On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.

The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old
Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the
prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.

The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only
plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without
the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?



All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not
apply. Sorry, Chuck.

When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing
will sway you.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?
Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old
Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the
prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.
The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only
plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without
the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.
The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?



All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not
apply. Sorry, Chuck.

When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing
will sway you.



Joe,
From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to
trial, that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I
can tell from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most
likely 2nd degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain.

There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree
murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon
dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is
completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated
malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post.

I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case
would never fly.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?
Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old
Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the
prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.
The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only
plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years.
Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a
bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way.
You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.
The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?



All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not
apply. Sorry, Chuck.

When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and
nothing will sway you.

Joe,
From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to trial,
that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I can tell
from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most likely 2nd
degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain.

There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree
murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon
dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is
completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated
malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post.

I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case
would never fly.


If someone said to you TODAY "I have no idea what risks are involved with
driving while drunk", and that person was over, say, 21 years of age, what
would you say to that person?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message

et...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?
Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old
Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the
prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.
The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only
plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years.
Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a
bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way.
You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.
The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting
caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost"
went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately
loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody?

Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time
offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should
do some
serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on
the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved
the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one
of specific intent.

Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter
would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves
specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too
drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form
"intent"?


All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not
apply. Sorry, Chuck.

When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and
nothing will sway you.
Joe,
From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to trial,
that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I can tell
from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most likely 2nd
degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain.

There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree
murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon
dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is
completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated
malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post.

I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case
would never fly.


If someone said to you TODAY "I have no idea what risks are involved with
driving while drunk", and that person was over, say, 21 years of age, what
would you say to that person?



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.

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.

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.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

I wonder if premeditated is defined as having a specific target, or does
"I'm going to kill someone tonight for sure, I just don't know who yet"
qualify?