ManyBeers
Platinum Member
- Aug 30, 2004
- 2,519
- 1
- 81
1st time offender. No
Speeding is not a felony so No
Talking on a cellphone while driving is not a felony so No.
Felony Murder rule
Speeding is not a felony so No
Talking on a cellphone while driving is not a felony so No.
Felony Murder rule
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Are you seriously that fucking emotional? Part of the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent/foreknowledge.
Our legal system: thank God it wasn't created by P&N
FallenHero
Diamond Member
- Jan 2, 2006
- 5,659
- 0
- 0
How about burning him at the stake?
He liked to set fires, so let him burn.
Well maybe indians (Native Americans) would roast him slowly over a bed of coals. (Kind of like "last of the Mohicans")
He liked to set fires, so let him burn.
Well maybe indians (Native Americans) would roast him slowly over a bed of coals. (Kind of like "last of the Mohicans")
That's a racist crock of shit for a number of reason:
1. Raymond Oyler, the convicted arsonist, is not African American.
2. The felony murder rule dates back possibly as far as the twefth century.
Beyond that, another legal principle also qualifies his crimes as murder. Specifically, under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another.
He intentionally set multiple fires. His judgment was not impaired at the time. His intelligence is not in question.
He knew, or should have known, that starting a fire could lead to someone dying. There have been numerous reports of people dying in wildfires in the past.
He may not have planned for someone to die. He even may have desired that no one die. However, he demonstrated complete disregard for the safety of others.
If you deliberately drive straight down a crowded sidewalk at 30 mph, and truly hope that you don't hurt anyone, but you "accidentally" kill somone, are you a murderer?
Burn him at the stake.
EDIT: Darn, didn't notice this was an old thread.
He knew, or should have known, that starting a fire could lead to someone dying. There have been numerous reports of people dying in wildfires in the past.
He may not have planned for someone to die. He even may have desired that no one die. However, he demonstrated complete disregard for the safety of others.
If you deliberately drive straight down a crowded sidewalk at 30 mph, and truly hope that you don't hurt anyone, but you "accidentally" kill somone, are you a murderer?
Burn him at the stake.
EDIT: Darn, didn't notice this was an old thread.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
What the hell is with the people citing the juries decision for their own decision? Form your own opinion based on your believes, not on following a jury like some stupid-ass sheep. The jury is made people like you and me!
I would say I think he should rot in prison, but we do not yet have self-sustaining (not funded by taxes) prisons. Thus I say kill him. Im not paying to try and rehabilitate this even if the guy went on to help create some great thing for humanity. Fuck him, humanity will create those things better off without them being stained in blood.
I would say I think he should rot in prison, but we do not yet have self-sustaining (not funded by taxes) prisons. Thus I say kill him. Im not paying to try and rehabilitate this even if the guy went on to help create some great thing for humanity. Fuck him, humanity will create those things better off without them being stained in blood.
Personally I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous killers of society, those who really are in a category all by themselves. In this case, I think the murder conviction is appropriate since he set the fires intentionally, so there's the reasonable expectation that someone could get hurt or killed by doing so. Still, he did not actually mean to kill anyone, it was a byproduct of his felony. Life in prison seems appropriate, death penalty should be reserved for someone who intentionally kills others with the intent of doing so.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
Alright cool, Double Trouble, you can pay the first year of his life term, ok? 30grand. I hope you're getting a bonus this year! 
According to The New York Times, he was a methamphetamine user who had lost custody of his daughter. Also, it seems as if he was looking to create a distraction to "break his dog out of the pound" (NY Times, 2009)
Furthermore, it seems that he has a history with Arson.
Source - The New York Times
Furthermore, it seems that he has a history with Arson.
Source - CNN
surprised this didn't earn you a vacation from this forum.
----------------------------------
I just browsed into this thread this AM. See comments added to his post
Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy
Even if he does get the death penalty, it's kinda meaningless here in CA. Nice to know he'll rot on death row for a good long time. IMHO, a far worse punishment than death.
Why, He intentionally set the fires that caused the death of several people. That not negligent, it's not accidental, it's premeditated. Fry the fucker.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter