Could an arsonist be tried for murder? Any lawyer in the ATOT hizzouse?

[sillymofo]

???

 

[fatalbert]

yes

 

[notfred]

If the fire kills people.

 

[pulse8]

If someone died in the fire he/she set? Of course.

Otherwise everyone would be killing people using fire.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

At least 16 counts of murder on an arsonists hands now, if he/she's caught...

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
At least 16 counts of murder on an arsonists hands now, if he/she's caught...

How do you prove that he/she started all the fires?

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
At least 16 counts of murder on an arsonists hands now, if he/she's caught...

How do you prove that he/she started all the fires?

same with all homocide cases...evidence

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
At least 16 counts of murder on an arsonists hands now, if he/she's caught...

How do you prove that he/she started all the fires?

There are many factors - I'm not an investigator, but I'm sure that if the person is a suspect and can't be accounted for there's a very big piece to the addition of the case...

 

[Balt]

Murder implies intent. If it could be established the arsonist intended to kill someone(s), then I guess they could be tried for murder. Otherwise I believe it would be manslaughter.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer so I'm basically talking out of my ass. 😀

 

[PlatinumGold]

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder?

what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

There is a big difference between manslaughter and murder. IF some one is convicted of murder, they could get the chair, on the other hand, involuntary manslaughter (drunk driving) will never be given a death sentence.

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

then the arsonist is interviewed by a court psycologist to determine whether he is fit to stand trial for his crime or just be sent away.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

you are confusing terms. i always understood an ARSONIST to be someone who was tried and convicted of INTENTIONALLY starting fires.

You CAN commit murder with fire, hence an arsonist can be tried for murder.

i just answered your question as you posed it, if it was a different question than rephrase it.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

There is a big difference between manslaughter and murder. IF some one is convicted of murder, they could get the chair, on the other hand, involuntary manslaughter (drunk driving) will never be given a death sentence.

Uh, so didn't you just answer your own question?

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

There is a big difference between manslaughter and murder. IF some one is convicted of murder, they could get the chair, on the other hand, involuntary manslaughter (drunk driving) will never be given a death sentence.

Uh, so didn't you just answer your own question?

Don't get me wrong, my question is not answered indefinitely. The reason I asked is because the news is posting a wanted poster for this arsonist with the reason(s) of Felony Murder. I don't know much about laws, but from what I've been watching, it couldn't be done. I just want to know if some one would have an argument, with convictions to the question.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Balt
Murder implies intent. If it could be established the arsonist intended to kill someone(s), then I guess they could be tried for murder. Otherwise I believe it would be manslaughter.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer so I'm basically talking out of my ass. 😀

Yep, but at least, you're honest about it. 😎

Murder can also be the result of reckless disregard. That is, it can be murder if one recklessly disregards the foreseeable consequenses of an act that could cause someone's death. Also, it would be a death that directly resulted from the commission of a felony, which is also murder in most jurisdictions.

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

can an explosives expert be tried for murder? can a marksman be tried for murder? what makes you think the weapon someone uses to kill makes any difference as to whether or not someone can be tried for murder?

So you tell me that if you go camping, and you accidentally started a forest fire, you should be tried for murder also? I know that might be a bad example, but what if the arsonist(s) intent were just to start the fire out of a psychological defect, a love for flame. People die as a result but he/she never intended to kill any one. I'm not a lawyer either, but watching enough Forensic Science tells me that the suspect has to have a motive in order for him/her to be tried for murder.

A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

There is a big difference between manslaughter and murder. IF some one is convicted of murder, they could get the chair, on the other hand, involuntary manslaughter (drunk driving) will never be given a death sentence.

Uh, so didn't you just answer your own question?

Don't get me wrong, my question is not answered indefinitely. The reason I asked is because the news is posting a wanted poster for this arsonist with the reason(s) of Felony Murder. I don't know much about laws, but from what I've been watching, it couldn't be done. I just want to know if some one would have an argument, with convictions to the question.

Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: pulse8A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

There is a big difference between manslaughter and murder. IF some one is convicted of murder, they could get the chair, on the other hand, involuntary manslaughter (drunk driving) will never be given a death sentence.

Uh, so didn't you just answer your own question?

Don't get me wrong, my question is not answered indefinitely. The reason I asked is because the news is posting a wanted poster for this arsonist with the reason(s) of Felony Murder. I don't know much about laws, but from what I've been watching, it couldn't be done. I just want to know if some one would have an argument, with convictions to the question.

Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

But he has a motive.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades
Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

Isn't that because the death occured during a felony (armed robbery)?

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: pulse8A suspect doesn't need a motive to be tried for murder. Drunk drivers who had no intention of killing anyone get tried for murder all the time.

There is a big difference between manslaughter and murder. IF some one is convicted of murder, they could get the chair, on the other hand, involuntary manslaughter (drunk driving) will never be given a death sentence.

Uh, so didn't you just answer your own question?

Don't get me wrong, my question is not answered indefinitely. The reason I asked is because the news is posting a wanted poster for this arsonist with the reason(s) of Felony Murder. I don't know much about laws, but from what I've been watching, it couldn't be done. I just want to know if some one would have an argument, with convictions to the question.

Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

But he has a motive.

how do you know that? I bet most armed burgulars don't want to kill anyone.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades
Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

Isn't that because the death occured during a felony (armed robbery)?

isn't arson also a felony?

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades
Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

Isn't that because the death occured during a felony (armed robbery)?

excellent deduction. now if you commit arson on public (owned by government) land, isn't that a felony too? not saying you said the opposite, just trying to relate both.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: SackOfAllTrades Think of the situation of an armed burgular shooting someone at a robbery...there's no pre-meditation to kill yet the burgular will get murder one.

Isn't that because the death occured during a felony (armed robbery)?

excellent deduction. now if you commit arson on public (owned by government) land, isn't that a felony too? not saying you said the opposite, just trying to relate both.

I think there could be a little confusion here, if a buglar kill some one during his buglary, then the motive would be to rid of witnesses. Manslaughter or premeditated murders are all felony offenses. Granted that arson is a felony offense, but how do you tie the accidental deaths to murder? At best, he could be tried for manslaughter. I don't sympathize (I would personally toss the bastages into the fires which they started), just curious.