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years in a feral pen.

You're basically advocating a zero tolerance policy. Those differentiations exist for a reason. It might be possible to equate voluntary manslaughter with second degree murder but it's very different from first degree murder.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're basically advocating a zero tolerance policy.

What was your first clue?




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those differentiations exist for a reason. It might be possible to equate voluntary manslaughter with second degree murder but it's very different from first degree murder.

I guess you're failing to see my perspective on killing someone BECAUSE you were drunk. (Driving drunk, to be specific.) Of coures, this would mean that you had to prove that the drunken state was the cause...which wouldn't be hard.


SC, when you suffer the loss of a family member to a drunk driver, you might change your tune a tad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you're failing to see my perspective on killing someone BECAUSE you were drunk. (Driving drunk, to be specific.) Of coures, this would mean that you had to prove that the drunken state was the cause...which wouldn't be hard.


SC, when you suffer the loss of a family member to a drunk driver, you might change your tune a tad.

If anything that would just make less objective.

A person who is willing to place someone in danger and a person who is willing to deliberately try to kill someone are not the same. Insisting that they somehow are is simply ridiculous.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If anything that would just make less objective.

A person who is willing to place someone in danger and a person who is willing to deliberately try to kill someone are not the same. Insisting that they somehow are is simply ridiculous.

Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.

I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.

I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it.

But it shouldn't be the same. One person is clearly more dangerous than the other.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it shouldn't be the same. One person is clearly more dangerous than the other.


No. It should be the same.




They can prevent the death/s. They didn't want to commit the murder (yes, it is a form of murder), yet, they still did it. I'm sure people would try a tad harder to NOT drive drunk if there were stiffer penalties for it.


And, no, the time served is not the same. The charge is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They can prevent the death/s. They didn't want to commit the murder (yes, it is a form of murder), yet, they still did it. I'm sure people would try a tad harder to NOT drive drunk if there were stiffer penalties for it.

I thought you were a libertarian.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, the time served is not the same. The charge is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
50% correct.

There's voluntary and involuntary.

IMO, they should all be charged with first degree murder and serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years in a feral pen.


How about doing something constructive. 3,000 hours of community service specific to hard labor (service which burns at least 700 calories per hour). This will make them give something back to the community and physically clean them up from their physical addiction.

Follow this up with 5 supervised sessions where he or she is dosed with Mescaline and have to endure the torment of their guilt and inner demons followed by several hours of violent vomiting. This will make them understand the severity of the crime, change their ways, and destroy any psychological addiction to alcohol.

What you will get in the end is service to a community and a truly physically and psychologically changed person who has been punished by the state and by himself and is not prone to repeat his crimes.

This is the treatment I also propose for all non-violent drug offenses and as a great way to depopulate the prison population and get a lot of social services and health adults in return while passing along massive savings to tax payers, their money which can then be used for benefits and infrastructure.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought you were a libertarian.

Only slightly.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


Charge is first degree murder. Sentence is 7 years.


I don't know of any states that a conviction for first degree murder results in only 7 years time served.


This is why I said the charge should be the same but the penalty doesn't have to be the same.

Capisce?


And, guess what? I've never lost a family member to a drunk driver.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So hunting down and murdering someone else is not as bad as making a mistake that kills someone else? That strikes me as absurd.

no, I think there are varying degrees of manslaughter

I think a drunk driver is more dangerous than your average murderer, ya

Would you rather have someone rotting in jail, taking up space and money and grumbling about the unfairness of their conviction? Or would you rather have someone reform, atone, and truly repay a debt to society.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Charge is first degree murder. Sentence is 7 years.

But first degree murder is defined as something totally different (unless you think most drunks get into the car with the intent of killing someone). You could increase the penalty for the crime but you simply cannot charge them with first degree murder without messing up the whole system.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How about doing something constructive. 3,000 hours of community service specific to hard labor (service which burns at least 700 calories per hour). This will make them give something back to the community and physically clean them up from their physical addiction.

They can do that in prison with the other criminals.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Follow this up with 5 supervised sessions where he or she is dosed with Mescaline and have to endure the torment of their guilt and inner demons followed by several hours of violent vomiting. This will make them understand the severity of the crime, change their ways, and destroy any psychological addiction to alcohol.

Cool. Is this part of the rehab to prevent them for drinking and driving?


