Radical Muslims who attempted to murder get just 2/4/5 years (UK)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Still doesn't make sense, the intent is the same, then the punishment should be the same. It's still the same type of person who would have been a murderer, they just failed at it.I guess they decided that there is a difference, since the victim of the attempted crime can continue to live life after recovery whereas with a succesful murder, they can't. But the attempted murderer didn't intend for that to happen, their intention was to kill the person, if that person by some chance survives, then all they did was screwed up. No reason to lessen the penalty just 'cause someone's sucks at murder, they're still the type of garbage who murders.[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]Because the outcome is different.
BuryMe
All the talk about guns and where you shoot is completely redundant; my original point was a simple one. Shooting someone alone is not attempted murder. Beating someone over the head with a pipe is not attempted murder. They are just actions. Fact. Ninja-HippoAnd as I said beating someone with a pipe could certainly fall under the attempted murder in the US. So to say it's never attempted murder is incorrect. If the person dies of the injuries..then it's most certainly murder.
In order for a person to be guilty of attempted murder, that person should have deliberately, intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, attempted to kill someone.
And as I said beating someone with a pipe could certainly fall under the attempted murder in the US. So to say it's never attempted murder is incorrect. If the person dies of the injuries..then it's most certainly murder.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]All the talk about guns and where you shoot is completely redundant; my original point was a simple one. Shooting someone alone is not attempted murder. Beating someone over the head with a pipe is not attempted murder. They are just actions. Fact. LJS9502_basic
In order for a person to be guilty of attempted murder, that person should have deliberately, intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, attempted to kill someone.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. How many times do i have to repeat myself? Beating someone with a pipe is not attempted murder. It's beating someone with a pipe. It's an ACTION. Any crime (other than strict liability) requires an actus reus and a mens rea. That's a MUST. You need to have both. If you beat someone with a pipe all you have is actus reus; a guilty act. An action. That is not a crime in itself. In order for it to be a crime you have to have a mens rea; a mental element. An intended consequence of your action. And what your perceived intent was is the crux of what crime you are charged with. Please just accept this and stop arguing against facts. My point was a very simple one; an action alone is not attempted murder, as he said it was - 'hitting someone with a brick and a pole is attempted murder, simple as that.' It isn't. That's just an action. Whether it constitutes assault, GBH, murder or attempted murder or manslaughter or anything else comes down to the mens rea; the intended consequence of that action. Eff. A. Cee. Tee.Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. How many times do i have to repeat myself? Beating someone with a pipe is not attempted murder. It's beating someone with a pipe. It's an ACTION. Any crime (other than strict liability) requires an actus reus and a mens rea. That's a MUST. You need to have both. If you beat someone with a pipe all you have is actus reus; a guilty act. An action. That is not a crime in itself. In order for it to be a crime you have to have a mens rea; a mental element. An intended consequence of your action. And what your perceived intent was is the crux of what crime you are charged with. Please just accept this and stop arguing against facts. My point was a very simple one; an action alone is not attempted murder, as he said it was - 'hitting someone with a brick and a pole is attempted murder, simple as that.' It isn't. That's just an action. Whether it constitutes assault, GBH, murder or attempted murder or manslaughter or anything else comes down to the mens rea; the intended consequence of that action. .Ninja-HippoHere's another legal definition for you (US)
Attempted murder and willful homicide is the blotched act of a human being trying to physically kill another human being. A crime of attempted murder occurs when a person acted deliberately, intentionally, or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life. Murder is generally referred to as the killing of another human being with full intent, malice or aforethought, and can be charged as a premeditated murder
As such, murder is among the most heavily penalized crimes in humanity. Attempted murder is similarly heavily prosecuted, due to the nature of the intent. Degrees of attempted murder include the amount of pre-meditation involved, the violence of the act, the type of weapon or instrument involved in the incident, the severity of the attack and nature of the attack, such as whether it occurred during a serious crime such as robbery, rape, or drug trafficking).
