[Godstud]

It is semantics because if they could prove that there was unlawful premeditation, then it WOULD have been considered murder. She could have been charged with a Class B murder, but I guess there was insufficient evidence for that. Law is pretty complex and I was simplifying it. You were just being anal.

She's lucky as Belize still has the death penalty.

[Puffer Fish]

Newspapers often get stories wrong. Appearances often fail to withstand scrutiny. No system is perfect, but unless you plan on moving to a cave, you dance with what ya got...

Or to put it slightly differently, threads like this are a waste of time.

I don't see what your argument is.

Are you trying to say that it totally depends on the specific situation, and that juries and authorities have to make their decisions on a case by case basis, and it is so complicated and specific to the unique individual case that you think it is outside the realm of a general legal or political discussion?

I mean, when we read stories like this, are there any principles we can take away from it, which might be applicable to other cases as a whole?

[Puffer Fish]

I wonder if any of you believe she should get a partial or longer prison sentence due to the possibility she may have committed an intentional murder. They are suspicious circumstances.

I will assume not all of you think in terms of black and white.

She IS responsible for killing him. That is kind of pretty much a known fact.
If we suspect there may have been a substantial possibility it was intentional, should that have a bearing on how much punishment she should get?

[late]

I don't see what your argument is.

Why, a bunch of people have said it.

It's a waste of time.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, people should not receive longer sentences because they may have also committed other crimes.

If she is found guilty for accidentally shooting this cop in the head (insert celebratory smiley here) then she should receive the sentence for that. She should not get additional punishment because it might have also been an intentional murder.

That is how laws are supposed to work in liberal democracy.

[Puffer Fish]

No, people should not receive longer sentences because they may have also committed other crimes.

If she is found guilty for accidentally shooting this cop in the head (insert celebratory smiley here) ...

Why do I get the feeling you may be a little biased in this case because the victim happened to be a police officer?


I'm going to ask you to do something, to play a mental game, to help remove your bias. Imagine that the roles were reversed. It was the police officer who shot the woman, and claimed it was an accident.
Would you still have the same opinion about this case?

[Puffer Fish]

No, people should not receive longer sentences because they may have also committed other crimes.

If she is found guilty for accidentally shooting this cop in the head (insert celebratory smiley here) then she should receive the sentence for that. She should not get additional punishment because it might have also been an intentional murder.

I know, but it could be a very easy way to get away with murder.

Especially if you're a woman because everyone will give you more sympathy.

If you put a man in her shoes, and made the victim his wife, for example, people would be a lot more suspicious about the man.

[Puffer Fish]

She should not get additional punishment because it might have also been an intentional murder.

That is how laws are supposed to work in liberal democracy

Pants-of-dog, I find it interesting you seemed to have a very different opinion about that when it came to the Derek Chauvin - George Floyd case. Weren't so willing to give the killer the benefit of the doubt then.

Are you willing to concede you might have some double standards?

[Godstud]

when it came to the Derek Chauvin - George Floyd case. Weren't so willing to give the killer the benefit of the doubt then.

There was clear evidence, from the onset(Re: George Floyd), that was displayed fort all to see, demonstrating the police officer's guilt. You like to ignore reality and facts when they don't suit you. Try arguing from a point of facts and logic, not simply your feelings.

[Puffer Fish]

There was clear evidence, from the onset(Re: George Floyd), that was displayed fort all to see, demonstrating the police officer's guilt.

You seem to be being vague again, with no logical argument.

All you say is there was "evidence" proving "guilt".

Let's look at the similarities between the two cases. They both made a mistake and in both cases we know they killed someone. They both claim the death was not intentional.

Is being half drunk and carelessly pulling the trigger while handing someone a gun less worse than a police officer who is trying to subdue a suspect who is high on drugs and acting irrational and hysterical?

[Godstud]

You seem to be being vague again, with no logical argument.

Overwhelming evidence is not vague. Nice try.

Let's look at the similarities between the two cases. They both made a mistake and in both cases we know they killed someone. They both claim the death was not intentional.

No. The only similarity is that someone died.

Is being half drunk and carelessly pulling the trigger while handing someone a gun less worse than a police officer who is trying to subdue a suspect who is high on drugs and acting irrational and hysterical?

Yes. Civilians and police officers have different levels of responsibility. A police officer, once they have restrained a person, is responsible for the well-being of said person.

At a certain point, restrain can become deadly, as it did in the George Floyd case, and this was excessive, given the situation, and other police officers present. There was clear and overwhelming evidence of this. The police officer's claim(he was NOT drunk) was invalidated by his actions, that were on camera for all to see.

[Puffer Fish]

At a certain point, restrain can become deadly, as it did in the George Floyd case, and this was excessive, given the situation, and other police officers present. There was clear and overwhelming evidence of this.

It might have been a mistake, but it was an understandable mistake, given the circumstances. (In my strong opinion)

However, we are now arguing about a separate story, so I will stop discussing it to avoid derailing this thread off topic.

If anyone wants to further discuss that story, they can do so here: Chauvin's Innocence

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do I get the feeling you may be a little biased in this case because the victim happened to be a police officer?


I'm going to ask you to do something, to play a mental game, to help remove your bias. Imagine that the roles were reversed. It was the police officer who shot the woman, and claimed it was an accident.
Would you still have the same opinion about this case?

That the cop tried to rape her and it went wrong and someone died?

Yes.

[Puffer Fish]

That the cop tried to rape her and it went wrong and someone died?

Yes.

Sorry, it's still not clear whether you are saying yes or no. Are you saying you would still believe the police officer that it had been an accident?