From what I can tell, someone who drinks and drives, and gets into a wreck, is likely to drink and drive again. I think this is fact...I'll have to look up some data on it, but I'm fairly sure they will repeat offend.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What you will get in the end is service to a community and a truly physically and psychologically changed person who has been punished by the state and by himself and is not prone to repeat his crimes.

I agree. That's how all crime should be delt with. If you can't rehab them after a so many years, end their life.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
This is the treatment I also propose for all non-violent drug offenses and as a great way to depopulate the prison population and get a lot of social services and health adults in return while passing along massive savings to tax payers, their money which can then be used for benefits and infrastructure.

Sure.

I would like to get rid of prison time for people who have drug offenses. I would also like to legalize many drugs. Shrooms, weed, steroids, and similar drugs that are "less harmful". More harmful drugs, like meth heroine, etc. Should still be illegal due to how harmful they are, but even then, NO prison or jail time for it.

First degree mean premeditated. As in, this guy planned to get drunk well ahead of time and had an elaborate plan to kill someone.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
First degree mean premeditated. As in, this guy planned to get drunk well ahead of time and had an elaborate plan to kill someone.

and then executed it flawlessly while drunk

Originally posted by inimalist
and then executed it flawlessly while drunk

Frankly anyone that good deserves to be set free.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But first degree murder is defined as something totally different (unless you think most drunks get into the car with the intent of killing someone).

"Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.

I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it."


It = the type of murder comitted.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You could increase the penalty for the crime but you simply cannot charge them with first degree murder without messing up the whole system.

Actually, you're incorrect. It would be a federal change and it would be very minor and very easy to accomplish. You do know that federal crimes are redefined and penalties for them changed, very frequently, don't you?

And the point of changing the charge is to tarnish that person's record. I thought that much would be obvious.


And, what inimalist said.


I still have to research the data on it, but drunk drivers are chronic offenders the majority of the time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Frankly anyone that good deserves to be set free.

Leadbelly:



sang his way out of prison....

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.

I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it."


It = the type of murder comitted.

So you want the same charge for killing anyone ever no matter the circumstances?

ie "I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define murder"


Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, you're incorrect. It would be a federal change and it would be very minor and very easy to accomplish. You do know that federal crimes are redefined and penalties for them changed, very frequently, don't you?

I seriously doubt that suddenly making huge tracts of criminal law redundant would a minor change.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And the point of changing the charge is to tarnish that person's record. I thought that much would be obvious.

They've tried that with sex offenders. People who piss in a park get beaten for raping children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, what inimalist said.

what point?

I don't think drunk drivers should be charged as first degree murderers

I think the random nature of the harm they do makes them more dangerous than the average, run-of-the-mill murderer.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you want the same charge for killing anyone ever no matter the circumstances?

ie "I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define murder"

Sure, if you want to paint my perspective as negatively as possible.




How about defining it the way I've done a half dozen times, though?




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I seriously doubt that suddenly making huge tracts of criminal law redundant would a minor change.

You don't know very much about it. I don't know very much about it.


However, I know that the crimes are very frequently redifined and penalties redefined.


Drugs are constantly changing. Those are more complex than murder, on the books. Yet, they change quite frequently. You're argument has no bearing on the discussion as it's null.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They've tried that with sex offenders. People who piss in a park get beaten for raping children.


What a horrible and illogical comparison.


You can't accidentally rape when you are fully aware before hand that taking a certain stubstance and perofmring a specific action will lead to the rape of one or more people which could include children.

Originally posted by inimalist
what point?

I don't think drunk drivers should be charged as first degree murderers


This point:


"I think a drunk driver is more dangerous than your average murderer, ya"

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the random nature of the harm they do makes them more dangerous than the average, run-of-the-mill murderer.

Yeah. You made the point again, right there.


And, I'm far and away not the only person who thinks the penalty for drunk driving should be stiffer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I'm far and away not the only person who thinks the penalty for drunk driving should be stiffer.
You are, however, the only person i've seen who feels killing someone on accident is the same as killing them intentionally.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You are, however, the only person i've seen who feels killing someone on accident is the same as killing them intentionally.

How is voluntary manslaughter as simple as an accident, again?


And, no, that's not what I said.


"Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.

I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it."


Edit- Please tell me how you accidentally decide to go to a location, accidentally drink to the point of inebriation, and accidentally get into your car and drive it? I'm very curious how such a horrendous turn of events occurs in the death/s of people via drunk driving. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, if you want to paint my perspective as negatively as possible.



But that's basically a direct quote from you, I just replaced "it" with what you said "it" means in that sentence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How about defining it the way I've done a half dozen times, though?

a) that way didn't make any sense to me
b) as shown above I did define it the way you did

Originally posted by dadudemon
What a horrible and illogical comparison.

You can't accidentally rape when you are fully aware before hand that taking a certain stubstance and perofmring a specific action will lead to the rape of one or more people which could include children.

Not my point. You said that you wanted to use the word murder for what we now call manslaughter because of the social consequences. I gave an example of why conflating definitions under one heading is a bad idea.

If someone who kills someone in a genuine accident (no drugs or alcohol or whatever) get's labeled a murderer, as you suggest doing above, they'll be treated according to what the popular consciousness thinks that label means just as happens to people who get labeled "sex offender" today.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I'm far and away not the only person who thinks the penalty for drunk driving should be stiffer.

then advocate for harsher penalties...

Originally posted by inimalist
then advocate for harsher penalties...
Nah.

I'm all talk. Backfire can attest to that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's basically a direct quote from you, I just replaced "it" with what you said "it" means in that sentence.


Oh really?

Lemme try:

"So you want the same charge for killing anyone ever no matter the circumstances?"


Hmm...


Somehow this doesn't fit right with what we are discussing. You are not even talking about the same thing everyone else is.

This is a perfect example of a strawman argument.


"...killing anyone ever no matter the circumstances." /= committing second degree MURDER while driving drunk, now does it?





Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a) that way didn't make any sense to me
b) as shown above I did define it the way you did

1. Rather odd since I defined it multiple times.
2. You didn't even come close to defining it correctly. Instead, you tried to villainize my perspective by using a strawman.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not my point.

Your point was an extremely flawed comparison, regardless of the actual point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You said that you wanted to use the word murder for what we now call manslaughter

No I certainly did not. I wanted to escalate the classification of the type of murder away from manslaughter to first degree.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
because of the social consequences.

Correct. But, tell me, are parents more likely to beat a man up for committing first degree murder, or are those parents more likely to beat up someone who is a sex offender? Again, your point fails, even in the intended context.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I gave an example of why conflating definitions under one heading is a bad idea.

Which your point still failed to do.


If you can find an example of where a person was beaten by his or her neighbors because they were known to be a convicted first degree murderer, your point would be valid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If someone who kills someone in a genuine accident (no drugs or alcohol or whatever) get's labeled a murderer,

Murder comes in various degrees, legally.

I think this is where your disconnect is.

A genuine accident is just that.

Killing someone while drunk driving is not an innocent and pure accident....like little Billy tripping over his own clumsy feet at the firing range and his gun firing a round hitting little johny in the brain stem.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
as you suggest doing above, they'll be treated according to what the popular consciousness thinks that label means just as happens to people who get labeled "sex offender" today.

Yeah, that's kinda the point. Except, they won't be beaten, as you erroneously suggested. More or less, it's the stigma of it. Carrying that with you for 7 years on your record will certainly make it harder to get a job.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How is voluntary manslaughter as simple as an accident, again?
How is it the same as intentional murder, again?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, that's not what I said.


"Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.

I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it."
If you think the two should have equal penalty then you think the two are equally bad. If you think intentions don't matter, then all this talk about what constitutes an accident is irrelevant. If you think they DO matter, then I can't see how the two should be punished equally.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit- Please tell me how you accidentally decide to go to a location, accidentally drink to the point of inebriation, and accidentally get into your car and drive it? I'm very curious how such a horrendous turn of events occurs in the death/s of people via drunk driving. Go ahead. I'm all ears.
First of all, step one and two impair the ability to adequately perceive step three. But, of course, you knew I meant that it was the crash itself that was an accident. This line of reasoning would only make sense if step four, a crash, was certain to happen once the first three steps had been fulfilled. It by no means is certain.

Step One: Get drunk.
Step Two: Drive

Step Three: Crash

The first two are intentional, but the third one obviously is not. Hence, it was an accident, unless you believe that drunk drivers get in crashes because they wanted to get hurt.

Originally posted by dadudemon
How is voluntary manslaughter as simple as an accident, again?

BTW, it is not voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is defined as "an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

Drunk driving is INvoluntary manslaughter, defined as "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence".

So yes, you are correct when you say voluntary manslaughter isn't an accident. However it didn't have anything to do with the discussion either.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How is it the same as intentional murder, again?

"Please tell me how you accidentally decide to go to a location, accidentally drink to the point of inebriation, and accidentally get into your car and drive it? I'm very curious how such a horrendous turn of events occurs in the death/s of people via drunk driving. Go ahead. I'm all ears."

Now, you answer my question.


Originally posted by King Kandy
If you think the two should have equal penalty then you think the two are equally bad.

Um, yeah. Sort of.




Originally posted by King Kandy
If you think intentions don't matter, then all this talk about what constitutes an accident is irrelevant. If you think they DO matter, then I can't see how the two should be punished equally.

And, no, I am only quoting myself to get the point across.

I don't really mean the penalties should be the same.

Mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years is not the same as murder 1 penalty.

I want the charge the same. So, switch them around. Same charge, different penalty.


Originally posted by King Kandy
IFirst of all, step one and two impair the ability to adequately perceive step three. But, of course, you knew I meant that it was the crash itself that was an accident. This line of reasoning would only make sense if step four, a crash, was certain to happen once the first three steps had been fulfilled. It by no means is certain.

Step One: Get drunk.
Step Two: Drive

Step Three: Crash

The first two are intentional, but the third one obviously is not. Hence, it was an accident, unless you believe that drunk drivers get in crashes because they wanted to get hurt.

You're just restating everything I have, except you want to emphasize the accident portion. Great.

But there's nothing to talk about here.

Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, it is not voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is defined as "an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion."

Drunk driving is INvoluntary manslaughter, defined as "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence".

So yes, you are correct when you say voluntary manslaughter isn't an accident. However it didn't have anything to do with the discussion either.


And I'm saying that it is voluntary manslaughter due to how I perceive it.

Guess you didn't catch that. It's okay. I didn't explicitly state that.


In the case of repeat offenders, it is certainly voluntary manslaughter.


I would like to redefine it to murder 1, especially for those cases of repeat offenders.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Please tell me how you accidentally decide to go to a location, accidentally drink to the point of inebriation, and accidentally get into your car and drive it? I'm very curious how such a horrendous turn of events occurs in the death/s of people via drunk driving. Go ahead. I'm all ears."

Now, you answer my question.
I did in my last post, but you dismissed it without any actual analysis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, I am only quoting myself to get the point across.

I don't really mean the penalties should be the same.

Mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years is not the same as murder 1 penalty.

I want the charge the same. So, switch them around. Same charge, different penalty.
You are trying to define them as being the same, then. Why should things defined the same be treated differently. If you think that drunk driving IS first degree murder, then why should it not be punished as such?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're just restating everything I have, except you want to emphasize the accident portion. Great.

But there's nothing to talk about here.
You asked me why I felt drunk driving accidents are accidents. I told you why. I don't see why you feel I dodged your question in any way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I'm saying that it is voluntary manslaughter due to how I perceive it.

Guess you didn't catch that. It's okay. I didn't explicitly state that.


In the case of repeat offenders, it is certainly voluntary manslaughter.


I would like to redefine it to murder 1, especially for those cases of repeat offenders.
You're free to perceive it that way, but there is a difference between your perception and the actual fact of law. For it to be voluntary manslaughter, by definition, you had to have wanted to kill the person at the time. Drunk drivers, I feel, rarely go out intending to be mutilated in crashes, regardless of their inebriation. I posted the definition of voluntary manslaughter, and your perception is not rooted in fact.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I did in my last post, but you dismissed it without any actual analysis.

You kindly ignored all voluntary actions and tried to focus too much on the accident portion.

Acknowledge the voluntary actions as the cause instead of focusing on just the accident.


Originally posted by King Kandy
You are trying to define them as being the same, then. Why should things defined the same be treated differently. If you think that drunk driving IS first degree murder, then why should it not be punished as such?

I've already CLEARLY explained why.

"Yeah, that's kinda the point. Except, they won't be beaten, as you erroneously suggested. More or less, it's the stigma of it. Carrying that with you for 7 years on your record will certainly make it harder to get a job."


Originally posted by King Kandy
You asked me why I felt drunk driving accidents are accidents. I told you why. I don't see why you feel I dodged your question in any way.

Why don't you define it better instead of the passive aggressive way of calling it "drunk driving accidents"?

They are DEATHS caused by drunk driving. That;s what we are talking about, not just drunk driving accidents. Drunk driving accident is too broad.


And here's why you dodged:

"You kindly ignored all voluntary actions and tried to focus too much on the accident portion.

Acknowledge the voluntary actions as the cause instead of focusing on just the accident."




Escalate on up that there "criminal negligence" to murder 1. We only have to go up to rungs on the murder ladder.

Originally posted by King Kandy
voluntary manslaughter, by definition, you had to have wanted to kill the person at the time.

Actually in order to be manslaughter you had to have NOT wanted to kill the person and the act must have happened in the spur of the moment.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually in order to be manslaughter you had to have NOT wanted to kill the person and the act must have happened in the spur of the moment.

I missed that.


Thanks.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm picturing that like when Gandalf fought the Balrog.
just imagine ted kennedy
"you shall not pass!!!"
i think there was a second tumor.this "magic tumor" theory is leaving me skeptical

Originally posted by dadudemon
You kindly ignored all voluntary actions and tried to focus too much on the accident portion.

Acknowledge the voluntary actions as the cause instead of focusing on just the accident.
I could only do that truthfully if I felt drunk driving would result 100% of the time in a collision or other damage. Then, we could assume the people had intended to get into a crash. If they hadn't intended to get into a crash, then the crash was an accident.

I really don't want this argument to devolve into the level of bringing out a dictionary and arguing semantics of the word "accident" but if you want to go there I will.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've already CLEARLY explained why.

"Yeah, that's kinda the point. Except, they won't be beaten, as you erroneously suggested. More or less, it's the stigma of it. Carrying that with you for 7 years on your record will certainly make it harder to get a job."
That's the idea behind sex offender registries, which have been proven not to actually reduce the number of sex crimes.

You take someone who's committed a crime. You confine him and put him on a list, keeping him from getting a job, or making friends, generally just totally isolating him for the rest of his life and giving him lots of free time. Do you think that makes him less likely to commit another crime? All you'll end up doing is making him poor and giving him a horrible life.

Which, surprisingly enough, seems to make people more likely to drink and get into car crashes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why don't you define it better instead of the passive aggressive way of calling it "drunk driving accidents"?

They are DEATHS caused by drunk driving. That;s what we are talking about, not just drunk driving accidents. Drunk driving accident is too broad.
Not really. The person didn't gain the desire to kill just because someone died. The intention behind crashes that kill and crashes that don't are the same, and if it's an accident in one then it's an accident in both. Well, I suppose some people must get drunk and just go out and start killing as many people as they can find for sick joy, but that definitely is not a typical car crash.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Escalate on up that there "criminal negligence" to murder 1. We only have to go up to rungs on the murder ladder.
Drunk driving is practically the reason we HAVE involuntary manslaughter as a crime. That's what it's almost always applied to. You are trying to remove intentions from the equation when the difference between the two is purely intention based. It should be added, that even if you somehow proved that drunk people intend to crash, that would still make it second degree murder. In no situation would it be considered first degree murder.

First degree murder is defined as "first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."

Any way you could apply this to drunk driving is, to put it generously, quite a stretch.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I could only do that truthfully if I felt drunk driving would result 100% of the time in a collision or other damage. Then, we could assume the people had intended to get into a crash. If they hadn't intended to get into a crash, then the crash was an accident.

I really don't want this argument to devolve into the level of bringing out a dictionary and arguing semantics of the word "accident" but if you want to go there I will.


That's the idea behind sex offender registries, which have been proven not to actually reduce the number of sex crimes.

You take someone who's committed a crime. You confine him and put him on a list, keeping him from getting a job, or making friends, generally just totally isolating him for the rest of his life and giving him lots of free time. Do you think that makes him less likely to commit another crime? All you'll end up doing is making him poor and giving him a horrible life.

Which, surprisingly enough, seems to make people more likely to drink and get into car crashes.


Not really. The person didn't gain the desire to kill just because someone died. The intention behind crashes that kill and crashes that don't are the same, and if it's an accident in one then it's an accident in both. Well, I suppose some people must get drunk and just go out and start killing as many people as they can find for sick joy, but that definitely is not a typical car crash.


