homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Gun control in the US (Page 27)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  24  25  26  27  28 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Gun control in the US
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

I do not have a problem with the right to self-defence and whilst I can understand why people would feel safer with a nearby gun, the problem is that there are not actually safer. And neither are the people around them.

They are far less safe. That's the point.

[Votive] [Frown]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I'm glad - in a thoroughly weird, not really that glad way - that I said "if it's true", because the South African police don't think it is.

Murder charge.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If course, it would have been different if she'd had a gun too.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Potentially libellous content deleted - DT, Purgatory Host]

I do sometimes wonder if the relative "clean-ness" or ease of killing with a gun makes it easier to take the mental step needed to take another's life. For instance, it's easier and less risky to put a slug in someone from 10 ft. away than it is to get up close and personal with a knife or bludgeon. (I'd be surprised, in 27 pages, if that hasn't been addressed yet, but hey...).

Killing someone is not easy; it's horrible and it's messy, but often, with a gun (and esp. as portrayed in entertainment) it seems easier and less "messy". Gross, I know, but that's the subject.

[ 14. February 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please be *very* careful about what you post about this ongoing criminal case.

Thank you.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host


--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DT- My apologies! [Hot and Hormonal] I should have added "allegedly", at least!

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hedgehog

Ship's Shortstop
# 14125

 - Posted      Profile for Hedgehog   Email Hedgehog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I do sometimes wonder if the relative "clean-ness" or ease of killing with a gun makes it easier to take the mental step needed to take another's life.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Some years ago (okay, decades ago--I forget how old I am getting) I read a story about a city that had a bridge from which a lot of suicidal people would jump. The proposal was made to install a special fence to deter the jumpers (you know the kind--tall metal bars which curl inward at the top to make it tough to climb over). But such things were costly and the argument was that the city shouldn't waste the money because people who are suicidal will find some other way to kill themselves anyway--so there would be no benefit to the fence. The fence was installed anyway and, lo and behold, the city's suicide rate declined.

Now, as any decent sociologist knows, you can't do a truly controlled experiment for such things and there may potentially have been other factors involved that explain the declining rate--but certainly one explanation is that, by closing off the "easy" method of jumping from the bridge, people were deterred from taking their own lives--as counter-intuitive as that might seem.

Likewise, stopping the "easy" way of killing people may well be an effective deterrent. And, by "effective," I don't mean it would stop all killing--just like the fence did not stop all suicides. But it may very well reduce the number of murders. It seems highly likely to me that blocking the "easy" murder method would cut back on the number of deaths caused by people who are acting based on a brief moment of anger rather than as the result of a carefully laid plan.

--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'

Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Now, as any decent sociologist knows, you can't do a truly controlled experiment for such things and there may potentially have been other factors involved that explain the declining rate--but certainly one explanation is that, by closing off the "easy" method of jumping from the bridge, people were deterred from taking their own lives--as counter-intuitive as that might seem.

Likewise, stopping the "easy" way of killing people may well be an effective deterrent. And, by "effective," I don't mean it would stop all killing--just like the fence did not stop all suicides. But it may very well reduce the number of murders. It seems highly likely to me that blocking the "easy" murder method would cut back on the number of deaths caused by people who are acting based on a brief moment of anger rather than as the result of a carefully laid plan.

I referred to this a couple of pages back:
quote:
British Medical Journal 2013;346:f403:
UK legislation to reduce pack sizes of paracetamol was followed by significant reductions in deaths due to paracetamol overdose,

Access to means is well established as a significant factor for suicide. This is true because the vast majority are impulsive actions. You will never stop the determined (cold calculating) few but you can do something about the majority who are desperate but reachable.

Given that murder is for the most part a crime of passion done in the heat of the moment, I am sure that readily available methods are a major risk factor in a similar way.

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm often alone at night. The garage has a small door to the backyard that is left propped open for the cat. The door from the garage to the house leads almost straight into my bedroom. My husband always leaves it unlocked so that he won't have to fumble with a key when he comes home drunk at 3 A.M. (Yeah, I know.) Across the bedroom is a large bathroom where a burglar might accidentally end up, thinking it was the living room.