Please stop and think and examine these words. I don't think you even know what the point you're arguing against is.willful deliberately, intentionally, or recklessly
LJS9502_basic
Please stop and think and examine these words. I don't think you even know what the point you're arguing against is.Yes...please stop and think and examine the bolded word. ;)[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
willful deliberately, intentionally, or recklessly
Ninja-Hippo
And hitting someone over the head with a metal pipe is reckless and shows extreme disregard for human life. Which fits the definition of attempted murder in the US.;)LJS9502_basic1) Stop saying 'in the US'. It's exactly the same for practically every nation on earth. 2) You just don't understand the point and i'm growing tired of explaining it over and over and over again which only ever seems to be necessary when conversing with yourself. Do you not think you're just replying to the contrary for the very sake of it? Hitting someone over the head with a pipe is an action. Everything you just added in about being reckless and showing disregard for human life IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE ACTION. Please get that through your head, as it was the point i was making. Any crime other than strict liability is split into two halves: 1) Actus reus - hitting someone with a pipe/shooting them/punching them/slapping them/hitting them with your car 2) Mens rea - negligence, recklessness, intent There can be no crime without BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. If you only have 1, there is no crime. If you only have 2, there is no crime. The original post was this: 'hitting someone with a pipe and a brick is attempted murder, simple as that.' NO IT ISN'T. That is only 1) - the action. You need to have 2) the mental element, for it to be attempted murder. PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO ARGUE. This is a fact.
Agreeing with the policy directions of the government is not comparable to disagreeing with a Prosecution when they have the facts and you do not. You've even impugned your own argument; you formed your opinion based on the article. They formed their professional decision based on every minute detail of EXACTLY what happened, and they concluded that the thugs involved did not intend to murder their victim, but instead to cause him grievous bodily harm. So that's what they charged them with.[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]
if you read my full post i clearly say that we don't know all the facts. on the other hand there's not too many ways to spin a broken skull, major lacerations, and their voice on tape. and yes i think the prosecution is in a much better position to decide what is what. i also think president bush or obama are in a much better position to know what's best for the country given that they know more facts then us. Does that mean i should blindly agree with them? hell no. in this case i looked at what was said in the presented article and formed my own opinion on it. i think that if what is said is accurate, which i assume at least most of it is, this is attempted murder.
Ninja-Hippo
Also you're more than entitled to form any opinion you want; i remind you that it was you who originally attacked my position which was merely based on the prescription of the law. :? I have expressed no opinion in relation to that.
firstly it is completely comparable. both parties (prosecution and presidents) know more facts on certain issues yet some people disagree with them knowing much less. it might not be the best analogy but it certainly works. ok back on topic...
the reason i "attacked" your position is because it seemed like you refused to believe that this even could have been attempted murder soley because of the prosecution. after all we don't know all the facts including if any deals were made or other motives for a lesser sentence. you then seemed to somewhat contradict your previous posts with your definition of what attempted murder is.
actus rectus (action) - beating the victim with multiple deadly weapons
mens rea (intent) - the men on tape saying they wanted to kill the man and planning the attack
accroding to the definition you provided coupled with the "facts" given in the article it seems like both criteria are met. you are fighting so hard for the prosecution here it just seems like you have complete faith in your justice system. cue: you telling me why i'm wrong...
The opinion i gave was of the law; at no point did i give any opinion on whether or not i think it was attempted murder or not outside of the law. I'm saying it was not attempted murder because as a fact it wasn't; the prosecution found that it was not. Outside of the trial anything could have happened. I wouldn't give an opinion because i don't know, and such an opinion would be redundant. I haven't contradicted any position; my point about actus reus was that he was saying the mere action of hitting someone with a brick and a pipe is attempted murder, regardless.firstly it is completely comparable. both parties (prosecution and presidents) know more facts on certain issues yet some people disagree with them knowing much less. it might not be the best analogy but it certainly works. ok back on topic...
the reason i "attacked" your position is because it seemed like you refused to believe that this even could have been attempted murder soley because of the prosecution. after all we don't know all the facts including if any deals were made or other motives for a lesser sentence. you then seemed to somewhat contradict your previous posts with your definition of what attempted murder is.
actus rectus (action) - beating the victim with multiple deadly weapons
mens rea (intent) - the men on tape saying they wanted to kill the man and planning the attack
accroding to the definition you provided coupled with the "facts" given in the article it seems like both criteria are met. you are fighting so hard for the prosecution here it just seems like you have complete faith in your justice system. cue: you telling me why i'm wrong...
ItalStallion777
Of course that isn't true, you need an accompanying mens rea. His argument wasn't one of how strong the case to be made for the mens rea was; his argument was that you don't need any mens rea at all, that the action alone is attempted murder. In this case the prosecution obviously found that they did not intend to kill their victim. You're confusing two different arguments. If you don't want me to tell you why you're wrong, don't quote me in the first place.
I recently visited a high-security jail for my law class, and one of the prisoners there said he had ten counts of assault, each for two years. If these guys only had one count of attempted murder then it makes sense for them to get five years.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And hitting someone over the head with a metal pipe is reckless and shows extreme disregard for human life. Which fits the definition of attempted murder in the US.;)Ninja-Hippo1) Stop saying 'in the US'. It's exactly the same for practically every nation on earth. 2) You just don't understand the point and i'm growing tired of explaining it over and over and over again which only ever seems to be necessary when conversing with yourself. Do you not think you're just replying to the contrary for the very sake of it? Hitting someone over the head with a pipe is an action. Everything you just added in about being reckless and showing disregard for human life IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE ACTION. Please get that through your head, as it was the point i was making. Any crime other than strict liability is split into two halves: 1) Actus reus - hitting someone with a pipe/shooting them/punching them/slapping them/hitting them with your car 2) Mens rea - negligence, recklessness, intent There can be no crime without BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. If you only have 1, there is no crime. If you only have 2, there is no crime. The original post was this: 'hitting someone with a pipe and a brick is attempted murder, simple as that.' NO IT ISN'T. That is only 1) - the action. You need to have 2) the mental element, for it to be attempted murder. PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO ARGUE. This is a fact.No. An individual that drinks a bit too much can be charged with a crime if he hits and kills someone. There is NO intent for him to kill that individual. It was an action...not an intent. Have you every heard of involuntary manslaughter? There isn't intent...but that is third degree murder/homocide pick your word that is a felony.
Here's a definition for the US...attempted murder. It's NOT the same as the UK by the way.
In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. For example, shooting at a person would be attempted murder, while simply pointing a gun at someone would not be attempted murder.
And I found that after I gave you my example. Anyway...an individual was charged with attempted murder for firing into a room trying to kill an individual that happened to not be there that night. He was charged and convicted. The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld his conviction even though there was no on in the room.
State v Mitchell (1902)
Attempted murder in the US usually receives a higher sentence than assault.I recently visited a high-security jail for my law class, and one of the prisoners there said he had ten counts of assault, each for two years. If these guys only had one count of attempted murder then it makes sense for them to get five years.
ROFLCOPTER603
[QUOTE="weezyfb"]why are all your threads about muslims?m25105I'm guessing he has an agenda or something. Lately there seems to be a lot of agendas in OT....
1) Stop saying 'in the US'. It's exactly the same for practically every nation on earth. 2) You just don't understand the point and i'm growing tired of explaining it over and over and over again which only ever seems to be necessary when conversing with yourself. Do you not think you're just replying to the contrary for the very sake of it? Hitting someone over the head with a pipe is an action. Everything you just added in about being reckless and showing disregard for human life IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE ACTION. Please get that through your head, as it was the point i was making. Any crime other than strict liability is split into two halves: 1) Actus reus - hitting someone with a pipe/shooting them/punching them/slapping them/hitting them with your car 2) Mens rea - negligence, recklessness, intent There can be no crime without BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. If you only have 1, there is no crime. If you only have 2, there is no crime. The original post was this: 'hitting someone with a pipe and a brick is attempted murder, simple as that.' NO IT ISN'T. That is only 1) - the action. You need to have 2) the mental element, for it to be attempted murder. PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO ARGUE. This is a fact.No. An individual that drinks a bit too much can be charged with a crime if he hits and kills someone. There is NO intent for him to kill that individual. It was an action...not an intent. Have you every heard of involuntary manslaughter? There isn't intent...but that is third degree murder/homocide pick your word that is a felony.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And hitting someone over the head with a metal pipe is reckless and shows extreme disregard for human life. Which fits the definition of attempted murder in the US.;)LJS9502_basic
Here's a definition for the US...attempted murder. It's NOT the same as the UK by the way.
In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. For example, shooting at a person would be attempted murder, while simply pointing a gun at someone would not be attempted murder.
And I found that after I gave you my example. Anyway...an individual was charged with attempted murder for firing into a room trying to kill an individual that happened to not be there that night. He was charged and convicted. The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld his conviction even though there was no on in the room.
State v Mitchell (1902)
Wrong yet again. Getting behind the wheel while incredibly intoxicated is reckless and negligent. Recklessness and negligence are both mens rea. Please just stop.It is literally impossible to be charged with attempted murder if there is no mens rea. Please just accept this and move on with your life. It's a fact.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. An individual that drinks a bit too much can be charged with a crime if he hits and kills someone. There is NO intent for him to kill that individual. It was an action...not an intent. Have you every heard of involuntary manslaughter? There isn't intent...but that is third degree murder/homocide pick your word that is a felony.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] 1) Stop saying 'in the US'. It's exactly the same for practically every nation on earth. 2) You just don't understand the point and i'm growing tired of explaining it over and over and over again which only ever seems to be necessary when conversing with yourself. Do you not think you're just replying to the contrary for the very sake of it? Hitting someone over the head with a pipe is an action. Everything you just added in about being reckless and showing disregard for human life IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE ACTION. Please get that through your head, as it was the point i was making. Any crime other than strict liability is split into two halves: 1) Actus reus - hitting someone with a pipe/shooting them/punching them/slapping them/hitting them with your car 2) Mens rea - negligence, recklessness, intent There can be no crime without BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. If you only have 1, there is no crime. If you only have 2, there is no crime. The original post was this: 'hitting someone with a pipe and a brick is attempted murder, simple as that.' NO IT ISN'T. That is only 1) - the action. You need to have 2) the mental element, for it to be attempted murder. PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO ARGUE. This is a fact.Ninja-Hippo
Here's a definition for the US...attempted murder. It's NOT the same as the UK by the way.
In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. For example, shooting at a person would be attempted murder, while simply pointing a gun at someone would not be attempted murder.
And I found that after I gave you my example. Anyway...an individual was charged with attempted murder for firing into a room trying to kill an individual that happened to not be there that night. He was charged and convicted. The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld his conviction even though there was no on in the room.
State v Mitchell (1902)
Wrong yet again. Getting behind the wheel while incredibly intoxicated is reckless and negligent. Recklessness and negligence are both mens rea. Please just stop.Ah exactly. You finally admit that recklessness can lead to an attempted murder charge...though I've been telling you that for two pages now.:lol:Ah exactly. You finally admit that recklessness can lead to an attempted murder charge...though I've been telling you that for two pages now.:lol:LJS9502_basicIs this really worth my time? At no point did i say recklessness cannot lead to an attempted murder charge. Recklessness is a form of mens rea. You cannot be charged with a crime (unless it's strict liability) without a mens rea. So just hitting someone with a pipe is not attempted murder. That is only one half of the crime (the action). To be attempted murder you need the other half, the mens rea which can be a whole multitude of things (intent, negligence, recklessness). You know exactly what i'm saying, i'm sure.
[QUOTE="CannedWorms"]If you hit someone round the head with a metal pole and a brick which results in a broken skull, that is ATTEMPTED MURDER. Ninja-HippoFact; no it isn't. I'll repeat that for extra clarity; FACT. Not opinion. Fact. This was the original contentious point which you've amazingly managed to drag out for four pages. As you can see, i am completely correct (as you're well aware of). Hitting someone round the head with a metal pole and a brick = actus reus. So is that alone attempted murder? NOPE! Because that's only half the crime. You need the other half, the mens rea. The action alone is not the crime, and as such the statement was incorrect. Game over. End of debate.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah exactly. You finally admit that recklessness can lead to an attempted murder charge...though I've been telling you that for two pages now.:lol:Ninja-HippoIs this really worth my time? At no point did i say recklessness cannot lead to an attempted murder charge. Recklessness is a form of mens rea. You cannot be charged with a crime (unless it's strict liability) without a mens rea. So just hitting someone with a pipe is not attempted murder. That is only one half of the crime (the action). To be attempted murder you need the other half, the mens rea which can be a whole multitude of things (intent, negligence, recklessness). You know exactly what i'm saying, i'm sure. A prosecutor can certainly charge someone with bashing in another individuals skull with attempted murder. You keep saying no...but that's not true. At all.
