Ted Kennedy dies

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. 😄

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...

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?

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 😐

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.

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.