Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:
Okay.

The "attempted" part is not implying that there was an actual forethought attached to the action, but rather that your actions during the course of the event were directed towards a goal.

Still, as far as I know there is no such thing as "attempted manslaughter" as the crime of manslaughter turns on actually killing another person either voluntarily (with malice aforethought) or involuntarily (without malice aforethought). If you do not kill the person, its simply assault, battery, or both.

In essence, while you can intend to commit murder, you cannot intend to commit manslaughter outside certain, fairly narrow, mitigating circumstances that generally involve pleading down from murder.

I absolutely get pissed when people need a group of friends to fight along side with. fething pussies if you ask me. I personally think the fella driving that got beat, is the badass in this story. He stopped his car, and confronted whoever through the rock, WHILE THEY WERE IN A GANG OF PEOPLE!



My definition of badass. (Melissia thats what I was referring to in some other thread about women and badasses.FYI)

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Okay.

The "attempted" part is not implying that there was an actual forethought attached to the action, but rather that your actions during the course of the event were directed towards a goal.

Still, as far as I know there is no such thing as "attempted manslaughter" as the crime of manslaughter turns on actually killing another person either voluntarily (with malice aforethought) or involuntarily (without malice aforethought). If you do not kill the person, its simply assault, battery, or both.

In essence, while you can intend to commit murder, you cannot intend to commit manslaughter outside certain, fairly narrow, mitigating circumstances that generally involve pleading down from murder.

You actually brought up a good point. I don't have access to the stuff I usually do for researching cases, so I headed to that devil, Wikipedia.

There's one notable case that came up:

January 29, 2006: The shooting followed a pursuit in which Elio Carrion, an Air Force senior airman who had recently returned from Iraq, was the passenger in a Corvette that led deputies on a high-speed chase. San Bernardino Deputy Ivory Webb held Carrion and Luis Escobedo, the driver, at gunpoint as a nearby resident videotaped the encounter. The video, which has been played repeatedly during the trial, shows Webb shoot Carrion three times as Carrion complied with the deputy's orders to "get up." Carrion survived the shooting, and Webb was dismissed from the force as a result of his actions. Webb was charged with attempted manslaughter and assault with a weapon, but was acquitted by a jury. The county settled with Carrion for $1.5 million

So attempted manslaughter does exist, but it just seems to be fairly rare.

The common law didn't accept the idea of attempted manslaughter.

If someone has the specific intent to kill then that person is guilty of first degree murder.

If they didn't have the specific intent to kill then they may be guilty of a lesser offense, like manslaughter.

However, attempt is a specific intent crime. In order to be guilty of an attempted crime, you must have had the specific intent to kill.

If you don't have the specific intent to kill, then you can't be charged with attempt. If you do have the specific intent to kill then you can't be charged with manslaughter.

Statutory laws have changed this, there is now what is known as "voluntary manslaughter." Generally that involves killing someone in the "heat of passion" (finding your wife in bed with someone else being the textbook example). There is an intent to kill, but the killing is somewhat excused.

There's also the "imperfect self defense" rule. If you have a genuine, but unreasonable, belief that your life is threatened, you are guilty of of manslaughter if you use lethal force. Again, there's an intent to kill, but the killing is somewhat excused.

Both of these crimes are specific intent crimes and therefore a person could be charged with their attempt.

KingCracker wrote:I absolutely get pissed when people need a group of friends to fight along side with. fething pussies if you ask me. I personally think the fella driving that got beat, is the badass in this story. He stopped his car, and confronted whoever through the rock, WHILE THEY WERE IN A GANG OF PEOPLE!



My definition of badass. (Melissia thats what I was referring to in some other thread about women and badasses.FYI)

I think that the guy who brings a bunch of his friends to a fight might not be badass, but he is smart.

As they say in just about all the hand to hand combat training I've ever received, "The guy who wins is the guy whose buddy shows up first (with a gun)"

Theres also a big difference between wartime tactics/ethics and what is excusable civilian behavior.

Rolling in a mob beating up white people is hardly the same as military squad mates keeping each other alive.

And as far as the quote about "Remembering Trayvon.".. the stupid thing there is that it wasn't even a white guy that shot him.

Biccat, I think you mean second degree murder. First degree requires both intent and premeditation.

This is such a media beat-up. The group of 30 were clearly forced to defend themselves against the two white people. And there's a good chance that at least one of those upstanding African-American citizens has a slave ancestor, and that clearly justifies beating up a terrified white girl. She obvious deserved it, 'cause she's white.



Translation of the above: Reverse racism is stupid and I'm really tired of seeing white people getting blamed for 'racist' attacks when some minority groups never get the same label attached.

H.B.M.C. wrote:This is such a media beat-up. The group of 30 were clearly forced to defend themselves against the two white people. And there's a good chance that at least one of those upstanding African-American citizens has a slave ancestor, and that clearly justifies beating up a terrified white girl. She obvious deserved it, 'cause she's white.



Translation of the above: Reverse racism is stupid and I'm really tired of seeing white people getting blamed for 'racist' attacks when some minority groups never get the same label attached.

Yes, becuase that is exactly what was happening here.

/scarcasm.

hotsauceman1 wrote:So where are people offering bounties for these guys arrests huh?
God, This upsets me. Why continue to to preach equal rights, but dont grant equal rights?
Just because the victims where white doesnt mean its not a hate crime.

Update. The couple complained about lack of police effort. Under pressure, the governor is looking at stepping in.

There have been death threats to the couple and they have private security now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:This is such a media beat-up. The group of 30 were clearly forced to defend themselves against the two white people. And there's a good chance that at least one of those upstanding African-American citizens has a slave ancestor, and that clearly justifies beating up a terrified white girl. She obvious deserved it, 'cause she's white.



Translation of the above: Reverse racism is stupid and I'm really tired of seeing white people getting blamed for 'racist' attacks when some minority groups never get the same label attached.

Yes, becuase that is exactly what was happening here.

/scarcasm.

Its been reported that "nonminority" people are targeted because it gives the BG's "street cred' and that they are easy targets.

Mannahnin wrote:Biccat, I think you mean second degree murder. First degree requires both intent and premeditation.

No, I didn't mean second degree murder.

First degree murder, at common law, is defined as the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.

"Malice aforethought" basically means specific intent to kill.

Frazzled wrote:
Update. The couple complained about lack of police effort. Under pressure, the governor is looking at stepping in.

They didn't report the attack for two weeks. Exactly what are the police expected to do?

Its been reported that "nonminority" people are targeted because it gives the BG's "street cred' and that they are easy targets.

And what does this have to do with HBMC believing that the couple are being blamed for the attack, or his belief that this is because they were white?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Update. The couple complained about lack of police effort. Under pressure, the governor is looking at stepping in.

They didn't report the attack for two weeks. Exactly what are the police expected to do?

Its been reported that "nonminority" people are targeted because it gives the BG's "street cred' and that they are easy targets.

And what does this have to do with HBMC believing that the couple are being blamed for the attack, or his belief that this is because they were white?

They did report it. Nothing was done for two weeks.

Frazzled wrote:
They did report it. Nothing was done for two weeks.

... the Virginian-Pilot newspaper did not report the incident for two weeks, despite the fact the victims, Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami, are both news reporters for the paper.

Actually it appear they did report it. It was the paper they worked for which didn't report the incident for two weeks.

Your article doesn't seem to claim that the police force took no action though. After all, they have arrested a suspect.

after the brouhahaha started.

Frazzled wrote:after the brouhahaha started.

I assume you mean the media outrage. If so, where does it say that?

You're pretty quick to accuse people of talking out of their arse, Frazz. Something about pots and kettles.

Nothing was done for two weeks.
No notation in the papers or local media.
The intranetz started up about it. Than the Great Satan that is Bill O'Reilly had astory about it.
AFTER THAT, the police started investigating, and now the governor is looking into the police behavior.

You're getting yourself into a tizzy Hazardous. maybe you should lie down and have some Maalox.

Frazzled wrote:
AFTER THAT, the police started investigating, and now the governor is looking into the police behavior.

What evidence do you have to suggest that this is true?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
AFTER THAT, the police started investigating, and now the governor is looking into the police behavior.

What evidence do you have to suggest that this is true?

A calender and the ability to count on my fingers. Its a skill.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
AFTER THAT, the police started investigating, and now the governor is looking into the police behavior.

What evidence do you have to suggest that this is true?

A calender and the ability to count on my fingers. Its a skill.

I applaud your grasp of mathematics. But what evidence do you have that suggests that the police, not the newspaper, didn't take any action for two weeks.

Indeed.

And we can do without the digs, thanks

No one at the scene said it was racially motivated. They didn’t tell us then and they didn’t hear any [comments such as] ‘Remember Trayvon Martin.’”

Rostami estimated there were around 100 people in the crowd, with about 30 near their car.

However, Chamberlin said police think only a few people in the crowd participated in the attack.

“It is important to clarify that 30 people did not carry out the assault,” she said. “There was a large group in the vicinity, but our investigation and the statements of the victims show that no more than a handful of people were involved.”

Given that the Police did arrive -- allbeit after 3 calls -- and took statements, dealt with the victims etc etc I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim the Police did nothing for 2weeks/whatever

but YMMV.

... One is assuming there had been an event or something on the night in question in the area yes ? I'm assuming it would be unusual for crowds of 100 odd "youths" to be stood around on a random street corner ?

Unless there was evidence that the mob were chanting 'Kill Whitey!' (or words to that effect), I'm not sure we should jump to conclusions about racial motivations for this attack.

Just saying.

reds8n wrote:Indeed.

And we can do without the digs, thanks

No one at the scene said it was racially motivated. They didn’t tell us then and they didn’t hear any [comments such as] ‘Remember Trayvon Martin.’”

Rostami estimated there were around 100 people in the crowd, with about 30 near their car.

However, Chamberlin said police think only a few people in the crowd participated in the attack.

“It is important to clarify that 30 people did not carry out the assault,” she said. “There was a large group in the vicinity, but our investigation and the statements of the victims show that no more than a handful of people were involved.”

Given that the Police did arrive -- allbeit after 3 calls -- and took statements, dealt with the victims etc etc I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim the Police did nothing for 2weeks/whatever

but YMMV.

... One is assuming there had been an event or something on the night in question in the area yes ? I'm assuming it would be unusual for crowds of 100 odd "youths" to be stood around on a random street corner ?

Taking reports is not doing anything. They didn't move forward until pressure started on them.

Frazzled wrote:
Taking reports is not doing anything. They didn't move forward until pressure started on them.

And where is your evidence, Frazz?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Taking reports is not doing anything. They didn't move forward until pressure started on them.

And where is your evidence, Frazz?

The assault happened April 14th. No arrests were made at the scene, from what I can find, but "reports were taken".

Which means that police interviewed witnesses and did not get anything pointing them to make arrests at the scene.

Frazzled wrote:
A calender and the ability to count on my fingers. Its a skill.

So your barometer for "doing something" is making arrests?

Should I then infer that you would rather arrests be made without any investigation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Taking reports is not doing anything.

Yes it is. There is a verb after all.

Yeah, so. Pack Mentality.

Teens in my area have been doing this to convenience stores... It's really quite despicable, although I do think it's pretty smart. Why rob a convenience store with two people when you can do it with 25?

Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, so. Pack Mentality.

Teens in my area have been doing this to convenience stores... It's really quite despicable, although I do think it's pretty smart. Why rob a convenience store with two people when you can do it with 25?

That is why its so important for kids to have good parents. That is why parents need to teach their kids to be responsible. And that is why you should teach your kids, or have someone else teach them that should you ever find yourself outnumbered in a situation like that, it is only ever your right (in America anyway) to know how to use that pen in your pocket.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, so. Pack Mentality.

Teens in my area have been doing this to convenience stores... It's really quite despicable, although I do think it's pretty smart. Why rob a convenience store with two people when you can do it with 25?

It's weird. If that happened here it'd be considered a breakdown of law and order and the army would be mobilised.