You argued that with me continuosly and then changed your stance. You now agree with me. /discussion.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah exactly. You finally admit that recklessness can lead to an attempted murder charge...though I've been telling you that for two pages now.:lol:LJS9502_basicIs this really worth my time? At no point did i say recklessness cannot lead to an attempted murder charge. Recklessness is a form of mens rea. You cannot be charged with a crime (unless it's strict liability) without a mens rea. So just hitting someone with a pipe is not attempted murder. That is only one half of the crime (the action). To be attempted murder you need the other half, the mens rea which can be a whole multitude of things (intent, negligence, recklessness). You know exactly what i'm saying, i'm sure. A prosecutor can certainly charge someone with bashing in another individuals skull with attempted murder. You keep saying no...but that's not true. At all. No i didn't. Would you please just listen to me and stop arguing for the sake of it? He said hitting someone with a brick is attempted murder. I said no it isn't. Do you know why i said it isn't? Because it isn't. Nowhere did i say a prosecutor cannot charge someone with attempted murder for bashing in another individual's skull.
Please just LISTEN and appreciate the point being made. Bashing someone's head in is not attempted murder. That is just an action. In order for it to be attempted murder there must be an accompanying mental element. His post completely ignores this requirement and contends that all that should be ignored; instead, that the very action alone is tantamount to attempted murder.
Legally, factually speaking, that is incorrect as i pointed out. You then disagreed and here we are. PLEASE just stop. At no point did i change any stance. I have only ever had one stance; that you cannot have attempted murder based just on an action, you need the mens rea too. That is not debateable.
The opinion i gave was of the law; at no point did i give any opinion on whether or not i think it was attempted murder or not outside of the law. I'm saying it was not attempted murder because as a fact it wasn't; the prosecution found that it was not. Outside of the trial anything could have happened. I wouldn't give an opinion because i don't know, and such an opinion would be redundant. I haven't contradicted any position; my point about actus reus was that he was saying the mere action of hitting someone with a brick and a pipe is attempted murder, regardless.[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]
firstly it is completely comparable. both parties (prosecution and presidents) know more facts on certain issues yet some people disagree with them knowing much less. it might not be the best analogy but it certainly works. ok back on topic...
the reason i "attacked" your position is because it seemed like you refused to believe that this even could have been attempted murder soley because of the prosecution. after all we don't know all the facts including if any deals were made or other motives for a lesser sentence. you then seemed to somewhat contradict your previous posts with your definition of what attempted murder is.
actus rectus (action) - beating the victim with multiple deadly weapons
mens rea (intent) - the men on tape saying they wanted to kill the man and planning the attack
accroding to the definition you provided coupled with the "facts" given in the article it seems like both criteria are met. you are fighting so hard for the prosecution here it just seems like you have complete faith in your justice system. cue: you telling me why i'm wrong...
Ninja-Hippo
Of course that isn't true, you need an accompanying mens rea. His argument wasn't one of how strong the case to be made for the mens rea was; his argument was that you don't need any mens rea at all, that the action alone is attempted murder. In this case the prosecution obviously found that they did not intend to kill their victim. You're confusing two different arguments. If you don't want me to tell you why you're wrong, don't quote me in the first place.
you absolutely are contradicting yourself. i originally commented on your post because you were saying how there was no evidence that their intention was for the victim to die and that they stopped the beating as to not kill him. who are you talking on behalf of? are you part of the defense now or making your own opinion? no matter what side you are on it is a FACT that there was evidence that they intended to kill the victim. not only did they brutally attack him with multiple weapons in the head crushing his skull (which by itself could get a attempted murder ruling) but they said on tape that THEY WANTED TO KILL HIM.
Saying 'I'm gonna kill that guy!" is not evidence of an intention to kill. This has been the case for decades after courts stopped admitting that as evidence due to the frequency of its use as a colloquialism. There was no sufficient evidence to conclude that they intended to murder him; if there was he'd have been charged with attempted murder. I fail to see my contradiction. Feel free to point it out.you absolutely are contradicting yourself. i originally commented on your post because you were saying how there was no evidence that their intention was for the victim to die and that they stopped the beating as to not kill him. who are you talking on behalf of? are you part of the defense now or making your own opinion? no matter what side you are on it is a FACT that there was evidence that they intended to kill the victim. not only did they brutally attack him with multiple weapons in the head crushing his skull (which by itself could get a attempted murder ruling) but they said on tape that THEY WANTED TO KILL HIM.
ItalStallion777
Stop sighing. It's patronising. Do you not think i'm fed up of repeating myself again and again and again and again? Once again you're wrong because you have no idea what you're talking about. Your quotes are nonsense; murder is not statutory. There is not set legal test for murder. I'm not even debating what murder is. You're completely baffled about the topic you're even debating. My point is so simple that it's PAINFUL that you're still arguing about it - he said hitting someone with a pole is attempted murder. NO IT ISN'T. It's just an action. If you'd like to tell me why that sentence and that sentence alone is wrong, go ahead. If you'd like to drag this out by bringing up completely irrelevant nonsense just so you don't have to admit you're wrong (otherwise know as LJ'ing), you can do that too but i'm done if that's the case. Why are you talking about involuntary manslaughter when the case in question is about attempted murder? The two are completely different. INTENT is only necessary with attempted murder; you need to have the mens rea of INTENTION TO MURDER. Intent is simply a form of mens rea. And yes you do need mes rea for involuntary manslaughter; the mens rea for whatever act you committed which resulted in the murder is passed along to the death. Just. Stop. Attempted murder - an action (beating someone with a pipe) = INGREDIENT NUMBER 1 - the intention to cause death = INGREDIENT NUMBER 2 YOU CANNOT HAVE ATTEMPTED MURDER WITHOUT BOTH INGREDIENTS. FACT. Ninja-HippoIt's also patronizing when you continue to say stop. And wrong wrong wrong.
You can continue to repeat yourself all you want but you've contradicted yourself at least three times in this thread. You can continue to repeat yourself all you want but I've posted the LEGAL definitions of attempted murder in the US. You have ignored those very defintions.
And I'll add another quote that doesn't bear up your opinion as well....
The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.
The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.
Again.....the legal definition is not agreeing with you. I especially direct your attention to 2 and 3. They don't show intent to murder do they?
Saying 'I'm gonna kill that guy!" is not evidence of an intention to kill. This has been the case for decades after courts stopped admitting that as evidence due to the frequency of its use as a colloquialism. There was no sufficient evidence to conclude that they intended to murder him; if there was he'd have been charged with attempted murder. I fail to see my contradiction. Feel free to point it out. I'd agree with that if they hadn't bashed him in the head. 2 + 2 =4 after all...or to put it another way...if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]
you absolutely are contradicting yourself. i originally commented on your post because you were saying how there was no evidence that their intention was for the victim to die and that they stopped the beating as to not kill him. who are you talking on behalf of? are you part of the defense now or making your own opinion? no matter what side you are on it is a FACT that there was evidence that they intended to kill the victim. not only did they brutally attack him with multiple weapons in the head crushing his skull (which by itself could get a attempted murder ruling) but they said on tape that THEY WANTED TO KILL HIM.
Ninja-Hippo
[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]you absolutely are contradicting yourself. i originally commented on your post because you were saying how there was no evidence that their intention was for the victim to die and that they stopped the beating as to not kill him. who are you talking on behalf of? are you part of the defense now or making your own opinion? no matter what side you are on it is a FACT that there was evidence that they intended to kill the victim. not only did they brutally attack him with multiple weapons in the head crushing his skull (which by itself could get a attempted murder ruling) but they said on tape that THEY WANTED TO KILL HIM.Saying 'I'm gonna kill that guy!" is not evidence of an intention to kill. This has been the case for decades after courts stopped admitting that as evidence due to the frequency of its use as a colloquialism. There was no sufficient evidence to conclude that they intended to murder him; if there was he'd have been charged with attempted murder. I fail to see my contradiction. Feel free to point it out.The act of simply saying that line by itself isn't evidence of an intention to kill, but that, plus the planning, waiting, and severe beating that they did surely should take it past mere colloquialism. It doesn't sound like they cared whether he would die or not as he was left there to bathe in his blood. They also didn't care about going to jail, further enforcing that they didn't seem too bothered with what the end result would be.Ninja-Hippo
At no point did i contest what the definition of murder is. Also, there is no legal definition of attempted murder. Or even murder for that matter. This is one of the worst examples of sheer arguing for the sake of it i've ever seen. Your quotes even - embarrassingly - confirm what i'm explaining to you even though they have nothing to do with attempted murder, but murder. Intent, recklessness, negligence, committing of a crime; ALL FOUR of your examples point out the specific need for there to be a mens rea, not just an action alone. Yet you continue to debate that this is not the case even though IT'S THE GOD DAMNED LAW.You can continue to repeat yourself all you want but I've posted the LEGAL definitions of attempted murder in the US. You have ignored those very defintions.
LJS9502_basic
My point is so simple that it really is painful each time you respond to the contrary. You know exactly what i'm saying; hitting someone with a pipe isn't attempted murder, you need to have the intent for them to die from your strike. The strike alone is not attempted murder. I've repeated that dozens and dozens and dozens of times and in typical fashion you just reply ad nauseum with anything and everything you can to avoid simply admitting that your position is incorrect. It's very tiresome.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]At no point did i contest what the definition of murder is. Also, there is no legal definition of attempted murder. Or even murder for that matter. This is one of the worst examples of sheer arguing for the sake of it i've ever seen. My point is so simple that it really is painful each time you respond to the contrary. You know exactly what i'm saying; hitting someone with a pipe isn't attempted murder, you need to have the intent for them to die from your strike. The strike alone is not attempted murder. I've repeated that dozens and dozens and dozens of times and in typical fashion you just reply ad nauseum with anything and everything you can to avoid simply admitting that your position is incorrect. It's very tiresome. It is indeed sheer arguing for the sake of arguing since I gave you the law regarding attempted murder and you're still arguing it...as nauseum. Nothing new to the table.You can continue to repeat yourself all you want but I've posted the LEGAL definitions of attempted murder in the US. You have ignored those very defintions.
Ninja-Hippo
Yes...you've repeated an opinion several times while I've cited the law. YOUR position is incorrect.
THERE IS NO LAW REGARDING ATTEMPTED MURDER. ATTEMPTED MURDER IS NOT STATUTORY. I'm sorry for the caps but how many times does it need to be said? You cannot prove attempted murder with a god damned legal dictionary. The last quote you gave even SUPPORTS MY POINT. 1) Intent. 2) Intent. 3) Recklessness. 4) The commission of a crime. ALL FOUR OF THOSE ARE CATEGORIES OF MENS REA. So even your own quote is pointing out the need for there to be a mens rea in addition to the action for it to be a crime. This is not debateable. It is the law. It is a fact. With ATTEMPTED MURDER you also need to have a mens rea in addition to the action; normally this is intent to cause death. That is the law. That is a fact. Please accept it and move on with your life. Ninja-HippoNot true.
A person can be charged with an attempted crime (such as "attempted robbery" or "attempted murder") even though not all the elements of the underlying crime were completed in order to be found guilty of the actual crime.
The following must occur for a person to be guilty of an attempted crime.
1.Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and
2.the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements.
/quote
I don't know about the UK but you can't charge someone with a crime in the US if there is not a law against it.
And now you have switched to arguing my point but claiming I didn't argue it. I POSTED for the entirety of this thread that reckless disregard for human life results in a charge of attempted murder. YOU have continually argued against it. So now you are taking my arguing and acting as though I've argued against that.
As the say in court...case dismissed. I've proven my point. You're now taking it as your own. So since you've done that...there is nothing more to say. I have proven my case.:lol:
1.Criminal shows intent to commit a crime, and MENS REA
2.the criminal comes dangerously close to successfully completing the crime but somehow does not complete all of the required elements. ACTUS REUS
I POSTED for the entirety of this thread that reckless disregard for human life results in a charge of attempted murder.
Recklessness if a form of mens rea. So once again, when you say that recklessness can result in a charge for attempted murder you only further confirm my original point that you cannot have attempted murder without both an actus reus and a mens rea.
LJS9502_basic
Just stop.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment