Crime and race in the US. Not for liberals

[Unkotare]

You need to go out and get some self-respect.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Culturally unacceptable? Cut the rates dramatically? You have got to be kidding me. First of all culturally unacceptable is a matter of opinion. Drunk driving is the most dangerous crime there is and the most expensive. yet while you talk about gun control there is no drunk driving control. You can still DRIVE up to any bar in this country, PARK in the lot, go inside, get hammered, walk out, get in your car and go kill some one. As for cutting the rates dramatically? it is still the most dangerous crime on the books. Drunk driving kills more people every a year than murders and all other drugs combined. Yet we hardly ever discuss it. I guess it just a known that it is culturally unacceptable. We don't really need to do anything about it or say anything about it because you already know how I feel about it so lets discuss something else.
As for black culture and unacceptable crimes, Why do black folks have to do anything about it? Can't you be satisfied with just knowing that is unacceptable to us? You obviously know nothing about what goes on in black culture. You hear about the crime on the news but nothing of the aftermath in black neighborhoods. You know nothing of the town halls, the vigils, the church leaders and residents marching through the streets begging for something to be done. But the saying goes that "crime can never be stopped it can only be contained" So maybe you should thank those people in the hood that have to put up with all kinds of crime on the daily. After all as long as they do then you don't.

Drunk drivers don't intentionally kill people - they are negligent, and stupid. Gang activity is a culture that many blacks, and hispanics gravitate towards - joining one shows a propensity of violence, and lack of morality, and intellegence! Appalachia has some of the most impoverished people in America - white people. Most of them don't even lock their doors, because their culture is not ridden with predators like particularly the black culture is!

So let me get this right. If you pull out a gun and hold it to my head pull the trigger and kill me, that is wrong. It is wrong because you knew that pulling that trigger could kill me. Yet if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and smash into me and kill me it is some how different? Is it different because drunk drivers hardly ever kill anyone? I mean we all know that drunk drivers kill people all the time right? I mean is there a difference for some one who's loved one was killed by a gun than it is for one killed by a drunk driver?What is there two different kinds of killed? Are there two different kinds of dead? Really? Is this your argument?

Yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What don't you understand> maybe if I was drunk, you could understand better. But tell me what it is you don't get and ill explain to you.

You know drunk driving is illegal, right?

You know that bars are held legally responsible if they serve people who are clearly drunk, right?

You know that drunk driving is reported, enforced, discussed, and addressed by law ALL THE TIME, right?


If you're not drunk, you either stupid or dishonest.

See here are the excuses. First of all bars are hardly ever held responsible. Second of all drunk drivers are hardly ever reported they are for the most part caught in the act. Thirdly when was the last time new drunk driving legislation passed

Drunk driving is illegal. How much more illegal can you make it through legislation?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No see you need the whole statement to make the point. Don't pull out half a statement and try to spin it. That what weak ass pussies with no other argument do.

Ok, so you are willing to admit that you really are this stupid. Fine.


If you put a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, you WILL kill them just about 100% of the time. Not "could" kill them - WILL kill them.

Why are you making such a fool of yourself?

Did I say loaded? I don't think I did. If I did that was a mistake. But we know how many "unloaded" guns kill people right? The point I am trying to make is that I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone. Do you get that?

An unloaded gun cannot kill anyone, unless you beat them to death with it.

First you compare shooting someone in the head with drunk driving, now you're saying the gun isn't loaded?

You cannot shoot someone in the head or anywhere else for that matter with an unloaded gun.

 

[BBCAmerica]

Thirdly when was the last time new drunk driving legislation passed

When was the last time first degree murder legislation was passed? I guess that means society thinks it's ok? Stop being so stupid.

Glad you asked. In my last post I said
"I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone."
Now most states have passed on are in the process of passing a law that states that anytime you involve yourself in a crime that leads to another persons death, you will be charged with the dead person's murder.
Example #1; You and I rob a store. You only drive the get away car. I kill the store owner and you don't even know it. You get charged with his murder also.
Example #2; You and I rob a store. You only drive the getaway car. While in the store I am killed by the store owner. You get charged with my murder.
I really hope this helps you to see where Im coming from on this issue.

 

[Flopper]

Drunk drivers don't intentionally kill people - they are negligent, and stupid. Gang activity is a culture that many blacks, and hispanics gravitate towards - joining one shows a propensity of violence, and lack of morality, and intellegence! Appalachia has some of the most impoverished people in America - white people. Most of them don't even lock their doors, because their culture is not ridden with predators like particularly the black culture is!

