Driver, Not Shooter Charged In Road Rage Incident

[Feil]

Edit: discharges a firearm at Vick

[Darth Wong]

Not saying I disagree with you, Korto, but restating your position in bold tags doesn't qualify as an argument.

Why not? It's the same argument he used before, and Molyneux's only retort was to say that it's common practice. Since when is "it's common practice" an acceptable retort to "it's unjust?"

In law, we normally treat foreseeable consequences of actions as a matter of criminal responsibility but not direct commission. In other words, if you take action A which could foreseeably lead to action B, you can be held responsible for being negligent in failing to prevent action B. But you can't be charged with action B as if you undertook that action yourself.

So why is the standard totally different when someone commits a felony? Apparently, because someone who commits a felony is a bad person, and should therefore be subject to a harsher standard. It's a fair question to ask why this is just.

[Flagg]

Hrm...

It's obvious that he's guilty of manslaughter or whatever the appropriate thing is for behaving recklessly in such a way that it causes the accidental death of another - whether his partner was killed by a gun wielded by another person or an auto accident would make no difference on this fact.

Accidental death? He may not have intended for his partner to get killed, but that means all of jack and shit since it was in the comission of a felony and was reasonably foreseeable.

And it sure as hell doesn't fall under "reckless endangerment" since that implies a lack of intent, which isn't even a consideration in a case like this, nor should it be. These douchebags intended to harm the would-be victim. The would-be victim killed one of the dumb motherfuckers. The surviving guy is guilty of murder because he was accomplice to the now-dead dumbshit and any reasonable person could have seen that them getting plugged was something that had a real possibility of happening. Intent doesn't even come into play.

It's also clear that the perp was committing a (number of) felony(ies).

And his accomplice died due to that.

I guess what ties me up is the disconnect between intent and result. Do intent to murder and manslaughter sum to murder-1, even if they aren't on the same person? Should they?

What manslaughter? That's a legal term that isn't applicable in this case. Being the accomplice of a person that is killed in the commission of a felony makes you guilty of murder in the state of Florida. IIRC it's second degree murder.

This shit about intent is nonsense as it has no bering on the case. It doesn't come into play at all, nor should it. Just like if you rob a store and some elderly customer strokes out and dies. You didn't intend for that to happen, but it's a foreseeable consequense of holding up a store.

If Murderer Max discharges a firearm and Victim Vick, misses, and hits Victim Vicky coming home from work three houses down, is he guilty of murder, or of intent to murder, manslaughter, and unlawful discharge of a firearm?

I'm assuming "and" is supposed to be "at".

He's guilty of murder, obviousely. Probably first degree murder since he did intend to kill the first victim, though I could be wrong there. He's guilty of quite a few felonies, besides that as well, but the murder is the relevant one.

Anyone with a brain would know that if you fire a gun in an open area, you run the risk of hitting a person and killing them. If it wasn't done during the commision of another felony, then it would most likely be negligent homocide. Since the murderer was in the act of attempting to kill the first victim, then the "accidental" death of the second victim is murder just as if he'd intended to kill her, IIRC.

[Darth Wong]

These douchebags intended to harm the would-be victim. The would-be victim killed one of the dumb motherfuckers. The surviving guy is guilty of murder because he was accomplice to the now-dead dumbshit and any reasonable person could have seen that them getting plugged was something that had a real possibility of happening. Intent doesn't even come into play.

Hey knuckle-dragger, ever heard of the "is/ought" fallacy? Or do you intend to keep saying "this is the way it is" in response to every criticism of the existing law?

[Flagg]

These douchebags intended to harm the would-be victim. The would-be victim killed one of the dumb motherfuckers. The surviving guy is guilty of murder because he was accomplice to the now-dead dumbshit and any reasonable person could have seen that them getting plugged was something that had a real possibility of happening. Intent doesn't even come into play.

Hey knuckle-dragger, ever heard of the "is/ought" fallacy? Or do you intend to keep saying "this is the way it is" in response to every criticism of the existing law?

There seemed to confusion as to whether or not intent was required under the law this guy was being charged under. That's what my point there was.

I don't think intent should come into play in a situation like this.

I'm generally a supporter of that law, though there have been other situations where I think a lesser charge was warranted rather than the automatic (IIRC) second degree murder charge.

[Darth Wong]

There seemed to confusion as to whether or not intent was required under the law this guy was being charged under. That's what my point there was.

No, someone argued that the law is unjust.

[Flagg]

There seemed to confusion as to whether or not intent was required under the law this guy was being charged under. That's what my point there was.

No, someone argued that the law is unjust.

Oh, well I missed that, then. My bad.

[Korto]

Firstly, sorry for disappearing. My connection dropped out, and when I reconnected I couldn't log back in. Tried for a while, then gave up and went to bed. Problem fixed now. I wont go into what it was, because there's an excellent chance it was me typing in the wrong password, and that would be very embarrassing to admit, so I'm not telling anyone. So there.

Secondly, as has been stated above, I'm not debating whether the written law holds him responsible, but whether that law is just.
i) Holding someone responsible for another person's actions surely has to cause some qualms. What happened to the principle of personal responsibility? Why should the fact you're committing a crime change that?
ii) It means the same crime, committed against different people, is treated differently. Commit assault against one person, you get three years; against another you get three life sentences. Why? Because you picked the loonie with a gun who can't shoot straight and who took out three passers-by. This indirectly breaches the principle that everyone is equal under the law.

This case is even more blurred, as the dead guy was also a perpetrator. What if the accused wasn't there, and the dead guy had been the lone perpetrator? It's reasonable to believe he would still be dead. How can someone be responsible for something if, if they aren't there, it still happens?

[Sarevok]

Well it says in the article Lonzisero was the one who got angry and decided to block the other guy's car. Then it was again him who drew a knife and attacked the other guy. Borowsky followed this crazy driver and got killed. So Lonzisero is responsible for getting Borowsky killed.

[Korto]

Well it says in the article Lonzisero was the one who got angry and decided to block the other guy's car. Then it was again him who drew a knife and attacked the other guy. Borowsky followed this crazy driver and got killed. So Lonzisero is responsible for getting Borowsky killed.

Conceded; Lonzisero was main instigator. Serves me right for not reviewing the article. This, however, is not what, under the law, makes him guilty. If Lonzisero had died instead, Borowsky would be charged; in a way, for just being there.

The guy I hold ultimately responsible for Borowsky's death, is Borowsky. No-one else.