Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 11:24:35 GMT -5
If the person that went out to commit robbery brought a loaded gun with them, then yes, I believe it was premeditated. If they only wanted to rob the individual, they could have left the bullets out of the gun. By bringing it loaded, they knew that there was the possibility that they would have to shoot someone. And I don't disagree with you either. And of course - as you say: "By bringing it loaded, they knew that there was the possibility that they would have to shoot someone". However, that is not the same as bringing a gun with the determination of having somebody killed and that is why your suggestion that "they knew what they were doing" does not make much sense to me. The discussion was whether or not such a person committed "premeditated" murder. I will try to check into the legal definitions of this to find what the law says on this and post it once I find the info I'm seeking, so we don't need to be discussing what the law says on this. However, regardless of what the law may say about the matter, I will still not appreciate the fact that the law may consider such an event as "premediated murder", and in any case, remember that not all murders are being commited by a shotgun. There are many shades of grey here. Nothing seems to be either black or white. In other cases, no gun was used at all, but the closest item available to a panic stricken person. Like for instance: A champaign bottle can hardly be considered a weapon. Nor a statue, or any other item which cannot be considered a weapon. That happens a lot of times also. How can that be premeditation? The premeditation was to steal and rob, but never to kill. I don't know. I'll try to check into it in further detail. (I'm just waiting to be moderating because I'm nitpicking here). I don't want to annoy people here, and it's OK to send me a PM and ask me to stop it. If you do, please also send the same PM to Truth1. Turid
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 4, 2005 11:28:40 GMT -5
why would u think u were annoying anyone? OF COURSE NOT
great answers!
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 11:34:20 GMT -5
There is never a reason to carry a gun. But try to discuss the weapon laws and hell breaks lose!! Makes me wonder how other peoples around the world can live without them. Happily so! I'm Norwegian and only members of a hunting team can own a shotgun, and only a member of shooting sports club is able to legally own a gun. It should of course also be said that we don't have even nearly the crime rate as in the U.S. On the other hand: Wonder how I'm still alive, because I've also lived in the Unites States - WITHOUT a gun. Actually, I've never even held a gun during my 42 years on this planet. If the American people is so concerned about murder and crime, why not do something with the weapon laws? Because of some old, out-dated constitutional thing that was made shortly after the states had freed themselves from the British Crown and needed to be protected from their own then Goverment? Time step out of the darkness. That is more than 200 years ago. You would think a few things have changed since then. Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 11:41:37 GMT -5
Basically what I was trying to say was that just the act of carring a loaded gun to a robbery shows intent. And of course a champagne bottle can be considered a weapon. Remember, it is considered a weapon when it is used for bodily harm.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 11:53:15 GMT -5
Do you have anything to back up your argument. You might be right. And that is what I told you I would look into. (The legal definitions of "intent"). However, if you have that available, please post it. If not, I will.
You're getting side-tracked again. The question was intent. You can hardly say that a person who strikes a another over the head with a champaign bottle had intent to kill while committing a robbery.
I agree with you that anything can be considered a weapon if it's being used for bodily harm", but AGAIN: That wasn't what we were discussing. A person who strikes another over the head with a champaign bottle or a statue, can hardly be said to have an "intent to kill". To do such a thing, only shows that the person committed a burglary, was caught red handed, and acted in the spur of the moment out of panic. You can hardly say that a theif acting in such a manner had the INTENTION of killing anyone when he planned the robbery.
Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 12:26:27 GMT -5
I am still talking about intent. You suggested that murderers knew what they were risking by committing a murder. The story I shared with you, telling about the individual who did not know that there was a death penalty at all, you have to admit that this person cannot have been considering the consequenses of his actions before he murdered somebody. I am still talking about intent. I am not talking about blame.
I'm not sure if you read what I wrote. I pointed out specifically that anyone - regardless of education level knows that murder is wrong in any event. Didn't you read that? Besides - and again - I am talking about "intent". Not whether or not an uneducated person knows that killing is wrong or not. And that is why I emphasized that point, but perhaps you didn't read it, or read my posting to fast.
I never tried to find excuses for anyone. I was trying to discuss intent, as I've pointed out about 10 times. Of course everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions, and of course it was a conscious choice to get intoxicated.
That does not mean that it was a conscious choice to commit murder while high on drugs.
And NO - I do not mean that it's OK to ask such an individual to please do not use drugs again and then let them go.
But because the American people do not want to use money nor for rehabilitation, neither to provide health services and rehabs for drug abusers, they end up this situation. Everyone has a responsibility not to use illegal drugs. However, and this is NOT an excuse, but some people have just been treated in ways during their lives that makes them extremely volnurable for all kinds of addictions.
Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 12:57:40 GMT -5
Intent, according to legal-explanations.com is: The mental desire to act in a specific way and is a vital requirement to decide whether particular acts were criminal. A judge or jury may determine that "there was no criminal intent." For example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime. So, a prosecutor can argue that since someone murdered another during a robbery, and, the fact that the person brought a loaded gun with them, the mental desire was present. Why else bring a loaded gun? They could have robbed the person just as easily with an unloaded one. The victim has no idea whether the gun is loaded or not. The prosecutor (especially in Texas) can use the following to request the death sentence: Criminal homicide with 1 of 8 aggravating circumstances (TX Penal Code 19.03). One of those aggravating circumstances is the commission of murder during a robbery.
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 13:06:23 GMT -5
Whether or not it was a conscious choice to commit murder under the influence of drugs is irrelevent in the eyes of the law. While the state may not be able to prove "conscious" intent, they may be able to prove that the person had a "mental desire" to kill someone. In other words, if a person was high on PCP and someone really made them mad, and that person goes to his bedroom to get his gun and shoot the man that made him mad, then there is intent. The mere act of walking to a different room to get his gun constitutes intent. By the way, the definition of intent makes it really difficult to claim temporary insanity.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 13:25:53 GMT -5
Then I guess you're right in suggesting that by legal definitions, bringing a gun during a robbery proves intent in a court of law. By the legal definitions, that is. Whether or not the plan was to have somebody killed or not. That sure does not show that the person actually had planned to kill anyone. How that can be "premeditated" murder is beyond me though. I'd be surprised if a burglar didn't rather want to steal whatever it is he was after and just leave.
Mental desire to kill?
Yes. I know that. I'm just very curious to know what makes you think that people who are basically running around with guns at all times (I don't believe for a minute that most of those folks are actually equipping themselves with guns just for that one occasion. It's my impression that many of those are always armed.)
This has been set up as if a person would first plan to commit a robbery, then he would get his gun, and do the crime.
Bearing in mind that a lot of those folks are always armed, the reality that sounds a lot more likely to me, is that they are totally aware of what they're doing while in a state of panic, and shoots to get out of a potentionally threatening situation without even thinking.
You know - probably much better than me - that some people sleep with guns under their pillow, hide handguns on their bodies, etc. and that they're armed for any occasion. A problem that should be looked into as soon as possible if your true wish is to experience less crime and murder.
However, the fact that the courts are using the same definitions as you do is clear. It still does not show me such an act was intentional or premeditated. (Although I do acknowledge the information you provided as what the courts go by).
Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 13:38:45 GMT -5
Right. But here is something that is probably going to irritate you: I think too many bad people have guns and not enough good people do. I think crime would drop if the good people of the world had guns. I mean, if you were going to rob someone, would you think twice if it were legal for people to carry firearms?
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 4, 2005 13:41:47 GMT -5
but the fact is that the US where more people have guns has way, way, way more crime than everywhere else where gun use is a rarity. (accounting for population).
The US is an incredibly violent society. Guns may not cause that; but they sure make it a lot easier.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 13:52:33 GMT -5
Right. But here is something that is probably going to irritate you: I think too many bad people have guns and not enough good people do. I think crime would drop if the good people of the world had guns. I mean, if you were going to rob someone, would you think twice if it were legal for people to carry firearms? I don't know why your opinions would irritate me. I don't get irritated unless I'm being treated with anything less than respect, but OK: If those you call the "good people" (whoever they might be) didn't have guns, neither those you call "bad people", there wouldn't have been any shooting to begin with. Not ALL crimes can be prevented by that either, but it would most assuredly help! You might call that wishful thinking, but fact is that there are many countries which are doing fine without guns. I have to point out though: You are totally mistaken in one respect: Once "some" have guns, the rest will also get guns. I don't need to remind you about the cold war, do I? Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 13:56:13 GMT -5
but the fact is that the US where more people have guns has way, way, way more crime than everywhere else where gun use is a rarity. (accounting for population). The US is an incredibly violent society. Guns may not cause that; but they sure make it a lot easier. What I can't understand regardless of hard I try, is how come those who worry so much about crime don't see the connection between astronomic crime rates and liberal weapon laws. Turid
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 14:04:24 GMT -5
Probably not. My point is that it would be so difficult for me to even get a hold of a gun which was illegal, that the difficulties would mean a tremendous amount of effort just to get that far. As everywhere else; it is possible to get a hold of illegal weapons here too.
However, the easier it is, the more likely it is that you'll end up with a high crime rate and end up as a victim yourself. It should be no secret that once "your good guys" have legal weapons, the "bad guys" will follow.
Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 14:28:02 GMT -5
One thing: the liberals in this country do not want people to have guns. It is the conservatives that want them. I am a libertarian. Personal responsibility is the cornerstone of the libertarian philosophy. What I meant by "good" people having guns is that since America is a violent place, I think it would be a good idea for more people to have guns. Let's face reality: the bad people in this country have no problem whatsoever getting firearms. So I really do not think that if more "good" people had guns it would dramatically increase the number of bad people with guns.
|
|