Ted Kennedy dies

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 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."

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.

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. 😄

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.

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. 🙂

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.

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

I'm confused, now. 🙁

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 King Kandy
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.

I disagree, factually.

"
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.

It is stated that malice for the purpose of DUI murder are acts by the defendant that represents conscious disregard for human life, that the defendant knew his conduct was dangerous to others and had blatant disregard for any damage he/she caused. The defendant’s treatment history for alcoholism can be brought before the court as evidence that the defendant knew his/her conduct was dangerous and sought treatment before driving drunk again, when the death occurred. "

HA!

"In most DUI murder convictions, malice is inferred from the defendant’s handling a weapon that may cause death. In the case of a drunk driver, it is said that the mere driving of a car on the road demonstrates the defendant handled a dangerous weapon."

Double HA!

http://www.dui1.com/Dui_Lawyers_Driving8.htm

"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

TRIPLE KAIO KEN!

So, not only are they starting to charge it, in some places, as murder 1, it is most certainly 2nd degree murder.

Suck. On. That.

HA!

PWNED!

Originally posted by King Kandy
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.

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

Second degree murder.

HA!

And, I've already debunked your idea of it NOT being murder 1. It would appear that repeat offenders are tagged, correctly so, with murder 1.

HA!

Edit - Sorry for the goofy response. It's hard for me to maintain this argument for much longer. I've already lost interest.

However, it took my 5 seconds to find the pwnage articles.

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

This is factually correct.

This seems to be what KK is missing.

Manslaughter = second degree murder.

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.

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

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.

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

Second degree murder.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is factually correct.

This seems to be what KK is missing.

Manslaughter = second degree murder.

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.

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.

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.