StarDestroyer.Net BBS

phongn wrote:

Kelly Antilles wrote:A 3-yr old boy was killed from a blow to the head by his mother's current boyfriend, who just happens to be a marine as well. They're charging him with involuntary manslaughter.

In a purely legalistic sense it's probably easier to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. The evidence required to prove the he intended to kill the child would be more difficult than simply using involuntary manslaughter.

And yes, that guy should burn.

Actually, manslughter would be more appropriate, legally. He deliberately struck the kid, that means he had intent to injure, even if it wasn't to kill. Involuntary manslaughter is accidentally killing someone without intent. This clearly falls under the voluntary category.

I do not condone child abuse, or killing people but the charges would depend on the facts on a case to case basis. But you simply cannot jump up and yell manslaughter or murder for that matter when you do not know the facts of the case. I am not a lawyer, and I can only speak from my own ignorance on this subject, but if the police/prosecuter find whatever evidence they need for a specific charge, then that is their business. If it was intentional or accidental, I guess the charges could range from (involuntary) manslaughter, up to first degree murder.

Point being, we know very little, and at least here in America, it is innocent until proven guilty. At least, that is the way it is supposed to be. It would be wise not to make snap judgments; simply because one is arrested and charged with a crime does not mean one is guilty.

King Cosmos wrote:I do not condone child abuse, or killing people but the charges would depend on the facts on a case to case basis. But you simply cannot jump up and yell manslaughter or murder for that matter when you do not know the facts of the case. I am not a lawyer, and I can only speak from my own ignorance on this subject, but if the police/prosecuter find whatever evidence they need for a specific charge, then that is their business. If it was intentional or accidental, I guess the charges could range from (involuntary) manslaughter, up to first degree murder.

Point being, we know very little, and at least here in America, it is innocent until proven guilty. At least, that is the way it is supposed to be. It would be wise not to make snap judgments; simply because one is arrested and charged with a crime does not mean one is guilty.

We're not a court, Cosmos. We don't have to make the decision. All we have to do is share an opinion.

Spanking is okay to me, but not striking a child hard enough to kill. This man was not tring to discipline, otherwise there would be no head truama.

Kelly Antilles wrote:

King Cosmos wrote: To be totally objective about it, I would have to say I leave the charges up to the police. That article said nothing about a blow to the head, and basically nothing else. Until we get the facts I don't see why one can pass judgement so quickly, unless you want to make assumptions.

Bingo, they finally posted it. It was blunt trauma to the head.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ii/1381637

Yes, but this does not really answer anyone's questions, it only says that the child died due to blunt force trauma. How does this show that the charges need to be manslaughter instead of involuntary manslaughter? The police apparenlty felt it was involuntary manslaughter and this will be ultimately determined in a court of law.

I think a lot of people here are letting their emotions get in the way of an objective view of this accused crime. Understandable and I am not dismissing that; however, assuming someones guilt based on little evidence is not a very good thing.

David wrote:Spanking is okay to me, but not striking a child hard enough to kill. This man was not tring to discipline, otherwise there would be no head truama.

I think that is a rather large assumption. We practically know nothing. Only time will tell what really happened in the house and we can all make better judgements on the facts that are presented.

King Cosmos wrote:

Kelly Antilles wrote:

King Cosmos wrote: To be totally objective about it, I would have to say I leave the charges up to the police. That article said nothing about a blow to the head, and basically nothing else. Until we get the facts I don't see why one can pass judgement so quickly, unless you want to make assumptions.

Bingo, they finally posted it. It was blunt trauma to the head.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ii/1381637

Yes, but this does not really answer anyone's questions, it only says that the child died due to blunt force trauma. How does this show that the charges need to be manslaughter instead of involuntary manslaughter? The police apparenlty felt it was involuntary manslaughter and this will be ultimately determined in a court of law.

I think a lot of people here are letting their emotions get in the way of an objective view of this accused crime. Understandable and I am not dismissing that; however, assuming someones guilt based on little evidence is not a very good thing.

That works in some cases, but how would you possibly and objectively view a situation like this without coming to some basic conclusions. He hit his kid hard enough to kill him. How do you put that in a good light? Now as far as murder or manslaughter in their various degrees, you have some wiggle room but since I am not a court and don't have to assume innocent until guilty I will keep my opinion that the fucker is guilty untill a court shows me he is innocent. And even then I might not believe it.

King Cosmos wrote:

David wrote:Spanking is okay to me, but not striking a child hard enough to kill. This man was not tring to discipline, otherwise there would be no head truama.

I think that is a rather large assumption. We practically know nothing. Only time will tell what really happened in the house and we can all make better judgements on the facts that are presented.

He hit the kid and it kill the kid. Ergo, he's a murderer. Simple enough.

Oh yes, I have not voted yet because the Poll makes no sense. Parents cannot be charged with (involuntary) manslaughter for simply abusing or hitting children. (they are not dead!) That would be child abuse or whatever technical term they all use nowadays.

All jokes aside, I think you should fix the poll:

If a child dies from a parent hitting/abusing how should they be charged:

yadda yadda


Or am I nitpicking?

Nit picking

On a legal note for those who think that DA's are leninet with charges sometimes, you have to remember it's what you can prove NOT what you think. The DA probably realized he had a shaky case to prove intent so he went with Involuntary Manslaughter which is FAR easier to prove. The DA is playing the odds when he does this and so therefore he is only increasing his chances of getting a conviction.

Would you prefer that the jury cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill this child (I happen to disagree that you can prove intent on this, the DA chose the right charge) and thus go free or that the jury will find that he CAUSED the death of the child through his own negligence (I can convict on these facts with this charge with my eyes closed.) Law is all about the fine points and not emotion.

Just food for thought.

I'll change the poll. I didn't at first because I was tring to copy it exactly. It really doesn't make sense.

Stormbringer wrote:

King Cosmos wrote:

David wrote:Spanking is okay to me, but not striking a child hard enough to kill. This man was not tring to discipline, otherwise there would be no head truama.

I think that is a rather large assumption. We practically know nothing. Only time will tell what really happened in the house and we can all make better judgements on the facts that are presented.

He hit the kid and it kill the kid. Ergo, he's a murderer. Simple enough.

We do not know why he hit the child, or under what conditions. The police apparently didn't think the man should be charged with murder. Afterall, they have a better grasp of the facts and not us. So until we know what exactly happened, we can only assume the police are correct in their judgment.

See, my point is... any adult who hits a child and it kills said child should be brought up on voluntary muder charges, not involuntary! Obviously, this adult hit the child as if he (the child) was an adult. That was stupid on his part. Striking a child that hard should never happen. People need to fucking THINK before they pull their hand back on anyone, but especially a child.

Stormbringer wrote:Nit picking

Well pssft.

Actually, the only way I could change it and still have it apply to the subject would be to say, "How should parents who kill their children be sentenced?" Who is going to vote against that? The actual options wouldn't even be manslaughter, it would be the death penalty where I live for killing a minor. This assumes of course that the killing was intentional, and I don't see how it couldn't be intentional. if ya'll want to change it contact bean. I have to go now, sorry.

Stravo wrote:On a legal note for those who think that DA's are leninet with charges sometimes, you have to remember it's what you can prove NOT what you think. The DA probably realized he had a shaky case to prove intent so he went with Involuntary Manslaughter which is FAR easier to prove. The DA is playing the odds when he does this and so therefore he is only increasing his chances of getting a conviction.

Would you prefer that the jury cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill this child (I happen to disagree that you can prove intent on this, the DA chose the right charge) and thus go free or that the jury will find that he CAUSED the death of the child through his own negligence (I can convict on these facts with this charge with my eyes closed.) Law is all about the fine points and not emotion.

Just food for thought.

Hm, you have a point there (written most eloquently, as usual, if I may say). So, on that point, yeah, you're right. Involuntary for the initial charge is good. But what kind of sentence can you get for that.

My basic point of this whole thing is that ADULTS (this guy wasn't even his parent!) need to think first.

King Cosmos wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:
He hit the kid and it kill the kid. Ergo, he's a murderer. Simple enough.

We do not know why he hit the child, or under what conditions. The police apparently didn't think the man should be charged with murder. Afterall, they have a better grasp of the facts and not us. So until we know what exactly happened, we can only assume the police are correct in their judgment.

I didn't say he should be charged with murderer, he doesn't meet the legal definition. Just that he is one in spirit. I'd go for the manslaughter charge myself since it's pretty clear he intended to hit the child.