So let me get this right. If you pull out a gun and hold it to my head pull the trigger and kill me, that is wrong. It is wrong because you knew that pulling that trigger could kill me. Yet if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and smash into me and kill me it is some how different? Is it different because drunk drivers hardly ever kill anyone? I mean we all know that drunk drivers kill people all the time right? I mean is there a difference for some one who's loved one was killed by a gun than it is for one killed by a drunk driver?What is there two different kinds of killed? Are there two different kinds of dead? Really? Is this your argument?

Yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

Both are voluntary. No one makes you drink and no one forces you to get behind the wheel after drinking.

 

[BBCAmerica]

Ok, so you are willing to admit that you really are this stupid. Fine.


If you put a loaded gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, you WILL kill them just about 100% of the time. Not "could" kill them - WILL kill them.

Why are you making such a fool of yourself?

Did I say loaded? I don't think I did. If I did that was a mistake. But we know how many "unloaded" guns kill people right? The point I am trying to make is that I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone. Do you get that?

An unloaded gun cannot kill anyone, unless you beat them to death with it.

First you compare shooting someone in the head with drunk driving, now you're saying the gun isn't loaded?

You cannot shoot someone in the head or anywhere else for that matter with an unloaded gun.

So there has never been a case of "I didn't think the gun was loaded"? Does everything have to be broken down to the literal science for yall? Have any of you ever been taught to read between the lines? WTF is wrong with you people. As far as compassion drunk driving to shooting someone in the head. Here's how it compares broken down for you. Being drunk and grabbing your car keys and driving, only to smash into another car or even worse a minivan and kill an entire family is no different than grabbing a gun and shooting someone. When a drunk person grabs those keys he/she is grabbing a gun. When that drunk person starts driving, he/she is putting that gun to every other person on the roads head. All that is left is to pull the trigger

 

[BBCAmerica]

Drunk drivers don't intentionally kill people - they are negligent, and stupid. Gang activity is a culture that many blacks, and hispanics gravitate towards - joining one shows a propensity of violence, and lack of morality, and intellegence! Appalachia has some of the most impoverished people in America - white people. Most of them don't even lock their doors, because their culture is not ridden with predators like particularly the black culture is!

So let me get this right. If you pull out a gun and hold it to my head pull the trigger and kill me, that is wrong. It is wrong because you knew that pulling that trigger could kill me. Yet if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and smash into me and kill me it is some how different? Is it different because drunk drivers hardly ever kill anyone? I mean we all know that drunk drivers kill people all the time right? I mean is there a difference for some one who's loved one was killed by a gun than it is for one killed by a drunk driver?What is there two different kinds of killed? Are there two different kinds of dead? Really? Is this your argument?

Yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

NO NO NO NO!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!! Both are voluntary You have to choose to get behind the wheel of a car drunk. I knew a guy that had a breath thing on his car that he had to blow through before the car would start. He would go to the bar and leave the car running. That's not voluntary? Why not call a cab? Why not get drunk at home?

 

[BBCAmerica]

so let me get this right. If you pull out a gun and hold it to my head pull the trigger and kill me, that is wrong. It is wrong because you knew that pulling that trigger could kill me. Yet if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and smash into me and kill me it is some how different? Is it different because drunk drivers hardly ever kill anyone? I mean we all know that drunk drivers kill people all the time right? I mean is there a difference for some one who's loved one was killed by a gun than it is for one killed by a drunk driver?what is there two different kinds of killed? Are there two different kinds of dead? Really? Is this your argument?

yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

both are voluntary. No one makes you drink and no one forces you to get behind the wheel after drinking.

thank you!!!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So let me get this right. If you pull out a gun and hold it to my head pull the trigger and kill me, that is wrong. It is wrong because you knew that pulling that trigger could kill me. Yet if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and smash into me and kill me it is some how different? Is it different because drunk drivers hardly ever kill anyone? I mean we all know that drunk drivers kill people all the time right? I mean is there a difference for some one who's loved one was killed by a gun than it is for one killed by a drunk driver?What is there two different kinds of killed? Are there two different kinds of dead? Really? Is this your argument?

Yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

Both are voluntary. No one makes you drink and no one forces you to get behind the wheel after drinking.

Involuntary manslaughter is an accidental killing that is either

1) the result of criminal negligence or
2) caused during the commission of either a crime or a felony that does not trigger the felony murder rule.

Finally, please note that many modern statutes have created a new category of manslaughter called vehicular manslaughter which applies to deaths caused through the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or through the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. Even in states that do not have such statutes, deaths that result from drunk driving are usually prosecuted under the crime of involuntary manslaughter (although sometimes driving while very drunk can rise to the level of depraved indifference murder).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Did I say loaded? I don't think I did. If I did that was a mistake. But we know how many "unloaded" guns kill people right? The point I am trying to make is that I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone. Do you get that?

An unloaded gun cannot kill anyone, unless you beat them to death with it.

First you compare shooting someone in the head with drunk driving, now you're saying the gun isn't loaded?

You cannot shoot someone in the head or anywhere else for that matter with an unloaded gun.

So there has never been a case of "I didn't think the gun was loaded"? Does everything have to be broken down to the literal science for yall? Have any of you ever been taught to read between the lines? WTF is wrong with you people. As far as compassion drunk driving to shooting someone in the head. Here's how it compares broken down for you. Being drunk and grabbing your car keys and driving, only to smash into another car or even worse a minivan and kill an entire family is no different than grabbing a gun and shooting someone. When a drunk person grabs those keys he/she is grabbing a gun. When that drunk person starts driving, he/she is putting that gun to every other person on the roads head. All that is left is to pull the trigger

Sure there have been cases like that. But the fact is, the gun WAS loaded.

And yes you do have to be specific when you say things like "But we know how many "unloaded" guns kill people right" when you should have said "guns thought to be unloaded" kill people.

Sure it's different. And the difference is INTENT.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So let me get this right. If you pull out a gun and hold it to my head pull the trigger and kill me, that is wrong. It is wrong because you knew that pulling that trigger could kill me. Yet if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and smash into me and kill me it is some how different? Is it different because drunk drivers hardly ever kill anyone? I mean we all know that drunk drivers kill people all the time right? I mean is there a difference for some one who's loved one was killed by a gun than it is for one killed by a drunk driver?What is there two different kinds of killed? Are there two different kinds of dead? Really? Is this your argument?

Yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

NO NO NO NO!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!! Both are voluntary You have to choose to get behind the wheel of a car drunk. I knew a guy that had a breath thing on his car that he had to blow through before the car would start. He would go to the bar and leave the car running. That's not voluntary? Why not call a cab? Why not get drunk at home?

Not according to the law.

Show me a case where a drunk driver killed someone and was charged with anything other than involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter.

FYI

vehicular manslaughter

n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment of a year in county jail or only a fine) or a felony (punishable by a term in state prison) depending on the circumstances. Gross negligence or driving a few miles over the speed limit might be charged as a misdemeanor, but drunk driving resulting in a fatality is most likely treated as a felony. Death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can be vehicular manslaughter if due to illegal driving.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed

 

[BBCAmerica]

Yes it is different. One is involuntary the other not.

NO NO NO NO!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!! Both are voluntary You have to choose to get behind the wheel of a car drunk. I knew a guy that had a breath thing on his car that he had to blow through before the car would start. He would go to the bar and leave the car running. That's not voluntary? Why not call a cab? Why not get drunk at home?

Not according to the law.

Show me a case where a drunk driver killed someone and was charged with anything other than involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter.

FYI

vehicular manslaughter

n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment of a year in county jail or only a fine) or a felony (punishable by a term in state prison) depending on the circumstances. Gross negligence or driving a few miles over the speed limit might be charged as a misdemeanor, but drunk driving resulting in a fatality is most likely treated as a felony. Death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can be vehicular manslaughter if due to illegal driving.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed

Ok first of all let me say again for a third time "I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone."
This is MY opinion
Once again If I rob a store with an accomplice and the accomplice has no intention of hurting anyone and unbeknownst to him, I do. Accomplice still gets a charge of murder 1. Because there was a murder in the commission of a felony and all perpetrators are charged with murder.
Now a second DUI is a felony. Right? If you have one DUI and and you are drunk and driving then you are in the commission of a felony. Right? If you smash into another car and kill the person then you have just killed someone in the commission of a felony. Right?
So why is this murderer not charged the same as the murderer above?

