Ted Kennedy dies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, Dadudemon, your source doesn't even say they were CONVICTED of murder one, only that they were charged of it. If no convictions were made, that means that there was never a case of 1st degree being applied to DUI, only that some people tried and failed to apply it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can barely read that.

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

You're also not a lawyer, nor am I. I think we should leave that up to them and the judges.

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

No it doesn't and you know it doesn't.

So we are now in a loop of "nuh uhhh." "Uh huuuuh."

Originally posted by King Kandy
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.

Manslaughter is not entirely different. Manslaughter is murder with mitigating circumstances.

Weather it is in Federal law or not (3rd degree murder) is quite beside the point, since you stated that it doesn't exist in America, when it clearly does in numerous states.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Manslaughter is not entirely different. Manslaughter is murder with mitigating circumstances.

Weather it is in Federal law or not (3rd degree murder) is quite beside the point, since you stated that it doesn't exist in America, when it clearly does in numerous states.

Manslaughter may be considered murder morally, but legally it's considered homicide, with murder and manslaughter being two different divisions of homicide.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Actually, Dadudemon, your source doesn't even say they were CONVICTED of murder one, only that they were charged of it. If no convictions were made, that means that there was never a case of 1st degree being applied to DUI, only that some people tried and failed to apply it.

K.

But, you didn't address my point of you being wrong about 2nd degree murder.

Case in point, here's an actual convinction of murder 2:

http://www.orangecountycriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/teen-convicted-of-murder-in-du.html

Here's another of murder 1.
http://www.duiattorney.com/news/5379-illinois-dui-murder-charge

"Nonetheless, first degree murder is a difficult charge to receive a conviction on in a DUI fatality."

Clearly indicates, though difficult, that the charges sometimes receive a conviction. You can't pretend as though they don't exist when a lawyer's website indicates, indireclty, that they do. I'm sure you could find something on teh internetz.

Take that, KK. Take that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
K.

But, you didn't address my point of you being wrong about 2nd degree murder.

The rest of your post, well I can deal with being wrong. Tho it would have helped if that had been cited from the beginning to avoid this argument. But yeah, convictions can be made. For the record, I stated much earlier some states class it as 2nd degree. What I said was that it was manslaughter according to federal law. I still haven't seen an actual case of 1st degree being convicted for DUI alone.

Are there any cases of it being convicted as such in a federal court? Don't much feel like keeping the argument going, but i'd be curious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're also not a lawyer, nor am I. I think we should leave that up to them and the judges.

Ha, I was just about to say the same thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it doesn't and you know it doesn't.

So we are now in a loop of "nuh uhhh." "Uh huuuuh."

Yes it does, you know it does.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I still haven't seen an actual case of 1st degree being convicted for DUI alone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ha, I was just about to say the same thing.

Indeed.

I have no idea how they are pulling those convictions off, but they are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it does, you know it does.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The rest of your post, well I can deal with being wrong. Tho it would have helped if that had been cited from the beginning to avoid this argument.

Cool.

While we are admitting being wrong:

I didn't know that some were already convicted of murder 1 for killing while DUI. I thought it was 2nd degree murder and manslaughter, everytime.

I kind of pwned myself by finding that tidbit of information because this whole thing started with me wanting it to start being charged as murder 1. Little did I know that some cases are handled like that already, namely, repeat offenders. Those repeat offenders so happen to be the same types I referenced. So, self pwn is in order.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But yeah, convictions can be made. For the record, I stated much earlier some states class it as 2nd degree. What I said was that it was manslaughter according to federal law. I still haven't seen an actual case of 1st degree being convicted for DUI alone.

I am not sure what you mean at that last part, there.

DUI alone is not grounds for murder unless you actually kill someone.

If you intended that, then, yes, it would appear that first time offenders, such as that 18-year-old I cited, can be charged with murder 1, while DUI. (He killed a dog walker. Not to self: prosecutors apparantly love them some dog walkers.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
Are there any cases of it being convicted as such in a federal court? Don't much feel like keeping the argument going, but i'd be curious.

I'm curious myself.

I'm sure a criminal lawyer could find something like that very quickly. My lawyer is a civil lawyer, so I have no one to go to for assistance.

Searching the internet for that could prove very difficult...but that may mean it only takes an hour, an hour that I don't want to spend.