Kelly Antilles wrote:See, my point is... any adult who hits a child and it kills said child should be brought up on voluntary muder charges, not involuntary! Obviously, this adult hit the child as if he (the child) was an adult. That was stupid on his part. Striking a child that hard should never happen. People need to fucking THINK before they pull their hand back on anyone, but especially a child.

Well, not murder charges.

And I agree that if a person hits, beats, abuses a child to death, then yes charges of murder apply. But in this case, we don't know what happened. It was a little blurb in the newspaper.

I guess what it finally comes down too is that we know nothing. I really do not know the difference between involunatary manslaughter or just simple manslaughter. I am assuming they are both accidental but for different reasons...I really have no idea. The police and the DA felt that Involuntary manslaughter should be the charges so we can only wait and see for more info.

You believe it should be manslaughter all the way when a child dies from abuse (unintentional I assume with this specific charge) well, I disagree because there is differences between (involuntary) manslaughter and it would have to go on a case to case basis with the facts.

Or......

Send him to Judge Judy

Stormbringer wrote:

King Cosmos wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:
He hit the kid and it kill the kid. Ergo, he's a murderer. Simple enough.

We do not know why he hit the child, or under what conditions. The police apparently didn't think the man should be charged with murder. Afterall, they have a better grasp of the facts and not us. So until we know what exactly happened, we can only assume the police are correct in their judgment.

I didn't say he should be charged with murderer, he doesn't meet the legal definition. Just that he is one in spirit. I'd go for the manslaughter charge myself since it's pretty clear he intended to hit the child.

Correction noted.

But, how do you come to the conclusion "he intentionally hit the child"? Of course the child was hit, but we do not know why. As it stands now, the police felt that the reason why only warrants a charge of involuntary manslaughter. So basically what you are doing at the moment is weighing your opinion on groundless assumptions.

Kelly Antilles wrote:

Stravo wrote:On a legal note for those who think that DA's are leninet with charges sometimes, you have to remember it's what you can prove NOT what you think. The DA probably realized he had a shaky case to prove intent so he went with Involuntary Manslaughter which is FAR easier to prove. The DA is playing the odds when he does this and so therefore he is only increasing his chances of getting a conviction.

Would you prefer that the jury cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill this child (I happen to disagree that you can prove intent on this, the DA chose the right charge) and thus go free or that the jury will find that he CAUSED the death of the child through his own negligence (I can convict on these facts with this charge with my eyes closed.) Law is all about the fine points and not emotion.

Just food for thought.

Hm, you have a point there (written most eloquently, as usual, if I may say). So, on that point, yeah, you're right. Involuntary for the initial charge is good. But what kind of sentence can you get for that.

My basic point of this whole thing is that ADULTS (this guy wasn't even his parent!) need to think first.

I agree with Stavo as well. Perhaps the man did intend to kill the child, but we simply do not know at the moment. And yes, Adults should think first, but I don't think this will weigh legally.

Knife wrote:

King Cosmos wrote:

Kelly Antilles wrote: Bingo, they finally posted it. It was blunt trauma to the head.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ii/1381637

Yes, but this does not really answer anyone's questions, it only says that the child died due to blunt force trauma. How does this show that the charges need to be manslaughter instead of involuntary manslaughter? The police apparenlty felt it was involuntary manslaughter and this will be ultimately determined in a court of law.

I think a lot of people here are letting their emotions get in the way of an objective view of this accused crime. Understandable and I am not dismissing that; however, assuming someones guilt based on little evidence is not a very good thing.

That works in some cases, but how would you possibly and objectively view a situation like this without coming to some basic conclusions. He hit his kid hard enough to kill him. How do you put that in a good light? Now as far as murder or manslaughter in their various degrees, you have some wiggle room but since I am not a court and don't have to assume innocent until guilty I will keep my opinion that the fucker is guilty untill a court shows me he is innocent. And even then I might not believe it.

AHHHH too much mail from these posts!

I agree, apparently the child was hit hard enough to where it died. And yes, it would be difficult to put this in a very good light. But the point remains, we do not know all the facts yet so we cannot form a GOOD opinion on the matter. You are welcome to your "guilty until proven innocent" opinion, but you should realize, it is very subjective because it is not grounded by facts and it also makes one look foolish.