BTW if you look you can find case after case of drunk drivers being charged with murder. I just think they all should be

Louisville man accused of drunk driving charged with murder - WDRB 41 Louisville - News, Weather, Sports Community
Alleged drunk driver charged with murder in girl's death in O.C. - latimes.com
Alleged drunken driver charged with murder in crash near South Haven that killed 3 | MLive.com
Murder Charges for Drunken Driving on Rise in U.S. | Fox News

 

[BBCAmerica]

An unloaded gun cannot kill anyone, unless you beat them to death with it.

First you compare shooting someone in the head with drunk driving, now you're saying the gun isn't loaded?

You cannot shoot someone in the head or anywhere else for that matter with an unloaded gun.

So there has never been a case of "I didn't think the gun was loaded"? Does everything have to be broken down to the literal science for yall? Have any of you ever been taught to read between the lines? WTF is wrong with you people. As far as compassion drunk driving to shooting someone in the head. Here's how it compares broken down for you. Being drunk and grabbing your car keys and driving, only to smash into another car or even worse a minivan and kill an entire family is no different than grabbing a gun and shooting someone. When a drunk person grabs those keys he/she is grabbing a gun. When that drunk person starts driving, he/she is putting that gun to every other person on the roads head. All that is left is to pull the trigger

Sure there have been cases like that. But the fact is, the gun WAS loaded.

And yes you do have to be specific when you say things like "But we know how many "unloaded" guns kill people right" when you should have said "guns thought to be unloaded" kill people.

Sure it's different. And the difference is INTENT.

I was attending a gun safety class with my son for hunting. The one thing they pounded in those kids heads was the first thing you do when you grab a gun. One kid grabbed a gun and didn't check to see if the gun was loaded and the instructor asked "What's the first thing you do when you grab a gun?" The kid said "but you checked it right before you handed it to me". The instructor told the kid "you would be surprised how many people are killed by "unloaded" guns. LOL That kid got it but you didn't?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

NO NO NO NO!!!! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!! Both are voluntary You have to choose to get behind the wheel of a car drunk. I knew a guy that had a breath thing on his car that he had to blow through before the car would start. He would go to the bar and leave the car running. That's not voluntary? Why not call a cab? Why not get drunk at home?

Not according to the law.

Show me a case where a drunk driver killed someone and was charged with anything other than involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter.

FYI

vehicular manslaughter

n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment of a year in county jail or only a fine) or a felony (punishable by a term in state prison) depending on the circumstances. Gross negligence or driving a few miles over the speed limit might be charged as a misdemeanor, but drunk driving resulting in a fatality is most likely treated as a felony. Death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can be vehicular manslaughter if due to illegal driving.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed

Ok first of all let me say again for a third time "I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone."
This is MY opinion
Once again If I rob a store with an accomplice and the accomplice has no intention of hurting anyone and unbeknownst to him, I do. Accomplice still gets a charge of murder 1. Because there was a murder in the commission of a felony and all perpetrators are charged with murder.
Now a second DUI is a felony. Right? If you have one DUI and and you are drunk and driving then you are in the commission of a felony. Right? If you smash into another car and kill the person then you have just killed someone in the commission of a felony. Right?
So why is this murderer not charged the same as the murderer above?

BTW if you look you can find case after case of drunk drivers being charged with murder. I just think they all should be

Louisville man accused of drunk driving charged with murder - WDRB 41 Louisville - News, Weather, Sports Community
Alleged drunk driver charged with murder in girl's death in O.C. - latimes.com
Alleged drunken driver charged with murder in crash near South Haven that killed 3 | MLive.com
Murder Charges for Drunken Driving on Rise in U.S. | Fox News

Murder under the legal definition does not necessarily mean intent and that is what you need to show to support your silly comparison.

And now your trying to pettifog the issue with your "accomplice" hypothetical.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So there has never been a case of "I didn't think the gun was loaded"? Does everything have to be broken down to the literal science for yall? Have any of you ever been taught to read between the lines? WTF is wrong with you people. As far as compassion drunk driving to shooting someone in the head. Here's how it compares broken down for you. Being drunk and grabbing your car keys and driving, only to smash into another car or even worse a minivan and kill an entire family is no different than grabbing a gun and shooting someone. When a drunk person grabs those keys he/she is grabbing a gun. When that drunk person starts driving, he/she is putting that gun to every other person on the roads head. All that is left is to pull the trigger

Sure there have been cases like that. But the fact is, the gun WAS loaded.

And yes you do have to be specific when you say things like "But we know how many "unloaded" guns kill people right" when you should have said "guns thought to be unloaded" kill people.

Sure it's different. And the difference is INTENT.

I was attending a gun safety class with my son for hunting. The one thing they pounded in those kids heads was the first thing you do when you grab a gun. One kid grabbed a gun and didn't check to see if the gun was loaded and the instructor asked "What's the first thing you do when you grab a gun?" The kid said "but you checked it right before you handed it to me". The instructor told the kid "you would be surprised how many people are killed by "unloaded" guns. LOL That kid got it but you didn't?

Again, no one has ever been killed with an unloaded gun unless they were beat to death with it. Period. Many have been killed by guns they thought were unloaded. See the difference?

Thinking or believing it to be unloaded does not make it unloaded. Somehow that concept escapes you.

The instructor is an idiot. First thing he should teach is to treat EVERY gun as if it were loaded even when you know it's not.

 

[jillian]

Especially the white guilt filled liberals.


Many people.........scratch that, ......... many liberal people, on these boards have been whining and crying on the gun control threads about the crime rates in the US, saying we have a gun problem in this nation, and because Europe and other industrailized nations have less guns, they have less crime. Well all the statistics, from private studies and DOJ/FBI studies, show a different story. They show American doesn't have a problem with guns, we

not for liberals? on a public message board?

lol..

Not a very good grasp of the English language huh? Public school graduate I presume?

how is that 5th grade education going for you?

and you're rather simplistic and easy to understand. the salient question is why would i *care* what you say?

last i checked you don't get to decide who posts in your threads.

lol.

 

[Autodidact_33]

As we enter the twenty-first century, many first world nations are grappling with citizens of their nations engaging in criminal activity; in some free countries there is a growing population of prisoners and it seems criminality becomes more common. Crimes committed have a wide range, it can be for either financial reasons or more troubled types of criminal offenses where individuals commit senseless acts of violence either because of a predisposition towards such behavior or people who enjoy inflicting pain. Though the reasons for this phenomena of criminality is diverse, a simple question is this; how best to fight crime, by locking men up to reform them or deal with some of the social-economic realities which lead young men to engage in crime. In the inner city; the allure of easy money made in the drug trade has led many young men to the prison system, and this is especially problematic since people from these communities do not have access to proper education so they may be given the tools to succeed in society if they have the intellect. Since we live in a culture where a person's entire worth is often determined by how much he possesses; easy money made from crime seems like a better path then working a low paying, thankless job which is honest but sometimes unrewarding. The prison system exists to punish individuals who have committed crimes against society; but is there a possibility that young men who might have been petty criminals are thrown into the brutal prison systems where they can affiliate with hardcore predicate felons and may not be reformed into a contributing member of society. Also as we progress into the future, senseless crimes of violence become more common as some dangerous men engage in the most barbarous acts against there fellow men and women. So what is the better solution, locking more individuals up or seeing that less citizens grow up to be criminals.
In the school system, those educated in such matters should create a profile of what alarming activities youths may show that could indicate they will grow up to be a violent criminal and see if there is any potential therapy to help change these youngsters into a stable member of the community. Also the school system in the inner city or poor neighborhoods should be given more funds so that if a citizen has the ability to succeed then he should have access to higher education no matter who he is. That to fight the tree of crime you go after the roots; or find which societal factors lead to crime and alter them so they no longer influence some into becoming a detriment to the community or society as a whole. Lowering crime is a ethical goal, but requires a knowledgeable view of what leads to crime and how to change such realities so that future generations will not suffer the consequences of actions committed by those who care nothing for the welfare of others. It is something to think about.

 

[BBCAmerica]

Not according to the law.

Show me a case where a drunk driver killed someone and was charged with anything other than involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter.

FYI

vehicular manslaughter

n. the crime of causing the death of a human being due to illegal driving of an automobile, including gross negligence, drunk driving, reckless driving or speeding. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor (minor crime with a maximum punishment of a year in county jail or only a fine) or a felony (punishable by a term in state prison) depending on the circumstances. Gross negligence or driving a few miles over the speed limit might be charged as a misdemeanor, but drunk driving resulting in a fatality is most likely treated as a felony. Death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can be vehicular manslaughter if due to illegal driving.

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed

Ok first of all let me say again for a third time "I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone."
This is MY opinion
Once again If I rob a store with an accomplice and the accomplice has no intention of hurting anyone and unbeknownst to him, I do. Accomplice still gets a charge of murder 1. Because there was a murder in the commission of a felony and all perpetrators are charged with murder.
Now a second DUI is a felony. Right? If you have one DUI and and you are drunk and driving then you are in the commission of a felony. Right? If you smash into another car and kill the person then you have just killed someone in the commission of a felony. Right?
So why is this murderer not charged the same as the murderer above?

BTW if you look you can find case after case of drunk drivers being charged with murder. I just think they all should be

Louisville man accused of drunk driving charged with murder - WDRB 41 Louisville - News, Weather, Sports Community
Alleged drunk driver charged with murder in girl's death in O.C. - latimes.com
Alleged drunken driver charged with murder in crash near South Haven that killed 3 | MLive.com
Murder Charges for Drunken Driving on Rise in U.S. | Fox News

Murder under the legal definition does not necessarily mean intent and that is what you need to show to support your silly comparison.

And now your trying to pettifog the issue with your "accomplice" hypothetical.

then how is it that SOME drunk drivers can be tried and convicted of the more serious charge of murder if you can not show intent?

And no I am not pettifogging anything. And the "accomplice" example is not a hypothetical but it is an example of what your charge will be under these types of scenarios. It is called the felony murder rule. All is needed to be shown is that the defendant was a partisipent of a felony when a murder occurred. No intent no malice no reckless disregard for human life. Just the commission of a felony when a murder occurred. So I ask you again. If a person can be charged with murder 1 when he had no intent no malice no disregard for human life and was only in the commission of a felony when a murder occurred. Then why can't a person(drunk driver) be charged with murder 1 when he had no intent no malice no disregard for human life and was only in the commission of a felony(drunk driving) when a murder occurred.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ok first of all let me say again for a third time "I don't think there should be a difference in the charge or prosecution of a person that killed some one when the murderer knowingly involves him/herself in a criminal activity that that they know has the potential to kill someone."
This is MY opinion
Once again If I rob a store with an accomplice and the accomplice has no intention of hurting anyone and unbeknownst to him, I do. Accomplice still gets a charge of murder 1. Because there was a murder in the commission of a felony and all perpetrators are charged with murder.
Now a second DUI is a felony. Right? If you have one DUI and and you are drunk and driving then you are in the commission of a felony. Right? If you smash into another car and kill the person then you have just killed someone in the commission of a felony. Right?
So why is this murderer not charged the same as the murderer above?

BTW if you look you can find case after case of drunk drivers being charged with murder. I just think they all should be

Louisville man accused of drunk driving charged with murder - WDRB 41 Louisville - News, Weather, Sports Community
Alleged drunk driver charged with murder in girl's death in O.C. - latimes.com
Alleged drunken driver charged with murder in crash near South Haven that killed 3 | MLive.com
Murder Charges for Drunken Driving on Rise in U.S. | Fox News

Murder under the legal definition does not necessarily mean intent and that is what you need to show to support your silly comparison.

And now your trying to pettifog the issue with your "accomplice" hypothetical.

then how is it that SOME drunk drivers can be tried and convicted of the more serious charge of murder if you can not show intent?

And no I am not pettifogging anything. And the "accomplice" example is not a hypothetical but it is an example of what your charge will be under these types of scenarios. It is called the felony murder rule. All is needed to be shown is that the defendant was a partisipent of a felony when a murder occurred. No intent no malice no reckless disregard for human life. Just the commission of a felony when a murder occurred. So I ask you again. If a person can be charged with murder 1 when he had no intent no malice no disregard for human life and was only in the commission of a felony when a murder occurred. Then why can't a person(drunk driver) be charged with murder 1 when he had no intent no malice no disregard for human life and was only in the commission of a felony(drunk driving) when a murder occurred.

It's due to a number of factors like the number of DWI (felony) convictions on their record, if illegal narcotics or weapons were found, if they were fleeing from the police or leaving another crime scene or anything that would make his drunk driving felonious. There are many variables that can warrant the need for a more stringent charge.

But I question the accuracy of the reporting that these people were charged with murder since murder usually involve malicious intent. But I can understand the need for a stronger charge other than vehicular manslaughter if there a felony involved. It would be nice to see the court records on these cases.

I'll respond to the second part of your post but first define murder in the 1st degree or murder 1 as you put it.