Last year I was unable to walk for six months and had to use a wheel chair. During that time, as now, I occasionally woke up at night after hearing noises coming from the bathroom. It was pitch black in the room. The first thing I always did was feel for the husband. If he wasn't there, I guessed he was either still out at the bar or in the bathroom. If he was still out at the bar and a burglar was in the bathroom, I figured the best thing to do was pretend to be asleep while he loaded his sack with soap and old towels. Either way I went back to sleep.

It is my opinion that men who shoot women on purpose should go to prison for life and men who are so fearful, afraid of the dark and stupid that they shoot women accidentally should also go to prison for life.

Unfortunately, in some countries, just like in the United States, star athletes are allowed one free felony.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The intersection of American Christianity and our myth of redemptive violence was spoofed this weekend on SNL skit , drawing this insightful commentary:

what DJesus is really about

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It is my opinion that men who shoot women on purpose should go to prison for life and men who are so fearful, afraid of the dark and stupid that they shoot women accidentally should also go to prison for life.

I was going to say 'stupidity is not a crime', but in fact sufficient degrees of stupidity are, for example manslaughter.

I will say, though, that stupidity does not generally attract a sentence of prison for life.

In terms of this thread's overall theme, though, about the wisdom of having guns around, taking Pistorius' story as true certainly does illustrate perfectly well why having guns around is such a bad idea with the potential for disastrous consequences.

We're all perfectly capable of hearing noises in the night and misinterpreting them and jumping to conclusions for a while. But the consequences of a gun owner acting in that period are so much more appalling.

In fact, in terms of the gun control debate, a finding that Pistorius' story is true would actually be a lot more powerful than a finding that he committed murder. If he's guilty of murder, then he's just a famous bloke who committed murder with a gun like lots of people kill other people with guns. If he's killed his girlfriend unintentionally, though, he is a highly public reminder of the terrible costs of gun ownership to weigh against the benefits.

[ 20. February 2013, 06:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

In terms of this thread's overall theme, though, about the wisdom of having guns around, taking Pistorius' story as true certainly does illustrate perfectly well why having guns around is such a bad idea with the potential for disastrous consequences.

We're all perfectly capable of hearing noises in the night and misinterpreting them and jumping to conclusions for a while. But the consequences of a gun owner acting in that period are so much more appalling.

Yes - all those who say they have their guns for 'protection' would have to have their guns at hand and ready to fire and many such accidents would be more than possible. Either that, or they are no protection.

It must be awful to live in such a state of fear.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think I can sum up my position thusly:

I would rather deal with the death of a loved one, wondering about all the possible ways that I could have prevented it, than deal with the death of a loved one, knowing exactly how I caused it.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would rather deal with the death of a loved one, wondering about all the possible ways that I could have prevented it, than deal with the death of a loved one, knowing exactly how I caused it.

I would rather deal with the continued life of a loved one, knowing that I took the necessary steps (even if they are difficult and subject to ignorant ridicule) to safeguard it, than leave to 'fate' something I can competently control.

And to all the automobile driving anti-gun people here: I don't understand why you are perfectly willing to wield such dangerous tools (potentially impacting innumerably more innocents on the average trip to the shop than gun owners likely ever will in a lifetime) and yet remain unwilling to recognize gun owners can also in good conscience wield their tools of choice.

[Confused]

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would rather deal with the death of a loved one, wondering about all the possible ways that I could have prevented it, than deal with the death of a loved one, knowing exactly how I caused it.

I would rather deal with the continued life of a loved one, knowing that I took the necessary steps (even if they are difficult and subject to ignorant ridicule) to safeguard it, than leave to 'fate' something I can competently control.
Ah yes. There's the rub.

And that's the answer to your automobile bit as well. I believe I can competently control a motor vehicle - at least, at the speed I drive it (which is within speed limits), and the manner in which I drive it.

Admittedly, I can't control the behaviour of other drivers - any more than you can control the behaviour of the people that might cross your gun's path - but in terms of MY tool, there's a lot of different ways to operate it.

Not a lot of variable controls on a gun, is there? Unlike lasers in sci fi movies, you can't set them to "stun". Unlike cars, they don't have a speed control. They have one basic control marked FIRE and you either FIRE or you don't.

