Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:36:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across
the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree
murder.

First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk
driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of
definition

Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a
person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or
wanton action. That's the definition.

The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or
during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice
murders.

Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior.

The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most
states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and
premeditated.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing
that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous
conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey
choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than
the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge.

Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss
the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd
degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the
plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal.

Hey, did you stay up all night last night?

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:36:21 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:46:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I would say he was either lying or a fool, but as the DA's all across
the country have shown it does not meet the requirement for 1st degree
murder.
First degree murder charge can't be justified in cases where a drunk
driver kills a pedestrian or another driver/passenger by reason of
definition

Murder, as opposed to homicide, is defined as the act of killing a
person by intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or
wanton action. That's the definition.

The key is malicious. Deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or
during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice
murders.

Drunk driving certainly qualifies as an extreme reckless behavior.

The hitch is in how First Degree Murder is defined by the state. Most
states define it as an unlawful killing that is both willful and
premeditated.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as an intentional killing
that is not premeditated or planned or a killing caused by dangerous
conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

That's how they can get them on a Second Degree murder charge if t hey
choose. But it's easier to plead out to involuntary manslaughter than
the expense, time and effort for a Murder in the Second charge.
Which is the point that I was making to Spare, but he preferred to miss
the obvious. There have been quiet a few successful prosecutions of 2nd
degree murder, and I suspect we will see much more. This will make the
plea bargains to involuntary manslaughter seem like a hell of a deal.

Personally, if you can prove a Murder First charge using a car as a
weapon (as happened here in CT a couple of years ago), then it would
seem logical to follow through with the same charge for drunk driving.

But that's just me.

Sure you could, if you could prove the drunk planned on killing the
victim and being drunk was just an added bonus.

Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone
who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove
intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other
serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that
includes DUI in the list of crimes.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:17:25 -0400, DownTime
wrote:

DownTime wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:10:09 -0500, lid wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22:50 -0400, DownTime
wrote:

What reason can a 38 yr old use to explain being out drinking with a
19 yr old 'family friend'?

I can think of a couple of VERY good reasons that should not only be
acceptable, but encouraged! (Now let's see, if he was 38 and I am 50
then the equivalent gal for me would be 31 - that's not bad, but I
wouldn't mind younger).

rasises hand OBJECTION, your Honor. This is irrelevant and
immaterial.

Perry Mason

Well, i am 46, by your math, it gives me a 27 yr old 'family friend' for
boating adventures. Legal in every state, except one, The Spousal State
Of Mind.

Ah, but a boater can always dream, can't he?

NO WAIT! I double checked the math, 19 is one-half of 38. That gives you
a 25 and me a 23. ;)

I DO like your math better!!!!!

Dave Hall

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Fortunately for all of us, the vast majority of people driving over the
legal limit, do not have wrecks and do not kill people. The vast
majority of DUI's drive dangerously, and somehow get home without an
accident, or if we are lucky, get pulled over by the cops. Probably
most DUI's have driven many many times drunk, before they are caught or
have an accident.

It sounds like this is a very personal subject and has touched a raw
nerve. Keep pushing for maximum sentences, but 1st degree murder will
not be one, until they change the definition or make an exception for
DUI's.

But the truly sad aspect of this is that while this subject has so many
hot buttons and opinions, that no matter how you define it, some
innocent person(s) end up killed or maimed through no fault of their
own. And the guilty can end up walking away with nothing more than a
reputation smear than anything else in some cases.

The lawyers and politicians of this great country have reduced the
justice system to basically more a matter of who has the most money for
the best attorney, not necessarily who is right or wrong.

Who here remembers the single greatest behavioral deterrent from their
childhood: "Wait until your father gets home!"?

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good
telescope.

Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence?

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:45 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good
telescope.

Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence?

Of course - makes the cigar taste better.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:45 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good
telescope.

Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence?

Of course - makes the cigar taste better.

Gotta have contrast in life, or everything would be the same.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone
who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove
intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other
serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that
includes DUI in the list of crimes.

I agree - the laws aren't tough enough and to tell the truth, while I
like the draconian style of a murder first charge, it would be
virtually impossible to prosecute.

Having a son in state law enforcement has been an eye opener with
respect to this aspect of motor vehicle law. Even in a state with
automatic license suspension and a raft of other strong laws, trial
attorneys can get somebody off by virtue of questioning everything and
dragging the issue out until everybody gets sick of it and just opts
for a lesser charge.

Very Kafkaesque.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:52:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:46:45 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:21:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Nothing like a good cigar, some fresh air and a good
telescope.

Fresh air and cigar in the same sentence?

Of course - makes the cigar taste better.

Gotta have contrast in life, or everything would be the same.

Exactly.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone
who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove
intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other
serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that
includes DUI in the list of crimes.

I agree - the laws aren't tough enough and to tell the truth, while I
like the draconian style of a murder first charge, it would be
virtually impossible to prosecute.

Having a son in state law enforcement has been an eye opener with
respect to this aspect of motor vehicle law. Even in a state with
automatic license suspension and a raft of other strong laws, trial
attorneys can get somebody off by virtue of questioning everything and
dragging the issue out until everybody gets sick of it and just opts
for a lesser charge.

Very Kafkaesque.

Your son might've been impressed with something I saw a month ago: Not a DWI
checkpoint, but what could only be described as an assembly line. (I was
impressed). Pulled off the highway at my exit at 2:00 AM and at the bottom
of the ramp, under the highway overpass, noticed a whole lot of police
lights. It was pouring rain. My companion said "Wow...must be quite an
accident here". Two flatbed tow trucks were hauling away cars. A cop
directed us into the melee, at which point we saw 4 more flatbeds with cars
loaded, 4 cop cars, and a couple more flatbeds on the other side of the
overpass, waiting their turn. There were hapless looking people standing
around, presumably watching their cars disappearing. When it was my turn for
questioning, I told the guy the truth - 2 glasses of wine between 8 & 9 with
dinner. He said "Headed home? Have a good night". I guess they have an
intuition for these things after a while.

There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here.
I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right
into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had
their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup.