UK home defence

[Tez3]

Flowers left for burglar 'an insult'

I think things could take a nasty turn, hopefully the police will sort but it could be difficult. The dead man and his family are travellers so the likelihood of violence is always going to be high. The battle of the dead burglar's shrine: Police ride in on horseback as traveller's family put flowers up for a THIRD time after locals twice tore them down - and relatives demand OAP apologise for killing him | Best News | Best News Tv | Global Goals | Progress | Funny | Trending

 

[oftheherd1]

I don’t get it. Are you saying that the person who fires the gun in the air might be charged with murder?

Look at dui accidents. DUI murder charges are very rare, and hinge on intent. Generally, like your careless gun owner example, because a person who is stupid and drinks then causes someone’s death didn’t intend to do so (or intent can’t be established) they are charged with manslaughter.

As I said before, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder in the USA. I’m not sure how that could be controversial.

I would guess it would only be controversial if you disagreed with the law as written.

At Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 you can find this about murder:

Murder While Doing An Inherently Dangerous Act. UCMJ art. 118(3)

1. In General. Alternative theory to unpremeditated murder.
2. Intent.
3. Specific intent not required. United States v. McMonagle , 38 M.J. 53 (C.M.A. 1993) (firing a weapon indiscriminately in an inhabited area during a sham firefight in Panama during Operation JUST CAUSE). (Bolding added by me for emphasis).

Also at Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 lists the elements of proof.
(3) Act inherently dangerous to another

• (a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
• (b) That the death resulted from the intentional act of the accused;
• (c) That this act was inherently dangerous to another and showed a wanton disregard for human life;
• (d) That the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the act; and
• (e) That the killing was unlawful

I'm not going to search every state or other federal law, but I expect there are states that have the same definition of law, granted that this is from the UMCJ and cases that have been tried. Or, maybe the congress just wanted to be hardcore with the military.

 

[oftheherd1]

Flowers left for burglar 'an insult'

I think things could take a nasty turn, hopefully the police will sort but it could be difficult. The dead man and his family are travellers so the likelihood of violence is always going to be high. The battle of the dead burglar's shrine: Police ride in on horseback as traveller's family put flowers up for a THIRD time after locals twice tore them down - and relatives demand OAP apologise for killing him | Best News | Best News Tv | Global Goals | Progress | Funny | Trending

Some people just seem to look for excuses to do objectionable or illegal things.

 

[Steve]

I would guess it would only be controversial if you disagreed with the law as written.

At Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 you can find this about murder:

Murder While Doing An Inherently Dangerous Act. UCMJ art. 118(3)

1. In General. Alternative theory to unpremeditated murder.
2. Intent.
3. Specific intent not required. United States v. McMonagle , 38 M.J. 53 (C.M.A. 1993) (firing a weapon indiscriminately in an inhabited area during a sham firefight in Panama during Operation JUST CAUSE). (Bolding added by me for emphasis).

Also at Homicides. UCMJ Arts. 118, 119, & 134 lists the elements of proof.
(3) Act inherently dangerous to another

• (a) That a certain named or described person is dead;
• (b) That the death resulted from the intentional act of the accused;
• (c) That this act was inherently dangerous to another and showed a wanton disregard for human life;
• (d) That the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the act; and
• (e) That the killing was unlawful

I'm not going to search every state or other federal law, but I expect there are states that have the same definition of law, granted that this is from the UMCJ and cases that have been tried. Or, maybe the congress just wanted to be hardcore with the military.

You’re quoting the UCMJ? Apples and oranges, my friend. You can also be courtmartialed for adultery. I don’t think you get courtmartialed in the civilian world. Lol

I get you might not look at every state. But at least find one state or federal definition. I won’t say there isn’t one, but I would say intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter is the rule, not the exception. If you think I’m wrong, you’re going to have to do better than the ucmj.

 

[Tez3]

Some people just seem to look for excuses to do objectionable or illegal things.

There has been problems with this community for a very long time, they can be discriminated against but also they do disrupt other communities at lot. Dale Farm: Who are the UK's travellers?

 

[oftheherd1]

There has been problems with this community for a very long time, they can be discriminated against but also they do disrupt other communities at lot. Dale Farm: Who are the UK's travellers?

Interesting. I didn't realize they were a considered a separate ethnic group, or that they were, or apparently considered themselves to be similar the Romany Gypsies.

 

[Tez3]

Interesting. I didn't realize they were a considered a separate ethnic group, or that they were, or apparently considered themselves to be similar the Romany Gypsies.

The problem I think is that the Romanies don't like the travellers much, because people lump them together and the Romanies don't like the reputation the travellers have which I must admit, as in the Op, they seem determined to live up to. I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.

 

[pdg]

I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.

While there are good and bad elements in both, they are very different groups, with very different values (especially when it comes to outsiders).

You wouldn't generally get trouble (except clearing up after them) from a group of travellers parking up near you - unfortunately the same can't be said for a few miles down the road.

 

[oftheherd1]

You’re quoting the UCMJ? Apples and oranges, my friend. You can also be courtmartialed for adultery. I don’t think you get courtmartialed in the civilian world. Lol

I get you might not look at every state. But at least find one state or federal definition. I won’t say there isn’t one, but I would say intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter is the rule, not the exception. If you think I’m wrong, you’re going to have to do better than the ucmj.

Why better than the UCMJ? It is part of US (federal) law passed by congress, even if it does apply only to those congress says it does.

But anyway, try these two below, and then I will consider my duty fulfilled. You asked for at least one and I have given you two besides the UCMJ reference.

Murder Without Intent

Homicide without the intent to kill

Oh, as to adultery; I didn't look, but I suspect sodomy is still part of the UCMJ and many states, but you wouldn't likely find that prosecuted anywhere in the US either. So what's the point?

 

[Steve]

Why better than the UCMJ? It is part of US (federal) law passed by congress, even if it does apply only to those congress says it does.

But anyway, try these two below, and then I will consider my duty fulfilled. You asked for at least one and I have given you two besides the UCMJ reference.

Murder Without Intent

Homicide without the intent to kill

Oh, as to adultery; I didn't look, but I suspect sodomy is still part of the UCMJ and many states, but you wouldn't likely find that prosecuted anywhere in the US either. So what's the point?

Regarding ucmj, unless you can show me where sedition or insubordination are illegal in civilian courts, I think it’s completely irrelevant. Adultery is still illegal. Sodomy... not sure. Didn’t look, but as homosexuality is no longer grounds for discharge, it may not be. And while adultery won’t likely result in a court martial, it could result in an article 15. At least, it would when I was in the military.

Regarding the other links, it seems like you’re arguing the exception to the rule. The two discussions you link to are all about intent, and articulate in detail how the situations they’re discussing are exceptions to the rule.

Why are you arguing this? I’m don’t get it. You’re grasping for straws, when what I’m saying is so clearly correct.

 

[Steve]

The problem I think is that the Romanies don't like the travellers much, because people lump them together and the Romanies don't like the reputation the travellers have which I must admit, as in the Op, they seem determined to live up to. I know little about either group, whether they are the same or different. We did have a traveller group park themselves up on one of the garrison playing fields a few years back, they didn't cause much trouble other than people not being happy at them being there but it cost a few thousand pounds to clear up after them when they left. The playing field couldn't be used for a long time because of the rubbish, sewage etc left behind.

We have problems with travelers in the usa,as well.

 

[oftheherd1]

From @Tez3:

Murder doesn't have to be premeditated. It also doesn't have to have to be intended to result in death. think road rage.

...
I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter.

...

The above is what you said, not most of the time, sometimes, or any other qualifier.

Regarding ucmj, unless you can show me where sedition or insubordination are illegal in civilian courts, I think it’s completely irrelevant.

What in the world does that have to do with this discussion? Insubordination relates only to the military as a charge by law. But actually, in most businesses if you spend too much time disobeying or arguing with your boss, you will be fired. It will normally be codified in some way, but not have the force of a law against the State, but only the business considers if to be against the business, and punishes it. The military, in fact most militaries, consider it more serious and so punishes it more severely. Sedition is codified as shown in at least this one place: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

But also think arguing that is completely irrelevant.

Adultery is still illegal. Sodomy... not sure. Didn’t look, but as homosexuality is no longer grounds for discharge, it may not be. And while adultery won’t likely result in a court martial, it could result in an article 15. At least, it would when I was in the military.

I don't know what is being enforced or not myself. I left active duty quite some time ago. But again, I think it’s completely irrelevant. We were discussing an element of proof of only one crime, murder.

Regarding the other links, it seems like you’re arguing the exception to the rule. The two discussions you link to are all about intent, and articulate in detail how the situations they’re discussing are exceptions to the rule.

...
I'm not a lawyer, but my impression is that intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter.

...

Not having checked all States, Commonwealths, and Territories, I don't know the percentages, but like you, I do suspect most have either changed the law or decided not to prosecute it.

But that isn't the statement you made. And intent was exactly what you were disagreeing with as an element of proof. That then answers that argument. Even if (which I doubt) those were the only two jurisdictions beside the military, that still shows your statement to be incorrect.

Why are you arguing this? I’m don’t get it. You’re grasping for straws, when what I’m saying is so clearly correct.

How is it so clearly correct when I have shown you it isn't? That doesn't sound like the usual well stated and backed up arguments you make. BTW, how am I the only one in the discussion grasping for straws?

Why am I arguing this? Good question. I think I have to go back to my opening statement that I should know better. But I think you bear at least as much responsibility as I do. You made an incorrect statement, and won't acknowledge that.

I guess I don't get it either, so I think I will let it go.

 

[oftheherd1]

From @Tez3:



The above is what you said, not most of the time, sometimes, or any other qualifier.



What in the world does that have to do with this discussion? Insubordination relates only to the military as a charge by law. But actually, in most businesses if you spend too much time disobeying or arguing with your boss, you will be fired. It will normally be codified in some way, but not have the force of a law against the State, but only the business considers if to be against the business, and punishes it. The military, in fact most militaries, consider it more serious and so punishes it more severely. Sedition is codified as shown in at least this one place: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

But I also think arguing that is completely irrelevant.



I don't know what is being enforced or not myself. I left active duty quite some time ago. But again, I think it’s completely irrelevant. We were discussing an element of proof of only one crime, murder.

Sorry, I tried something with quotes inside quotes and it didn't work. The last part I wrote should be:

Not having checked all States, Commonwealths, and Territories, I don't know the percentages, but like you, I do suspect most have either changed the law or decided not to prosecute it.

But that isn't the statement you made. And intent was exactly what you were disagreeing with as an element of proof. That then answers that argument. Even if (which I doubt) those were the only two jurisdictions beside the military, that still shows your statement to be incorrect.

↑

Why are you arguing this? I’m don’t get it. You’re grasping for straws, when what I’m saying is so clearly correct.

How is it so clearly correct when I have shown you it isn't? That doesn't sound like the usual well stated and backed up arguments you make. BTW, how am I the only one in the discussion grasping for straws?

Why am I arguing this? Good question. I think I have to go back to my opening statement that I should know better. But I think you bear at least as much responsibility as I do. You made an incorrect statement, and won't acknowledge that.

I guess I don't get it either, so I think I will let it go.

 

[Steve]

You’re right man. I was puzzled at why you were digging heels, and I was doing same. My bad.

 

[Daniela455]

¡¡excelente!!

 

[oldwarrior]

basically in this country of ours you are guilty until proven otherwise ... The police in this country have a mind set that they will follo and do not let them ever tell you that they are not there to punish that they only report the facts ... well yes they do from their side with their slant on same and as they have access to the resources that the public do not (unless you got the cash) then things will be slanted ...

Just look at the case of the young guy that was accused of rape and spent how long on bail until ...oops they found out that certain things had not been revealed .................so never trust that anything said will not be twisted or slanted

 

[jobo]

basically in this country of ours you are guilty until proven otherwise ... The police in this country have a mind set that they will follo and do not let them ever tell you that they are not there to punish that they only report the facts ... well yes they do from their side with their slant on same and as they have access to the resources that the public do not (unless you got the cash) then things will be slanted ...

Just look at the case of the young guy that was accused of rape and spent how long on bail until ...oops they found out that certain things had not been revealed .................so never trust that anything said will not be twisted or slanted

The police will do anything they can to get a guilty verdict, some of it is quite close to illegality, some faR over it, loOsing evidence that might help the accused is just par for the course

 

[Tez3]

The same police officers that when terrorists attack happen they run towards it so you can run away. The same police officers that are in hospital today serious hurt after beings attacked. The same ones that have to come and tell you your son/daughter/family member has been killed by a drunk driver. the ones who have to deal with rising crime because their numbers have been cut by 20000 by the government Frankly the last two posters are talking the most tremendous bollocks.

Why? because the police don't lead in prosecutions here, the CPS do. the same CPS who held the evidence that kept the young man under suspicion. The detective in charge of that case Detective Constable Mark Azariah, told the CPS to drop the charges in his report long before the trial.
The police really don't act as described above, if people say they do it's usually because they've been on the wrong side of the law or they read the tabloids and/or Katie Hopkins. The police and bear in mind we have many different police forces here not one, are far too busy to actually try to fit people up. Of course those that moan about the police are the first to call them when something happens and the last to join a force as a police officer to change things from inside if they think things are wrong, cowards all.

 

[oldwarrior]

The same police officers that when terrorists attack happen they run towards it so you can run away. The same police officers that are in hospital today serious hurt after beings attacked. The same ones that have to come and tell you your son/daughter/family member has been killed by a drunk driver. the ones who have to deal with rising crime because their numbers have been cut by 20000 by the government Frankly the last two posters are talking the most tremendous bollocks.

Why? because the police don't lead in prosecutions here, the CPS do. the same CPS who held the evidence that kept the young man under suspicion. The detective in charge of that case Detective Constable Mark Azariah, told the CPS to drop the charges in his report long before the trial.
The police really don't act as described above, if people say they do it's usually because they've been on the wrong side of the law or they read the tabloids and/or Katie Hopkins. The police and bear in mind we have many different police forces here not one, are far too busy to actually try to fit people up. Of course those that moan about the police are the first to call them when something happens and the last to join a force as a police officer to change things from inside if they think things are wrong, cowards all.

I guess your a cop ...buddy you have a lot to learn seriously ...

 

[oldwarrior]

oh have no fear ...when i can close my account i will as you have so much to learn ....and before you even get your knickers in a twist ...well i was a cop and a military cop so umm i do actually know ... i have never done it so don't got there but trust me if you believe that the cops do not do as I said then welll ......enough said