[ 20. February 2013, 10:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
(even if they are ... subject to ignorant ridicule)

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not a lot of variable controls on a gun, is there?

(Although I have to admit on the winding up dial your post approaches 11. [Overused] )
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And as an aside I routinely ask my students what the most important safety feature in an automobile is... so far not one has gotten the correct answer.

Sigh.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hedgehog

Ship's Shortstop
# 14125

 - Posted      Profile for Hedgehog   Email Hedgehog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't help but think that there is a qualitative difference between driving a car and injuring somebody and shooting a gun and injuring somebody.

A gun owner might shoot somebody accidentally thinking that they are shooting at a burglar--but there was a conscious intent to shoot at a person (even if you subjectively believe you are justified to do so). There is an intent to shoot a living being--the "accident" is that the target is not who you think it would be.

By contrast, very few people drive automobiles with the intent to harm people.

--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'

Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
By contrast, very few people drive automobiles with the intent to harm people.

I suggest you visit Boston and see whether you still believe that...

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:

And to all the automobile driving anti-gun people here: I don't understand why you are perfectly willing to wield such dangerous tools (potentially impacting innumerably more innocents on the average trip to the shop than gun owners likely ever will in a lifetime) and yet remain unwilling to recognize gun owners can also in good conscience wield their tools of choice.

[Confused]

The major fallacy in this is the point made earlier in this thread. The purpose of a car is primarily to transport people and stuff from A to B, that is what it is designed to do. Cars are given various features which attempt to reduce the risks to those inside and outside of the vehicle. There remain attendant risks, but these are accepted as being outweighed by the benefits of motor vehicles.

In addition, driving a motor vehicle is not a right. You need a license of some kind obtained by showing proficiency at driving, and that license can be taken away.

The purpose of a gun is to kill; that is what it is designed to do. And as someone remarked up-thread, a gun makes it easy to kill.

It is difficult to think of a test for regulating gun ownership (facility in using the weapon is not the point). There are lots of examples of trained police officers shooting folk when they should not. So, if even these highly trained people get it wrong, there is little hope that ordinary folk could be trained to the point such that they only use their gun when necessary.

One might comment that a car can function as a status-symbol, and that is true for many. I suppose in a gun-obsessed culture the same could be true of weapons. But I find that very scary.

Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I suggest you visit Boston and see whether you still believe that...

[Smile]

I recently happened across a blog by someone who had been in Panama and learned the 'right of way rule' was defined as

you have the right of way until you make eye contact with the other drivers

.

[Killing me]

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:

And to all the automobile driving anti-gun people here: I don't understand why you are perfectly willing to wield such dangerous tools (potentially impacting innumerably more innocents on the average trip to the shop than gun owners likely ever will in a lifetime) and yet remain unwilling to recognize gun owners can also in good conscience wield their tools of choice.

[Confused]

Automobiles, or buses, are absolute requirements in order to work and live normally in most of America. Guns are not.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hedgehog

Ship's Shortstop
# 14125

 - Posted      Profile for Hedgehog   Email Hedgehog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
By contrast, very few people drive automobiles with the intent to harm people.

I suggest you visit Boston and see whether you still believe that...

Okay. Fair point. I stand corrected.

--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'

Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It is my opinion that men who shoot women on purpose should go to prison for life and men who are so fearful, afraid of the dark and stupid that they shoot women accidentally should also go to prison for life.

I was going to say 'stupidity is not a crime', but in fact sufficient degrees of stupidity are, for example manslaughter.

I will say, though, that stupidity does not generally attract a sentence of prison for life.


No it doesn't and I was just expressing anger at the situation but now that it's come up seriously, why shouldn't there be a much stronger sentence for accidental death with a firearm than our current, "I feared for my life so, oops, sorry?"

Some countries have dangerous dog laws that say, basically, if you chose to own one of these dogs, and it gets loose and kills a child, you're going to pay a bigger penalty than if someone else's poodle got loose and killed a child. It's a recognition that you carry a greater responsibility when you choose to own something that is generally considered dangerous.

Maybe if gun owners knew that if they accidentally kill someone with their gun they will pay a greater penalty than if they accidentally kill someone with their step ladder then they would think a moment longer before firing at the noise in the laundry room.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There was a time in the '80s when there was quite a lot of discussion about cars as penis-substitutes (the big-car era of the ME generation), but it is a lot easier to see guns as a substitute for the same organ when those guns are used to try to impress other people.

Or, to quote Stephen King:
quote:
I have nothing against gun owners, sport shooters, or hunters, but semi-automatic weapons have only two purposes. One is so that owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapour spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use – their only other use – is to kill people.
moron may feel that he is being slighted, but the rest of us feel that we should have the right to go on with our lives. The right to shoot should end when it becomes the right to deprive anyone else of their right to exist.

Yes, there are criminals. But, even in the US, despite the incarceration rate, the number of ordinary decent citizens far outnumbers the number of people who may be dangerous enough to shoot.

Cars are not dangerous weapons by intent; Skittles are not dangerous weapons, period; being drunk and coming home late is not a capital offense; and helping small children who have just seen their teacher be shot shouldn't mean that you have to be threatened with death because some idiot wants to have more guns.

When you've dealt with some of those situations, moron (name, not descriptive noun), maybe you can come back and talk sensibly.

[ 20. February 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No it doesn't and I was just expressing anger at the situation but now that it's come up seriously, why shouldn't there be a much stronger sentence for accidental death with a firearm than our current, "I feared for my life so, oops, sorry?"

Some countries have dangerous dog laws that say, basically, if you chose to own one of these dogs, and it gets loose and kills a child, you're going to pay a bigger penalty than if someone else's poodle got loose and killed a child. It's a recognition that you carry a greater responsibility when you choose to own something that is generally considered dangerous.

Maybe if gun owners knew that if they accidentally kill someone with their gun they will pay a greater penalty than if they accidentally kill someone with their step ladder then they would think a moment longer before firing at the noise in the laundry room.

I don't usually particularly agree with you Twilight, so all the more I feel the need to mark this post as exactly exactly on target in my opinion.
It's not that I think no one should ever possess any particular very dangerous object, it's that I want to know why the hell we allow so many irresponsible people to possess them! I keep hearing gun owners say that they agree that irresponsible gun owners are a menace, and yet many gun owners fight restrictions and penalties such as what Twilight is suggesting here. Is that because many gun owners secretly fear (or know) that they are of the huge mass of irresponsible? (Seriously.)

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
And as an aside I routinely ask my students what the most important safety feature in an automobile is... so far not one has gotten the correct answer.
Sigh.

I'm intrigued as to what the correct answer is.
I'm guessing 'the driver', partly because it's sufficiently unique to make the sigh make sense and partly because I've got a worry sense of foreboding.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692

 - Posted      Profile for Anyuta   Email Anyuta   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
No it doesn't and I was just expressing anger at the situation but now that it's come up seriously, why shouldn't there be a much stronger sentence for accidental death with a firearm than our current, "I feared for my life so, oops, sorry?"

Some countries have dangerous dog laws that say, basically, if you chose to own one of these dogs, and it gets loose and kills a child, you're going to pay a bigger penalty than if someone else's poodle got loose and killed a child. It's a recognition that you carry a greater responsibility when you choose to own something that is generally considered dangerous.

Maybe if gun owners knew that if they accidentally kill someone with their gun they will pay a greater penalty than if they accidentally kill someone with their step ladder then they would think a moment longer before firing at the noise in the laundry room.

I don't usually particularly agree with you Twilight, so all the more I feel the need to mark this post as exactly exactly on target in my opinion.
It's not that I think no one should ever possess any particular very dangerous object, it's that I want to know why the hell we allow so many irresponsible people to possess them! I keep hearing gun owners say that they agree that irresponsible gun owners are a menace, and yet many gun owners fight restrictions and penalties such as what Twilight is suggesting here. Is that because many gun owners secretly fear (or know) that they are of the huge mass of irresponsible? (Seriously.)

I know that if a blackbelt gets in a fight with someone and they die, they are under a lot more scrutiny for having abused their abilities than a non-black belt. the assumption that you know you are applying "deadly force" is greater.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's a lot of what I've been saying. So many want all the rights of ownership, but none of the responsibility and accountability to prove that they can responsibly handle them. And, as others have pointed out, you can still have accidents, you can still have police officers or military members go rogue on you. And so I also agree with the "increased responsibility" penalties.

Training is more than just knowing how to lock, load, aim, fire and clean. And home security is more than having a handgun or whatever close at hand. I have a small pistol in the house and it's nowhere near my nightstand. It was given to me when a relative passed away, I still don't know if I want to keep it. I like my .22 rifle though, and like I said , the AR-15 is a very versatile platform for a variety of shooting sports, though it is admittedly (as we ave tragically seen) a potent people killer.

27 pages and we're probably no closer to a consensus than the U.S. Congress is. I even thought of a thread where we discuss what could be done without limiting the types of guns that could be sold - just who they are sold to. Not because I'm rabidly pro-gun, but because I think that's the best chance for getting something done.

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It is my opinion that men who shoot women on purpose should go to prison for life and men who are so fearful, afraid of the dark and stupid that they shoot women accidentally should also go to prison for life.

I was going to say 'stupidity is not a crime', but in fact sufficient degrees of stupidity are, for example manslaughter.

I will say, though, that stupidity does not generally attract a sentence of prison for life.


No it doesn't and I was just expressing anger at the situation but now that it's come up seriously, why shouldn't there be a much stronger sentence for accidental death with a firearm than our current, "I feared for my life so, oops, sorry?"

Some countries have dangerous dog laws that say, basically, if you chose to own one of these dogs, and it gets loose and kills a child, you're going to pay a bigger penalty than if someone else's poodle got loose and killed a child. It's a recognition that you carry a greater responsibility when you choose to own something that is generally considered dangerous.

Maybe if gun owners knew that if they accidentally kill someone with their gun they will pay a greater penalty than if they accidentally kill someone with their step ladder then they would think a moment longer before firing at the noise in the laundry room.

I can certainly see some merit in that.

I've also been thinking further about Pistorius' story, specifically, and wondering whether he could still get in just as much as trouble... the law may well vary from country to country in this area, so I'm not going to make any firm announcements or anything. But...

He shot through a closed door. For one thing, there's a real question about whether rules about self-defence extend as far as shooting into another room when there isn't an immediate threat of attack, as opposed to preparing yourself with a gun in case they come into *your* room.

For another, there is absolutely no way you can verify the identity of the person you are shooting at, or what they're up to, in that circumstance. So in terms of recklessness/stupidity, it's right up there.

Finally, if you intended to kill, I'm not sure the fact that you killed the WRONG person is much of a defence. I'm fairly sure that in this country at least, you can still be found guilty of murder. In the most recent relevant case I can think of, the person was convicted of manslaughter instead but was charged with murder, having shot someone they clearly didn't intend to shoot (truck driver who was 100m away was killed by a stray bullet in a gang fight).

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Finally, if you intended to kill, I'm not sure the fact that you killed the WRONG person is much of a defence.

Certainly, if you intend to murder someone, killing the wrong person doesn't help you. If you intend to lawfully kill someone, I don't think it becomes a crime if you miss - consider the case where you are the homeowner defending your family against an armed intruder or intruders. You grab your gun, and shoot at the intruders a few times.

Let's say you kill the first intruder. This is lawful self-defense. Suppose that one of your bullets missed the intruder, passed through the wall, and injured or killed your neighbor. I don't think you have committed a crime - your intent was to discharge your weapon in an entirely lawful manner.

Now, if the intruder had accomplices, then in most US jurisdictions, they are guilty of felony murder of both the dead intruder and the dead neighbor.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692

 - Posted      Profile for Anyuta   Email Anyuta   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Finally, if you intended to kill, I'm not sure the fact that you killed the WRONG person is much of a defence.

Certainly, if you intend to murder someone, killing the wrong person doesn't help you. If you intend to lawfully kill someone, I don't think it becomes a crime if you miss - consider the case where you are the homeowner defending your family against an armed intruder or intruders. You grab your gun, and shoot at the intruders a few times.

Let's say you kill the first intruder. This is lawful self-defense. Suppose that one of your bullets missed the intruder, passed through the wall, and injured or killed your neighbor. I don't think you have committed a crime - your intent was to discharge your weapon in an entirely lawful manner.

Now, if the intruder had accomplices, then in most US jurisdictions, they are guilty of felony murder of both the dead intruder and the dead neighbor.

I do think you are still guilty of a crime...but it may be a lesser crime than murder. Manslaughter, perhaps. The innocent neighbor is still dead. You still killed him. And unlike the intruder, there can be no argument of self defense.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Finally, if you intended to kill, I'm not sure the fact that you killed the WRONG person is much of a defence.

Certainly, if you intend to murder someone, killing the wrong person doesn't help you. If you intend to lawfully kill someone, I don't think it becomes a crime if you miss - consider the case where you are the homeowner defending your family against an armed intruder or intruders. You grab your gun, and shoot at the intruders a few times.

Let's say you kill the first intruder. This is lawful self-defense. Suppose that one of your bullets missed the intruder, passed through the wall, and injured or killed your neighbor. I don't think you have committed a crime - your intent was to discharge your weapon in an entirely lawful manner.

Now, if the intruder had accomplices, then in most US jurisdictions, they are guilty of felony murder of both the dead intruder and the dead neighbor.

This is pretty much why I was saying I wouldn't make firm pronouncements. It gets very, very tricky and complicated. As I flagged, you have to start with establishing that it was lawful, and so whether self-defence is genuinely involved, and you end up with all sorts of questions about proportionality and burdens of proof and rules about mistake and attempt and so on, which I'm not at all confident are the same within all the different common law-based jurisdictions, and it's been far too long since I did proper criminal law study anyway.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A few things:

--Over the years, I've heard news stories about grandparents accidentally killing a grandchild in the night, thinking there was an intruder.

--Around here (SF Bay Area), it seems that gangs often kill the wrong person, or unintentionally hit someone nearby with a stray bullet (often a child). Don't kill people!!! But, if you're going to, then at least get the right one! How in the world does it help your street cred to kill the wrong person???

--I have no idea what happened in the case of Mr. Pistorius. But, as I listened to various news stories, I began to wonder if he might have some sort of sleep disorder.

Some people can do bizarre and awful things while they're asleep, including hurting their partner. They can be sleep-walking. (Have seen many news stories.) And some people take a long time to really wake up. So it *might* be possible that Pistorius did something in a sleep state that made sense to him, but that he wouldn't have done if really awake.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I do think you are still guilty of a crime...but it may be a lesser crime than murder. Manslaughter, perhaps. The innocent neighbor is still dead. You still killed him. And unlike the intruder, there can be no argument of self defense.

I think that this isn't right. If you're shooting at an assailant in self-defense, there is no intent to commit an illegal act. For your accidentally killing the neighbor in the process to be manslaughter, the prosecution would need to prove recklessness or criminal negligence. With no intent, and no negligence, there is no mens rea and so no crime (I don't know anywhere that has a strict liability offense of causing death.)

In some cases, recklessness would be easy to prove. Anyone attempting to use a rifle chambered in .50 BMG as a self-defense weapon in a suburb, for example, is almost automatically reckless.

But if the weapon was a "normal" one - say a pistol in 9mm parabellum or .40 S&W (probably the most common sidearms carried by US police officers) and the shot that killed the neighbor was aimed at the assailant, you're going to have a hard time proving negligence.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In some cases, recklessness would be easy to prove. Anyone attempting to use a rifle chambered in .50 BMG as a self-defense weapon in a suburb, for example, is almost automatically reckless.

Ack - missed the edit window.

Following orfeo's comment earlier, I strongly suspect that shooting through a closed, opaque door would usually rise to the level of recklessness, as you can't be certain who is behind it (although here is an example of a 12-year-old girl shooting an intruder in self-defense through a door.)

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753

 - Posted      Profile for jbohn   Author's homepage   Email jbohn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He shot through a closed door. For one thing, there's a real question about whether rules about self-defence extend as far as shooting into another room when there isn't an immediate threat of attack, as opposed to preparing yourself with a gun in case they come into *your* room.

For another, there is absolutely no way you can verify the identity of the person you are shooting at, or what they're up to, in that circumstance. So in terms of recklessness/stupidity, it's right up there.

To me, this is the crux of the issue. He violated a basic safety rule - KNOW your target and what is beyond it. Not "suspect". Not "believe". KNOW. There is virtually no circumstance where shooting at a noise is anything other than terminally idiotic.

As far as the legal issue- at least where I live, he'd be in hot water, as he'd be hard-pressed to prove an imminent threat when he couldn't identify what he was shooting at.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. [brick wall]

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The cultural differences this discussion exposes are fasinating. Reminds me of this gem from August last year.

American tourist who lamented lack of gun during encounter in Calgary park sparks online ridicule

I always wondered if the gentleman concerned was a lone fruit loop or if there were more people like him.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is a little late but very impressive story about the controversy in Newtown Conn. over gun control. It comes from PBs>Frontline>Newtown.

The sides are now in arguments with the gun owners and parents divided. Of particular note is that Newtown is the location of the National Sport Shooters Association, a nationwide lobbying group and also defending the shooting ranges within the town boundaries. The link is Newtown

Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bartolomeo

Musical Engineer
# 8352

 - Posted      Profile for Bartolomeo   Email Bartolomeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have no idea what happened in the case of Mr. Pistorius. But, as I listened to various news stories, I began to wonder if he might have some sort of sleep disorder.

Some people can do bizarre and awful things while they're asleep, including hurting their partner. They can be sleep-walking. (Have seen many news stories.) And some people take a long time to really wake up. So it *might* be possible that Pistorius did something in a sleep state that made sense to him, but that he wouldn't have done if really awake.

The consensus within the criminal justice and self defense communities, alike, is that cases where people injure a spouse while, purportedly, in a sleep-walking episode, are attempts to evade prosecution for willful behavior.

--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase

Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bartolomeo

Musical Engineer
# 8352

 - Posted      Profile for Bartolomeo   Email Bartolomeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Finally, if you intended to kill, I'm not sure the fact that you killed the WRONG person is much of a defence.

Certainly, if you intend to murder someone, killing the wrong person doesn't help you. If you intend to lawfully kill someone, I don't think it becomes a crime if you miss - consider the case where you are the homeowner defending your family against an armed intruder or intruders. You grab your gun, and shoot at the intruders a few times.

Let's say you kill the first intruder. This is lawful self-defense. Suppose that one of your bullets missed the intruder, passed through the wall, and injured or killed your neighbor. I don't think you have committed a crime - your intent was to discharge your weapon in an entirely lawful manner.

In the U.S. the general philosophy is that you are responsible for every bullet. Law enforcement are held to a similar standard. On the forums for gunnies there's a good deal of discussion of ammunition choices considering the possibility of injuring bystanders.

The Glaser safety slug was one technological approach to improving safety in this fashion. The slugs fragment on contact with a wall or window and will not penetrate beyond it.

--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase

Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have no idea what happened in the case of Mr. Pistorius. But, as I listened to various news stories, I began to wonder if he might have some sort of sleep disorder.

Some people can do bizarre and awful things while they're asleep, including hurting their partner. They can be sleep-walking. (Have seen many news stories.) And some people take a long time to really wake up. So it *might* be possible that Pistorius did something in a sleep state that made sense to him, but that he wouldn't have done if really awake.

The consensus within the criminal justice and self defense communities, alike, is that cases where people injure a spouse while, purportedly, in a sleep-walking episode, are attempts to evade prosecution for willful behavior.
There is an extremely well-documented case of a man who committed rape in his sleep. As in, his particular criminal justice community became convinced that, actually, it's possible for sleep-walking episodes to be real.

Certainly there will be people who claim a sleep-walking episode falsely, but your post reads as if a true episode is impossible. They are most definitely not impossible.

[ 21. February 2013, 21:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For your accidentally killing the neighbor in the process to be manslaughter, the prosecution would need to prove recklessness or criminal negligence. With no intent, and no negligence, there is no mens rea and so no crime

I don't know about the USA but in English law people can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Or at least could until not long ago.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For your accidentally killing the neighbor in the process to be manslaughter, the prosecution would need to prove recklessness or criminal negligence. With no intent, and no negligence, there is no mens rea and so no crime

I don't know about the USA but in English law people can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Or at least could until not long ago.
IANAL, but I suspect that there has to have been an element of negligence for such a charge to be brought.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have no idea what happened in the case of Mr. Pistorius. But, as I listened to various news stories, I began to wonder if he might have some sort of sleep disorder. Some people can do bizarre and awful things while they're asleep. . . .

The consensus within the criminal justice and self defense communities, alike, is that cases where people injure a spouse while, purportedly, in a sleep-walking episode, are attempts to evade prosecution for willful behavior.
Aactually, it's possible for sleep-walking episodes to be real. . . .
Isn't "somnambulism with amnesia for the event" (as the medical books like to say) one of the side effects of the latest faddish round of sleep medications (Ambien, Lunesta, etc.)? If Pistorius was under the influence of such a drug, I'm sure his defense attorneys will mention it.

--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.

Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't know about the USA but in English law people can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Or at least could until not long ago.

You still can, I think, but involuntary manslaughter requires either negligence (with the reasonable person test) or an unlawful act which is intended to harm, but the death of the victim is not foreseen.

The first category covers things like throwing heavy stuff out of a tower block window: you didn't intend to hurt anyone, but a reasonable person would assume that there might be a pedestrian on the footpath below.

The second category covers things like a person getting into an argument and punching someone, only it turns out that the victim has a heart condition, or an unusually-thin skull, or for some other unforeseeable reason dies as a result of being assaulted.

In the case of a self-defense shooting (and we're assuming a jurisdiction where it is legal to possess a gun and use it in self-defense) also killing an innocent third party, the second category doesn't apply (there's no intent to commit an illegal act).

The circumstances of the case would indicate whether hitting the third party was foreseeable by a reasonable person or not, and so whether the negligence required of the first category is applicable.

Civil liability is a different kettle of fish entirely...

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Your second category would be murder in English law. Contrary to most people's belief, intent to kill is not required for a murder conviction in this country. Intent to do serious harm that results in death is classified as murder (and you "take your victim as you find them" so an unusually thin skull is not a defence).

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I have no idea what happened in the case of Mr. Pistorius. But, as I listened to various news stories, I began to wonder if he might have some sort of sleep disorder. Some people can do bizarre and awful things while they're asleep. . . .

The consensus within the criminal justice and self defense communities, alike, is that cases where people injure a spouse while, purportedly, in a sleep-walking episode, are attempts to evade prosecution for willful behavior.
Aactually, it's possible for sleep-walking episodes to be real. . . .
Isn't "somnambulism with amnesia for the event" (as the medical books like to say) one of the side effects of the latest faddish round of sleep medications (Ambien, Lunesta, etc.)? If Pistorius was under the influence of such a drug, I'm sure his defense attorneys will mention it.
Maybe people do do awful things while they are asleep. But why should that get them off a criminal charge? They must still in some sense have decided to do what they did. They just forgot about it immediately afterwards because they were asleep. You can't get out of bed, walk through a door into another room, and stick a knife in someone while you are completely unconscious. There is some sort of thought process going on, even if its not the same one as when yiou are awake.

And if there is someone who can do all that completely unconsciously, then I want them locked up, whether they are morally at fault or not.

[ 23. February 2013, 12:54: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very rare, - wikiness. If you kill as a result of a defect of mind that means you do not know the nature or quality of the act, then that is the legal definition of insanity. So to say you killed in your sleep, unaware of what you were actually doing, would be to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Then disposal becomes about treatment and public safety, which seems appropriate.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Your second category would be murder in English law. Contrary to most people's belief, intent to kill is not required for a murder conviction in this country. Intent to do serious harm that results in death is classified as murder (and you "take your victim as you find them" so an unusually thin skull is not a defence).

I agree with everything except your conclusion - I don't think a single punch rises to the standard of "serious harm". Here, for example, if you'll excuse the Mail as a reference, is a single-punch killing where the offence was deemed manslaughter.

Of interest given the earlier discussion of accidental shooting of a bystander during self-defense might be this case. The Cliff Notes version is that a hunter shot and killed another man whilst out hunting. He admits he shot to kill, but thought that his target was a bear. He was tried for manslaughter, but has just been acquitted.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  24  25  26  27  28 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools