|
Post by beth on Nov 30, 2011 14:42:50 GMT -5
Hi Beth, In my opinion, she shouldn't have served any time at all. As I see it, HE had the gun, and she took it away from him. He told her of his intentions, so she killed him to protect herself and her children. It was a clear case of self-defense. Akamai
You know, I don't either. She was a good mother who was not prepared to deal with the situation via flight. All she knew was stand her ground and try to repair the on-going damage.
It's amazing how many people hold out hope things will change in impossible circumstances. Religions often teach that marriage is forever so stick it out. That needs to change to include a survival guide ... just in case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 14:55:10 GMT -5
I don't think a cruel, abusive husband/father deserves a lot of pity .. even as a victim. These kinds of people victimize others for years and leave shattered lives as surely as murders do. There are thousands of murder victims that don't deserve pity. They were still murdered.If we divide murder victims into the deserving and undeserving, of justice, then none will get any. That is what is happening now, and I want it to stop.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 15:46:02 GMT -5
It is up to the courts to decide if it was justified or not. No it's not. The decision to go to trial is the district attorney's. Not according to California law. MOST crimes go underpunished in this country. They always will be, as long as murder is underpunished. you haven't read 187 very well. it includes what is NOT murder as well as what is. there's a whole page on just the other felonies that make you guilty of murder if someone dies. 187 is not just a paragraph my boy. it is almost three pages long
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 15:47:20 GMT -5
If he believes that it is self-defense or justifiable, he will still have to take the case to court if the evidence points to a possible murder. Nonsense. He goes to trial convinced that a suspect is guilty of murder. If he isn't convinced, the suspect doesn't go to trial -- at least where I live. There will always be murder even if you kill all convicted murderers. There won't be nearly as many. The problem is that people like you exist, people who believe murder is not that big a deal. Joseph, You are badly mistaken. the DA and the prosecutors DO NOT take on cases that they think they will lose. This is regardless of what they believe as far as guilt. The main reason for that, is our double jeopardy rule. If you take a case to trial and lose, the case becomes un-prosecutable. The other reason is it is a waste of time and money to take on a case that you know you will lose. In a case where the DA or prosecutor believes that the killer killed justifiably, the case will STILL go to trial if the evidence supports a prosecution, and the prosecutor is going to try to win the case, just as the Public Defender is going to take a client who he believes is guilty.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 16:01:49 GMT -5
justifiable homicide, self defense, defense of your property and others, is NOT murder. murder is the intentional killing of another, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. of course, that malice can be implicit or implied, but, is required for murder. obviously, if you commit any felony in which someone died, you conclusively proved malice by committing the crime to start with Dunno Jim, The Joe Horn killing of two burglars comes pretty close to murder to me. They were not burglarizing his home or property, and he didn't know the neighbors that were being burglarized. Not only that, he shot them on the street, and against instructions of the police dispatcher. AK now, you know that you don't want to go there. if you recall, i told you the day after joe wasted the garbage that it wasn't murder, or any other crime. it wasn't morally a crime, and damn sure wasn't legally a crime in texas the ONLY thing that was relevant was the fact that the trash were in possession of joe's neighbor's property, and that, all by itself, justifies killing them, both morally, and legally in texas
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 16:10:42 GMT -5
once again, what the dispatcher told him has no relevance to anything whatsoever, and is a loser every time. a dispatcher is NOT a sworn peace officer, and does NOT have the authority to order anyone to do anything. they can advise, which is what the dispatcher did, but joe, nor anyone else, is under any obligation whatsoever to pay any attention
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 16:35:35 GMT -5
huh uh. first of all, what cracks did the "normal" boy fall through? he had the education, and has no excuse. peer pressure does NOT excuse anything. neither does thrills, or wanting negative recognition. the simple fact is that he chose to commit a crime because he is an inherently worthless individual. realistically, the same goes for the ghetto boy. there is no one growing up in a ghetto now that is poorer than i was, and i never robbed a liquor store or stole a car. there is no one growing up in the ghetto any poorer than the kids in appalachia, but the crime rate in appalachia is a quarter of the crime rate in watts or harlem. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the worthlessness of the individual who chooses to be a criminal Jim, A person raised in the ghetto is exposed to crimes more, and doesn't have the luxuries of someone who comes from a middle or high income family. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules. Joe pointed out that the majority of people living in the ghetto are law abiding. Still, when you look at percentages, more people from the ghetto will commit felony crimes than people of middle and higher income families. huh uh. that's the same nonsensical illogic used to try and claim that watching violent movies or playing violent video games causes violence, when the irrefutable FACT is that nothing could be further from the truth. the simple reality that it is SOLELY the defective character of the individual who chooses to emulate a movie or video game, the same holds true of being exposed to crime in the ghetto. the law abiding people are not the exception, they ARE the rule. it is the minority of ghetto residents who make the conscious CHOICE to be garbage that commit the crimes. as i said before, if poverty was a cause of crime, the crime rate in appalachia would be equal to that of harlem. the absolute fact that the vast majority of poor people do not commit crimes consclusively proves beyond all doubt that poverty has any relation to crime. it is always, without exception, the worthlessness of the individual who chooses to be a criminal
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 16:49:06 GMT -5
Yes, it's premeditated. In the blink of an eye you can decide to kill someone. All but a tiny fraction of people make the right decision, which makes the wrong decision that much more heinous. I take it you are familiar with The Fritzl case. Elisabeth Fritzl (born April 6, 1966), stated to police in the town of Amstetten, Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years in a concealed corridor part of the basement area of the family home, a condominium-style apartment complex built by her father, Josef Fritzl (born April 9, 1935), and that Fritzl had physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped her numerous times during her imprisonment. The incestuous relationship forced upon her by her father resulted in the birth of seven children and one miscarriage. Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? the ONLY rational, and correct answer, is NO, at least morally
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 17:13:19 GMT -5
Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? Yes, of course. It's premeditated, malicious murder all the same. don't be daft. premeditated? probably. malicious? not by any stretch of the imagination. there isn't a da around who would be insane enough to even take it to trial. you couldn't even get a manslaughter conviction on that
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 30, 2011 17:16:55 GMT -5
there will always be cases, like the Fritzl case, that should be judged against the circumstances in which the killing took place. No they shouldn't. Murder is murder. She's no different than any gangbanger seeking revenge for having been slighted. You say the state sanctioned killing of an innocent is 'a price worth paying.' It's pre-meditated and it's murder. Are you really saying you would have the Fritzl girl locked up had she killed her father? After being locked up for twenty years or more? Surely shome mishtake.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 30, 2011 17:23:10 GMT -5
I take it you are familiar with The Fritzl case. Elisabeth Fritzl (born April 6, 1966), stated to police in the town of Amstetten, Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years in a concealed corridor part of the basement area of the family home, a condominium-style apartment complex built by her father, Josef Fritzl (born April 9, 1935), and that Fritzl had physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped her numerous times during her imprisonment. The incestuous relationship forced upon her by her father resulted in the birth of seven children and one miscarriage. Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? the ONLY rational, and correct answer, is NO, at least morally We agree on this one, jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 17:26:17 GMT -5
once again, what the dispatcher told him has no relevance to anything whatsoever, and is a loser every time. a dispatcher is NOT a sworn peace officer, and does NOT have the authority to order anyone to do anything. they can advise, which is what the dispatcher did, but joe, nor anyone else, is under any obligation whatsoever to pay any attention Jumbo, Joe Horn was in his rights in Texas, But if he was in most other states, espeically California he would have been indicted for murder. because the Castle Junction covers you only if the intruder is in your dwelling. I agree, that the thieves were wrong in burglarizing the neighbor's home, but I don't agree with unnecessary killing of people without a trial. Joe Horn was not protecting anything of his own, and he killed two thieves, who were illegal immigrants, but they were unarmed, and leaving when he fired. As I see it, Joe Horn got away with murder, and he had the public supporting him. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 17:27:55 GMT -5
the why NEVER excuses, so it's never important. because someone is poor and can't buy new shoes is NEVER an excuse to steal them. same goes for every other crime. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that an inherently worthless individual chose to commit it I HAVE ALREADY SAID THE why is not an EXCUSE the WHY however is the reason.. and the reason is important.. which is why there are level of murder allowable in a court of law via mitigating circumstance fret mentioned the fritzel case..if the daughter had murdered the father she would have stopped the greater crime of inprisonment and rape from continuing or if some one killed a pedophile in the act of taking/abducting a child... they would have stopped a crime....the WHY is all important when doling out punishment and retribution...the law reconises this no. in both of these cases, it is not murder, but justifiable homicide, so no crime has been committed. a good example would be some punk stealing a hundred dollar pair of shoes, because everyone else has them, but he can't afford them. there is NO mitigating circumstance there whatsoever. why he stole them is totally irrelevant. nothing matters but the fact that he did
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 30, 2011 18:17:04 GMT -5
Ah but Jim ... what if he stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving child?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 30, 2011 18:34:45 GMT -5
once again, what the dispatcher told him has no relevance to anything whatsoever, and is a loser every time. a dispatcher is NOT a sworn peace officer, and does NOT have the authority to order anyone to do anything. they can advise, which is what the dispatcher did, but joe, nor anyone else, is under any obligation whatsoever to pay any attention Jumbo, Joe Horn was in his rights in Texas, But if he was in most other states, espeically California he would have been indicted for murder. because the Castle Junction covers you only if the intruder is in your dwelling. I agree, that the thieves were wrong in burglarizing the neighbor's home, but I don't agree with unnecessary killing of people without a trial. Joe Horn was not protecting anything of his own, and he killed two thieves, who were illegal immigrants, but they were unarmed, and leaving when he fired. As I see it, Joe Horn got away with murder, and he had the public supporting him. Akamai texas has the castle doctrine perfect, exactly the way that it should be, everywhere. if the trash wouldn't have had any of his neighbor's possessions when they were leaving, joe could not have killed them. the fact that they did totally justifies his killing them. whose property it was is irrelevant. the fact is that they had stolen it, he had seen them steal it, and when he told them to stop, they didn't. they deserved to die also, in this particular case, they weren't just illegal immigrants. they were criminals who had already been deported once, and snuck back into the country. they won't be sneaking back in again
|
|