Drunk driving is practically the reason we HAVE involuntary manslaughter as a crime. That's what it's almost always applied to. You are trying to remove intentions from the equation when the difference between the two is purely intention based. It should be added, that even if you somehow proved that drunk people intend to crash, that would still make it second degree murder. In no situation would it be considered first degree murder.

First degree murder is defined as "first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."

Any way you could apply this to drunk driving is, to put it generously, quite a stretch.





Whatever you said, I agree.




I just want to increase the penalty for drunk driving murder.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually in order to be manslaughter you had to have NOT wanted to kill the person and the act must have happened in the spur of the moment.
I meant it was the spur of the moment, that's why I added "at the time".

In federal law (I don't know what it's like in Quebec), voluntary manslaughter is defined as "Voluntary - Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion." Meaning that due to the heat of the moment, the person desired to kill the other. If he didn't want to kill the person but rather did it accidently, that is involuntary manslaughter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Whatever you said, I agree.




I just want to increase the penalty for drunk driving murder.
Drunk driving murder? And you accused me of using loaded terms. I showed the definition of murder in federal law, and drunk driving is not it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Drunk driving murder? And you accused me of using loaded terms.

Hehehehehe


Hey, if the glove fits.



It IS murder. If you kill someone and it can be proven that it was because you were driving under the influence of alcohol, it's a form of murder.

So, that's drunk driving murder. No need to candy coat it.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I showed the definition of murder in federal law, and drunk driving is not it.

You mean that all of a sudden, it no longer counts as second degree murder?


I'm confused, now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It IS murder. If you kill someone and it can be proven that it was because you were driving under the influence of alcohol, it's a form of murder.

So, that's drunk driving murder. No need to candy coat it.
Maybe YOU count it as murder (first or second degree) but in the vast majority of places in the US it is not counted as murder. And there is no place in the western world where it is first degree murder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean that all of a sudden, it no longer counts as second degree murder?


I'm confused, now.
It doesn't. It never did on a federal level (California and I think a handful of other states count it). Most states it's counted as involuntary manslaughter. It in fact is the example of involuntary manslaughter used in law textbooks.

Besides, you were advocating it being first degree murder, and it does not in any way fit the definition for first degree.

Killing someone while under the influence is often treated as some form of murder, iirc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"DUI that causes death may, in special cases, be charged as murder. In the most extreme cases, it may even be charged as murder in the first degree. First-degree murder requires a showing of malice, usually found when the defendant acts in utter recklessness or wantonness.
You said it applied in all cases, here it says only in special cases. Yes, it can be charged in first degree, if paired with a felony crime. But not in regular circumstances.

Besides, I would like to see of cases in federal court, where it was decided as such. State laws, can do what they want.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"While manslaughter charges are still much more common in drunk driving cases, murder prosecutions have been increasing in recent years."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242581,00.html
It says manslaughter is still much more common. Murder prosecutions can be given if paired with a felony crime.

Additionally, this does not tell us how many of the charges were second vs. first degree. Nor how many were for DUI only.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, not only are they starting to charge it, in some places, as murder 1, it is most certainly 2nd degree murder.
If it "certainly" is 2nd degree murder, why does it say that manslaughter is much more common?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Involuntary manslaughter is also known as....what?


Second degree murder.
No, those are not the same thing at all. They are listed in different sections of federal law and carry different titles, conditions, and penalties. They are not synonyms, they are distinct crimes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is factually correct.

This seems to be what KK is missing.

Manslaughter = second degree murder.
They have separate sections in the federal law code and carry different max sentences and conditions. So no, they are not the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is factually correct.

This seems to be what KK is missing.

Manslaughter = second degree murder.

Manslaughter is a form of murder in the sense they're both under the "unlawful killing/death", but I do think 2nd Degree Murder is different than Manslaughter; 2nd* M being a more severe crime.

Originally posted by Robtard
Manslaughter is a form of murder in the sense they're both under the "unlawful killing/death", but I do think 2nd Degree Murder is different than Manslaughter; it being a more severe crime.
That is correct. Furthermore, manslaughter is divided into voluntary and involuntary.

In terms of severity, 1st degree>2nd degree>voluntary manslaughter>involuntary manslaughter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Killing someone while under the influence is often treated as some form of murder, iirc.

Third degree, it would be. That's where they lump all 'other' murders.

And involuntary manslaughter needs to have mitigating circumstances such as momentary madness, provocation, or whatever else it is that can be counted in these days.

There is no third degree murder in the US.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is correct. Furthermore, manslaughter is divided into voluntary and involuntary.

In terms of severity, 1st degree>2nd degree>voluntary manslaughter>involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter makes no sense, contradiction, it is.

Edit: Nevermind, I guess if you punched someone in the face on purpose and they died, it would be V-Man. While accidentally punching someone in the face and them dying would be the I-Man.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just want to increase the penalty for drunk driving murder.

Okay, but you chose the most ridiculously obtuse possible way of stating it. Not to mention saying that it's a premeditated crime.

Would it not have been less crazy (and more practical) to say "the penalties for manslaughter and murder should be harsher?"

Originally posted by Robtard
Voluntary Manslaughter makes no sense, contradiction, it is.

Temporary insanity. Heat of passion. Gay/Tranny panic.

It's pretty hard to qualify for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Voluntary Manslaughter makes no sense, contradiction, it is.
It is "heat of the moment" crimes. It's what dadudemon has taken to sometimes calling 2nd degree murder though they have distinct definitions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Manslaughter is a form of murder in the sense they're both under the "unlawful killing/death", but I do think 2nd Degree Murder is different than Manslaughter; 2nd* M being a more severe crime.

No, you're correct. I looked it up.

Second degree is what they are charging with, with some repeat offenders getting murder 1.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is no third degree murder in the US.

I think you'll find there is - and manslaughter falls into that category in many places.
Varies from state to state, and not everyone has the catagorization, but it exists, and all other murders, not fitting to the 1st and 2nd go there. Like Manslaughter.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, but you chose the most ridiculously obtuse possible way of stating it..

Says the one who made a comparison to a murderer to a public pee-er. AHA!


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not to mention saying that it's a premeditated crime.

Tell that to the judges and proesecutors who are getting murder 1 pushed through.

And, it certainly is premeditated, to a certain degree. (Lol, pun.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Would it not have been less crazy (and more practical) to say "the penalties for manslaughter and murder should be harsher?"

Nah. The penalty for murdering someone while driving drunk should be harsher.




More penalties. That's what I want. We can debate semantics another day.


MOAR PEN15ties.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you're correct. I looked it up.

Second degree is what they are charging with, with some repeat offenders getting murder 1.
Your own sources says that DUI cases are being charged as murder 2 in special cases, and murder one in rare exceptions in the already rare murder charges.

And besides, that's what they charged with instead of manslaughter. It doesn't mean the two are the same. They are not the same, if you read the federal law code they are categorized differently.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think you'll find there is - and manslaughter falls into that category in many places.
Varies from state to state, and not everyone has the catagorization, but it exists, and all other murders, not fitting to the 1st and 2nd go there. Like Manslaughter.
Okay, let me try that again. There's no third degree murder in federal law. 2nd degree murder catches the non-1st degree murders. Manslaughter is entirely different and has lower penalties.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Your own sources says that DUI cases are being charged as murder 2 in special cases, and murder one in rare exceptions in the already rare murder charges.

And besides, that's what they charged with instead of manslaughter. It doesn't mean the two are the same. They are not the same, if you read the federal law code they are categorized differently.

You can't deny that I'm right. Those points are not debatable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can't deny that I'm right. Those points are not debatable.
What points? The points that there are some people out there being charged with murder one? Fine but you are making that sound like the default sentence when in fact it is the far minority, as stated in the sources you yourself quoted.

Additionally you said manslaughter and 2nd degree were the same which can be disproven with a quick glance at the federal law code where they are in different sections.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Tell that to the judges and proesecutors who are getting murder 1 pushed through.

I don't know any judges or prosecutors. If I did know them I would point out that the existing definition is so entrenched in the public mind that radically altering the definition would be confusing and possibly quite dangerous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, it certainly is premeditated, to a certain degree. (Lol, pun.)

The act of killing is not intended and thus cannot be premeditated. That's not semantics, it's basic grammar.

Originally posted by dadudemon
More penalties. That's what I want. We can debate semantics another day.


MOAR PEN15ties.

Utopia has a wonderful section on why that isn't automatically a great idea. Worse penalties for lesser crimes encourage people to aim high when they break the law.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What points? The points that there are some people out there being charged with murder one? Fine but you are making that sound like the default sentence when in fact it is the far minority, as stated in the sources you yourself quoted.

I pwned you.

You just won't admit it.

"Involuntary manslaughter is also known as....what?


Second degree murder.


HA!"

All I need is just 1 case to make my point.

Not only did I get one case for second degree, I'm also gettng references to multiple for murder 1, in the case of repeat offenders.

This is the pwnage.


To put it more simply for you (beacuse you didn't get it the first time):

What you're calling involuntary manslaughter is being charged as 2nd and 1st degree murder. i.e. pwned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know any judges or prosecutors. If I did know them I would point out that the existing definition is so entrenched in the public mind that radically altering the definition would be confusing and possibly quite dangerous.


Riiiiiiight.

Charging and convicting a repeat offender first degree murder is certainly not very dangerouos at all. In fact, I'd wager that it is a very safe thing to do. Agreed?


What's gonna happen, some schmoes in some office are gonna have a hissy fit because they have to change some data?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IThe act of killing is not intended and thus cannot be premeditated. That's not semantics, it's basic grammar.

This is where the lawyers and judges disagree with you because they've found interpretation that pin a lethal use of a weapon, with full knowledge beforehand. I.E. murder 1.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Utopia has a wonderful section on why that isn't automatically a great idea. Worse penalties for lesser crimes encourage people to aim high when they break the law.

Great. Because Utopia is the end all be all of what we're talking about.

Don't take things out of context to have a strawman fest. I was talking about murder while driving drunk ONLY.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To put it more simply for you (beacuse you didn't get it the first time):

What you're calling involuntary manslaughter is being charged as 2nd and 1st degree murder. i.e. pwned.
And yet you were the one who said that involuntary manslaughter is the SAME as 2nd degree murder, which would mean there is no difference between the charges. There is a difference as being convicted of involuntary manslaughter carries a much lighter sentence.

The fact that they are being charged w/ murder INSTEAD of manslaughter does not mean the sentences are the same in any way, shape, or form. You made them sounds like they were different names for the same conviction, and that is not true.

BTW, YOUR OWN SOURCE says that it is being charged as murder IN A SMALL MINORITY OF CASES. IE it is being charged as manslaughter in the MAJORITY of cases. If they were the same, then this would be a meaningless distinction.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And yet you were the one who said that involuntary manslaughter is the SAME as 2nd degree murder, which would mean there is no difference between the charges. There is a difference as being convicted of involuntary manslaughter carries a much lighter sentence.


K

But...


That's not what I was talking about. You said it wasn't. I found instances of where it is.

End of.

Let's not get off track so you can make yourself right.



Originally posted by King Kandy
The fact that they are being charged w/ murder INSTEAD of manslaughter does not mean the sentences are the same in any way, shape, or form. You made them sounds like they were different names for the same conviction, and that is not true.

No.

No.

No.



This isn't about me being incorrect. I wasn't.

This is about you saying that it isn't second degree murder.

It most certainly is being charged as second degree as murder and, to my delight, I found that it is sometimes being charged as first degree.


Even if it was only charged as second degree murder, once, I'd be right, and you'd be wrong.

That's all I'm getting out. You can try and mince words and change things around. I don't care. You were wrong. That's it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, YOUR OWN SOURCE says that it is being charged as murder IN A SMALL MINORITY OF CASES. IE it is being charged as manslaughter in the MAJORITY of cases. If they were the same, then this would be a meaningless distinction.

K. You can't paint it however you'd like. But, this is about you being wrong. I don't care about any of your fallicious interpretations or misconceptions of what I said. All I needed was some sort of evidence that DUI murder is being charged in the second degree, at least once. I didn't expect to a get a first degree out of it, though. That was just icing on the cake.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where the lawyers and judges disagree with you because they've found interpretation that pin a lethal use of a weapon, with full knowledge beforehand. I.E. murder 1.

I can barely read that.

Unless a person sets out to end the life of another human being it's not Murder 1 by any definition I've ever heard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Great. Because Utopia is the end all be all of what we're talking about.

Don't take things out of context to have a strawman fest. I was talking about murder while driving drunk ONLY.

No strawman was used. It doesn't matter that you're limiting it only to drunk driving, the line of thinking still applies.