Originally posted by Silent Masternope ur stance was this-
The state hasn't proven that it was unlawful, which has been my stance the entire time. The rest is just you trying to win some kind of a semantic argument.
"Once again you're wrong, homicide is the unlawful killing of someone" -silent
Its right there for everyone 2 see
Is that right or wrong
Yes, and going by the regular definition of the word. I'm right
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another
Originally posted by Raptor22remember this post silent? Remember when u told me it was wrong? Remember what reasons u gave? Oh yeah i remember
k. Which part?Is it the legal definition of Homocide?
Is it Ahmaud being a victim of Homocide?
Is it the Mcmichaels admitting 2 commiting Homocide?
Which part is my opinion and not a fact and what r u basing this on?
This-"The part where you jumped to a conclusion without seeing all the evidence."-silent
And this-"No, it's your uniformed biased opinion"- silent
Seems like ur the one with the uninformed biased opinion who jumps to conclusion without knowing all the facts. Like what Homocide means lol
Originally posted by Raptor22
remember this post silent? Remember when u told me it was wrong? Remember what reasons u gave? Oh yeah i rememberThis-"The part where you jumped to a conclusion without seeing all the evidence."-silent
And this-"No, it's your uniformed biased opinion"- silent
Seems like ur the one with the uninformed biased opinion who jumps to conclusion without knowing all the facts. Like what Homocide means lol
Quit trying to be relevant and correct when we all know you’re the furthest from it.
Originally posted by Silent Masterthats not how our courts work.
Yes, and going by the regular definition of the word. I'm right
This involves a legal case in the state of Georgia, so the legal definition according to the state of Georgia is what matters.
Nice try tho
Originally posted by Silent Master
Who cares if it's about a legal case, that doesn't mean I'm required to stick to Legal definitions when talking about it.
1. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
2.u flat out said my definition was wrong (and by "my definition" i mean the legal definition according to the state of Georgia.)
"Once again you're wrong, homicide is the unlawful killing of someone and as of yet the state has not proven that the killing was unlawful. Therefore, you are wrong to call him a homicide victim."
3. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
4.lol
5. 😆
Originally posted by Raptor22
1. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha2.u flat out said my definition was wrong (and by "my definition" i mean the legal definition according to the state of Georgia.)
"Once again you're wrong, homicide is the unlawful killing of someone and as of yet the state has not proven that the killing was unlawful. Therefore, you are wrong to call him a homicide victim."
3. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
4.lol
5. 😆
Do you realize how you seem right now? Like a child throwing a temper tantrum. Poor widdle baby...
Originally posted by Silent Master
By calling him a victim, you're implying it wasn't justified. Which the State hasn't proven yet
It may be appropriate to call Arbery a homicide victim regardless of the outcome of the case because victimhood does not require criminality to qualify.
This is splitting hairs, obviously:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/victim
someone or something that has been hurt, damaged, or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or chance...
Homicide victimhood does not presume criminality and, in fact, homicide victimhood can be mutually exclusive to criminality. It's just that we general and logically lump the two together as interdependent for very obvious reasons (it happens so often and we see it so often in the news that we just logically link the two in our mind).
Here's an example of a homicide, a homicide victim, and a perpetrator of homicide all happening without criminality:
Given:
1. Assume we have a malfunctioning traffic light that accidentally "fails open." Meaning, it shows all lights as green and all pedestrian crosswalks as "walk."
2. A pedestrian takes a walk across a crosswalk. This crosswalk is slightly after the apex of a steep hill (on both sides). The pedestrian looks both ways and listens to ensure that the crosswalk is clear.
3. The pedestrian is struck and killed by a car driving at 45MPH perpendicular to the pedestrian cross walk (meaning, the pedestrian walked directly in front of the car).
Conclusion:
The decedent is a homicide victim in this scenario.
Justification:
The car driver would have no reasonable way to predict, and even our Self Driving Car technologies may not be able to detect the pedestrian on the other side of the hill with things like LIDAR. No criminal homicide occurred. But we do have a homicide victim and the driver committed a non-criminal homicide. Even in a civil court, you would not have a "preponderance of evidence" to force a civil payout to the homicide victims family - no-fault homicide. Both parties involved were not at fault: it was a traffic light malfunction (and this does happen).
It's also why you see traffic lights fail "red light blinking" which means stop before driving through the intersection. Someone got hurt or died at some point to force this standard almost across the world.
Originally posted by Raptor22
implying.Ahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ive made the distinction several time along with the definitions and links.
Implying
Ahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha what a joke
Ive already given u the D. U should just take the L aswell at this point
haermm
You're way too excited.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It may be appropriate to call Arbery a homicide victim regardless of the outcome of the case because victimhood does not require criminality to qualify.This is splitting hairs, obviously:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/victim
Homicide victimhood does not presume criminality and, in fact, homicide victimhood can be mutually exclusive to criminality. It's just that we general and logically lump the two together as interdependent for very obvious reasons (it happens so often and we see it so often in the news that we just logically link the two in our mind).
Here's an example of a homicide, a homicide victim, and a perpetrator of homicide all happening without criminality:
[b]Given:
1. Assume we have a malfunctioning traffic light that accidentally "fails open." Meaning, it shows all lights as green and all pedestrian crosswalks as "walk."
2. A pedestrian takes a walk across a crosswalk. This crosswalk is slightly after the apex of a steep hill (on both sides). The pedestrian looks both ways and listens to ensure that the crosswalk is clear.
3. The pedestrian is struck and killed by a car driving at 45MPH perpendicular to the pedestrian cross walk (meaning, the pedestrian walked directly in front of the car).Conclusion:
The decedent is a homicide victim in this scenario.Justification:
The car driver would have no reasonable way to predict, and even our Self Driving Car technologies may not be able to detect the pedestrian on the other side of the hill with things like LIDAR. No criminal homicide occurred. But we do have a homicide victim and the driver committed a non-criminal homicide. Even in a civil court, you would not have a "preponderance of evidence" to force a civil payout to the homicide victims family - no-fault homicide. Both parties involved were not at fault: it was a traffic light malfunction (and this does happen).It's also why you see traffic lights fail "red light blinking" which means stop before driving through the intersection. Someone got hurt or died at some point to force this standard almost across the world. [/B]
As I showed, some dictionaries define homicide as the unlawful killing of another. Under that definition it would be inappropriate to label him as a homicide victim at this time. But rather than admit to the misunderstanding, he's hell-bent on trying to win some kind of semantics victory.
And to use the legal definition of homicides, which is contextually relevant to this discussion:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/homicide-definition.html
Not all homicides are crimes. However, all killings of humans are included in the homicide definition. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime....
Legal Homicides
Some killings within the definition of homicide aren't illegal. Criminal laws carve out exceptions for some killings which would otherwise fall under criminal laws against manslaughter or murder. These are referred to as "justified homicide". One primary example is a killing in justified self-defense or defense of someone else. Such a homicide is deemed justified if the situation called for self-defense and state law allows lethal force in that type of situation. Most state laws allow justified homicide to defend oneself or another from credible threat of serious crimes such as rape, armed robbery and murder.
To Silent Master's point, the Prosecution Team has to prove it was voluntary or involuntary manslaughter (I think the charge is voluntary manslaughter but I don't remember). The defense has to prove it was justified homicide. It cannot be justified homicide if they were unlawfully pursuing Arbery and the case has two hinges:
1. Did the McMichael's have first-hand knowledge to justify pursuit of Arbery?
2. Does the secretive 3rd video clearly show the McMichael's did not approach Arbery and that Arbery was the physical aggressor?
The only way the McMichael's are acquitted of both charges (manslaughter and aggravated assault), is if both answers to the above questions are yes.
Originally posted by Silent Masteryet i showed u the definition i was using over and over, u know the correct legal one that would actually apply to the topic and case we're discussing. Not the wrong one that would have absolutely no bearing or impact on the case. yet u still said i was wrong over and over and only added ur litttle caveat pages later.
As I showed, some dictionaries define homicide as the unlawful killing of another. Under that definition it would be inappropriate to label him as a homicide victim at this time. But rather than admit to the misunderstanding, he's hell-bent on trying to win some kind of semantics victory.
Im impressed. Ive never seen someone tap dance and back peddle at the same time. Good show
Originally posted by dadudemonhis post was too hilariously pathetic to not laugh at.
haermmYou're way too excited.
"Who cares if it's about a legal case, that doesn't mean I'm required to stick to Legal definitions when talking about it."
I mean seriously.
Dur who cares if were talking about a legal case why would we go by the legal definition that applies to the case instead of the one that has no bearing at all.