"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?

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:55:13 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:25:09 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:33 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

I think you're confusing regulate with control. Speed limits are a
'regulation' of behavior. I don't think the horsepower limitation of
500hp
would do ****. Maybe a 35hp limit would be suitable. Whether a hp limit
or
a speed limit, the attempt is to regulate behavior.

Another joke gone wrong.

Admit it..........it was not a joke Tom. At least your reply to my last
post indicates so.

"To err is human". That is why we put erasers on pencils. ;-)

Absoutely - me more so than anybody.

However, I was trying to combine a little humor with social commentary
and it failed miserably.

I need a vacation. :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LcClvXXge60

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.

John H. 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.

Hey, did you stay up all night last night?

Nope, I slept my normal 5 hrs.

"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?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:50:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"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?

Don't know - I'm not a trial lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

I'm sure if you could prove that any individual who intended to get
drunk and purposly drive into somebody intending to kill them, then
you could get a First Degree Murder charge.

It would be hard to do though.

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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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?



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.