17 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWhere, you idiot, did I contradict a single one of my posts???? In New York, manslaughter is reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide is just that and is lesser graded - there are jurisdictions that consider negligent homicide a lesser form of manslaughter or make no distinction between reckless and criminal negligent homicide for grading purposes (they consider them both involuntary manslaughter).
If you accept every sentence without having an opinion, I don't.
And you keep changing the subject and now avoiding to comment on the possibility of manslaughter through negligence which was the reason you claimed I was "confused".
...[text shortened]... revious posts so you can call me ignorant. It's simply hilarious.
The rest of your post is hysterical and nonsensical, so I can't respond to it. Keep finding things you don't understand "hilarious", moron.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageVenting here, the cafe, with my friends, in my work. That's how public opinion starts. That's what I'll do, discuss it and value it.
OK Che Guevara, what are you going to do about it besides vent your spleen on an Internet forum?
Am I suddenly left-wing because I value my freedom?
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat you don't understand is that New York is not London and all you argument has been "In New York it's like I'm saying, even if I know of other jurisdictions where it's like you are saying".
Where, you idiot, did I contradict a single one of my posts???? In New York, manslaughter is reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide is just that and is lesser graded - there are jurisdictions that consider negligent homicide a lesser form of manslaughter or make no distinction between reckless and criminal negligent homicide for grad ...[text shortened]... ical, so I can't respond to it. Keep finding things you don't understand "hilarious", moron.
Idiot, moron, hysterical, nonsensical, etc are just your feeble attempts to gain credibility over the argument, since you can't cut it with your thoughts. I responded to your arguments and you just went back to what you've said before. Parroting only convinces the non-skeptic mind.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are obviously totally untrained in any legal thought, so I won't waste futher time with you. If someone wants to cite me the sections of English homicide law that concern manslaughter, I could give a legal analysis of them and see if England recognizes a difference between manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide or not. Since all you are doing is simply repeating an assertion with no facts to back it up, you're wasting my time. And the fact you are trying to pretend that you have any legal knowledge is utterly laughable given the content of your posts.
What you don't understand is that New York is not London and all you argument has been "In New York it's like I'm saying, even if I know of other jurisdictions where it's like you are saying".
Idiot, moron, hysterical, nonsensical, etc are just your feeble attempts to gain credibility over the argument, since you can't cut it with your thoughts. I ...[text shortened]... d you just went back to what you've said before. Parroting only convinces the non-skeptic mind.
My "thoughts" are based on 13 years of experience as a practicing attorney, not some uninformed BS session with my friends at a cafe.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYour 13 years of experience in Law cannot help you in realizing that I never said there was no such thing as negligent homicide. I just said that manslaughter can be negligent in nature. It doesn't mean I think they are equivalent, does it?
You are obviously totally untrained in any legal thought, so I won't waste futher time with you. If someone wants to cite me the sections of English homicide law that concern manslaughter, I could give a legal analysis of them and see if England recognizes a difference between manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide or not. Since all you ...[text shortened]... as a practicing attorney, not some uninformed BS session with my friends at a cafe.
Do you deny that involuntary manslaughter can be criminal negligence manslaughter? Does that make it the same as negligent homicide? Nope.
You just keep skewing away from the point every time you are pushed into the wall. Now it's your 13 years of experience that come out as an argument and my Cafe School of Hard Knocks. Boy, you sure got me all figured out. 🙄
17 Aug 05
None of us were there, but I can say this...it appears that the initial police involved in the incident were plainclothes officers. Now if someone were to run up to you, waving a gun and saying "Don't move" or something like this...would not a reasonable person think they were about to get robbed and run away? It sounds like this guy did not know they were police or did not believe they were police...maybe a language barrier. If they were fully uniformed police, most people would stop and show their hands. I can see the viewpoint of the police, but if they did not properly identify themselves to begin with, they could definitely have civil liability and criminal liability.
17 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaIn New York, criminal negligence is insufficient for an involuntary manslaughter conviction which requires recklessness. "Criminal negligence manslaughter" would be the same as "negligent homicide" where such a crime exists; they mean the same thing. The terminology might be different, but the elements of the crime would be the same.
Your 13 years of experience in Law cannot help you in realizing that I never said there was no such thing as negligent homicide. I just said that manslaughter can be negligent in nature. It doesn't mean I think they are equivalent, does it?
Do you deny that involuntary manslaughter can be criminal negligence manslaughter? Does that make it the same as ne ...[text shortened]... e out as an argument and my Cafe School of Hard Knocks. Boy, you sure got me all figured out. 🙄
I get very tired of people who can't understand simple points thinking they're somehow "winning the argument" and "pushing someone to the wall" when they are just repeating over and over again erroneous information. If you have an English statute setting forth the elements of manslaughter and whether there are different grades, site it. If it is a common law crime, then some source of official English law (not Wikipedia) would be appreciated.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by jimmyb270I don't think there's any doubt they BELIEVED he was a threat. The issue is rather, did they have a good reason for believing it.
Everyone seems to be ignoring what I think is an important point. Why?
Why would the police shoot this man if they didn't have good reason to believe he was a threat? For kicks?
You present two alternatives, that they had a good reason for believing he was a threat, or that they didn't believe.
You're ignoring the third alternative - the critical one - which is that they believed, but that their reasons for doing so were lousy.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by steve645I've wondered about this as well. If the victim did have any opportunity to react (and some of the evidence emerging now suggests that his awareness of the officers was very brief, which is even more alarming), then one of the facts that needs to be established is whether the police identified themselves as police.
None of us were there, but I can say this...it appears that the initial police involved in the incident were plainclothes officers. Now if someone were to run up to you, waving a gun and saying "Don't move" or something like this...would not a reasonable person think they were about to get robbed and run away? It sounds like this guy did not know they ...[text shortened]... ify themselves to begin with, they could definitely have civil liability and criminal liability.
If they were plainclothes, they would need to do so clearly, and perhaps repeatedly, for it to sink in to an innocent person's brain. This is part of the problem: the police know who they are, a real bomber would be on the lookout for police and jump to the right conclusion, but a total innocent's first reaction would be to panic and not know what was going on.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderRec.
In New York, criminal negligence is insufficient for an involuntary manslaughter conviction which requires recklessness. "Criminal negligence manslaughter" would be the same as "negligent homicide" where such a crime exists; they mean the same thing. The terminology might be different, but the elements of the crime would be the same.
...[text shortened]... ommon law crime, then some source of official English law (not Wikipedia) would be appreciated.
A legal dictionary or Wikipedia is only as useful as the jurisdiction to which it specifically relates. The legal dictionary probably indicates where it was published and might have some specific citations. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is next to useless as it was probably written by someone who assumed the law they knew was simply 'the law'.
We've already established that Australian law is different, so I won't even bother trying to put my 2 cents in on the substantive issue.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoHe "forgot" to mention my quote of the Merrian Webster Dictionary of Law.
Rec.
A legal dictionary or Wikipedia is only as useful as the jurisdiction to which it specifically relates. The legal dictionary probably indicates where it was published and might have some specific citations. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is next to useless as it was probably written by someone who assumed the law they knew was simply 'the law ...[text shortened]... law is different, so I won't even bother trying to put my 2 cents in on the substantive issue.
And he forgot to mention that New York Law has nothing to do with the case. Maybe you can cite Sumerian Law so that it relates.
Goebbels was a genius.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaThere you go. Both legal professionals who contest your views here are obviously Nazis.
He "forgot" to mention my quote of the Merrian Webster Dictionary of Law.
And he forgot to mention that New York Law has nothing to do with the case. Maybe you can cite Sumerian Law so that it relates.
Goebbels was a genius.
You have a strong opinion about this issue, which you are perfectly entitled to and which is, in my opinion, valid, but you do not seem to be on firm legal ground as to the technicalities of the case. That's all.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaAny legal system worth its salt would consider all the facts before jumping to conclusions. UK law would do just that.
He "forgot" to mention my quote of the Merrian Webster Dictionary of Law.
And he forgot to mention that New York Law has nothing to do with the case. Maybe you can cite Sumerian Law so that it relates.
Goebbels was a genius.
That Merriam-Webster definition is very likely correct in the legal system that it is based upon, but those conditions will have to be met before it can apply.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by lauseyI didn't say it didn't. I repeatedly said that all I was asking for is a a trial and IF the facts were as they are being presented now, I would expect a murder conviction. If not, I would like to see the reasons on why not.
Any legal system worth its salt would consider all the facts before jumping to conclusions. UK law would do just that.
That Merriam-Webster definition is very likely correct in the legal system that it is based upon, but those conditions will have to be met before it can apply.
18 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, several posters have already answered your question, very well I might add, but I prefer to have a UK barrister throw an opinion on what type of manslaughter this is. No reasonable jury would hand down a murder conviction, based on the evidence that's out in the public now.
I didn't say it didn't. I repeatedly said that all I was asking for is a a trial and IF the facts were as they are being presented now, I would expect a murder conviction. If not, I would like to see the reasons on why not.