So…the defense attorney states the gun was locked? Now what in Michigan case?

[Harpy Eagle]

For example, a person on 4th of July fires a weapon into the air.
Almost always it will land harmlessly due to the fact there is so much open space.
But purely randomly, it could accidentally kill someone.
So should the penalty differ depending on result?
Of course not.
The act needing penalty is the firing of the weapon, because no one has any control over where it lands.

Of course it should be different., In one case it is unlawful discharge of a weapon, in the other it is manslaughter. If your negligence causes someone's death there should be greater penalty due to the greater damage.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We do nothing at all to make schools less awful and stressful.
We deliberately want schools to be stressful because that increases profits by those who will employ those students later.

Have you been in our schools lately?

I have one child that graduated HS in 2013 and one in 2020. Even in those 7 years things got far less stressful. These days you basically have to do nothing to graduate high school

 

[Circe]

And what? You want sympathy for these two shit parents?

they just seem like two shit parents.

Why do you keep calling them that? They seem fine to me! Their kid had no disciplinary record at all, he was doing well ---- obviously he went off the rails, but dozens and dozens have, I always assume schizophrenia which is such a scourge among young teenage males, and early 20s. The mom's communications seemed nice to me! She was approving, not disapproving, she stuck up for her son --- when she realized something was happening she wrote, "Don't do it!" which is certainly on the side of law and order ----

These seem like nice people to me. I feel very sad for them.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course it should be different., In one case it is unlawful discharge of a weapon, in the other it is manslaughter. If your negligence causes someone's death there should be greater penalty due to the greater damage.

That is inherently immoral.
If there is no difference in the negligence and intent of the act, then there cannot morally or legally be any difference in deterrent punishment.
If there is, then it is not justice based on attempting to deter bad actions by others in the future, but the totally immoral and illegal attempt to get personal revenge on someone for what was totally and completely an accidental random result.

 

[Rigby5]

Have you been in our schools lately?

I have one child that graduated HS in 2013 and one in 2020. Even in those 7 years things got far less stressful. These days you basically have to do nothing to graduate high school

Good point. Schools did get better even during my lifetime as well.
I think schools can be much more productive if they stimulate curiosity and imagination, then by massive and boring memorization.
When I was a kid, I watched school field trip where the teachers all had sticks and were constantly hitting the group of kids to keep them in line and moving where the teachers wanted them to go.
So it used to be much worse.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is inherently immoral.
If there is no difference in the negligence and intent of the act, then there cannot morally or legally be any difference in deterrent punishment.
If there is, then it is not justice based on attempting to deter bad actions by others in the future, but the totally immoral and illegal attempt to get personal revenge on someone for what was totally and completely an accidental random result.

It is the opposite of immoral, it is the way it should be.

And there is a a difference between negligence and intent of the act, the charges and punishments are different. The latter will bring stronger charges and harsher punishment than the former.

Both ways deter bad actions , if there is no consequence for killing someone due to your negligence, there is no deterrence to keep one from being negligent in their actions.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think schools can be much more productive if they stimulate curiosity and imagination, then by massive and boring memorization.

I agree 100%. My SIL is a lifelong Montessori teacher and I do like their system.

When I was a kid, I watched school field trip where the teachers all had sticks and were constantly hitting the group of kids to keep them in line and moving where the teachers wanted them to go.
So it used to be much worse.

Yeah, now they just no longer get to go on field trips for the most part

 

[Rigby5]

It is the opposite of immoral, it is the way it should be.

And there is a a difference between negligence and intent of the act, the charges and punishments are different. The latter will bring stronger charges and harsher punishment than the former.

Both ways deter bad actions , if there is no consequence for killing someone due to your negligence, there is no deterrence to keep one from being negligent in their actions.

Wrong.
The accidental random and rare death from a fairly benign act does not morally warrant any additional punishment at all.
You then are essentially trying to punish or deter a random accidental occurrence, and not the original negligent act.
All that does is to rightfully anger everyone and destroy the credibility of the judicial system.
Such a system should be utterly destroyed by any moral person.

The differences between negligence and intent are irrelevant and not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is altering punishment based on result instead of negative original actions.
My point is that only things like negligence and intent can be punished, NOT the final result, based on random chance.

You can use the rare random chance result to illustrate why a particular act is negligent or with bad intent, but you can't use that to change punishment of the individual act.
The individual is NOT responsible for the rare random chance aspects in any way.
The original negligence or bad intent does not at all change if someone accidentally dies from random chance after the act or not.
So the punishment MUST not either, if one wants a moral system.
And if you allow an immoral system, then people like me will deliberately violate it and try to destroy it by any means necessary.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong.
The accidental random and rare death from a fairly benign act does not morally warrant any additional punishment at all.

The disagreement would be what is a "a fairly benign act" and what should be known to carry a risk. You see shooting your weapon in to the air as a a fairly benign act, I do not agree with that. You seem to see driving 100 mph as a fairly benign act, I do not agree with that.

You then are essentially trying to punish or deter a random accidental occurrence, and not the original negligent act.
All that does is to rightfully anger everyone and destroy the credibility of the judicial system.
Such a system should be utterly destroyed by any moral person.

I do not agree, nor does anyone I know. We all think it actually adds credibility to the judicial system

What we are talking about is altering punishment based on result instead of negative original actions.

Yes, which is the way it should be.

If I punch someone in the head and all they get is a headache then the charge is different than if I punch them in the head and they die, even though my intent was the same in both cases.

If I drive 100mph through a school zone the punishment is more than if I drive 100mp down an empty county road even though the intent was the same.

This is the way it should be.

And if you allow an immoral system, then people like me will deliberately violate it and try to destroy it by any means necessary.

And I will be happy to watch you rot in jail for doing so.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why do you keep calling them that? They seem fine to me! Their kid had no disciplinary record at all, he was doing well ---- obviously he went off the rails, but dozens and dozens have, I always assume schizophrenia which is such a scourge among young teenage males, and early 20s. The mom's communications seemed nice to me! She was approving, not disapproving, she stuck up for her son --- when she realized something was happening she wrote, "Don't do it!" which is certainly on the side of law and order ----

These seem like nice people to me. I feel very sad for them.

Well, I look at all angles of the situation.

While I don't agree with Moore, on his gun control agenda, he does a good job of presenting facts, which corporate media often does not do. He was a Bernie supporter, which means, like Trump supporters, he is a populist. He presents facts, as they are known. And in that, I respect him. The government and MSM tend to distort reality much more.

The way the mom and her kid related? Were like friends, not like a mother and son SHOULD have a relationship. It seems to me, she did not care about discipline, or about the bullying problems he was having at school. She was ignoring his self-esteem problems, and his issues among his peers, mostly because she had a ton of them herself.

Buying a gun for him, and going shooting, was for her, a bonding issue. She knew he was trying to buy ammo, and that he got caught doing it, and acting like a giddy GF about his getting in trouble.

This is not normal mom/son behavior.

A Mother’s Love for Son, Gun and Country.

“LOL — I’m not mad. You have to learn not to get caught.”

www.michaelmoore.com

 

[Rigby5]

The disagreement would be what is a "a fairly benign act" and what should be known to carry a risk. You see shooting your weapon in to the air as a a fairly benign act, I do not agree with that. You seem to see driving 100 mph as a fairly benign act, I do not agree with that.



I do not agree, nor does anyone I know. We all think it actually adds credibility to the judicial system




Yes, which is the way it should be.

If I punch someone in the head and all they get is a headache then the charge is different than if I punch them in the head and they die, even though my intent was the same in both cases.

If I drive 100mph through a school zone the punishment is more than if I drive 100mp down an empty county road even though the intent was the same.

This is the way it should be.



And I will be happy to watch you rot in jail for doing so.

No.

Most people in the world see shooting in the air as a fairly benign act because the odds of anyone being hit from the falling bullet are extremely low, and the energy from falling is not significant enough to normally ever kill.
So it is typically done at weddings and other ceremonies around the world.
The US is about the ONLY country that criminalizes it, and it is still done often in the US anyway.

And no, I do not see driving at 100 mph to at all be benign.
If the person has no accident or injury, they should still get a severe punishment for driving so fast.

If you punch someone, they lose their balance and fall off a roof, according to you that is murder, when clearly it was not because to a reasonable person, the intent and actions should not have caused a death.

And your system can never win or be maintained.
Its like Prohibition and the War on Drugs, which were not based on morality but illegal authoritarianism.
People will always fight it, win, and destroy any system based on corrupt principles like that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you punch someone, they lose their balance and fall off a roof, according to you that is murder, when clearly it was not because to a reasonable person, the intent and actions should not have caused a death.

Actually it is manslaughter, not murder. The action caused the death whether you meant it or not. You do not get to ignore the outcome just because it was not what you intended.

If I shoot you in the leg and you end up dying, can I use the "well, I did not intend for you to die" defense? I do not think so.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And your system can never win or be maintained.
Its like Prohibition and the War on Drugs, which were not based on morality but illegal authoritarianism.
People will always fight it, win, and destroy any system based on corrupt principles like that.

So, do tell other than posting stupid ass shit on a political forum, how are you fighting against this vast injustice that is the US legal system?

 

[Rigby5]

Actually it is manslaughter, not murder. The action caused the death whether you meant it or not. You do not get to ignore the outcome just because it was not what you intended.

If I shoot you in the leg and you end up dying, can I use the "well, I did not intend for you to die" defense? I do not think so.

You are correct about the difference between murder and manslaughter, but wrong about the culpability changing depending on outcome being deadly or not.

The outcome is not under your control, so you have no liability for that unless you should have known that outcome was likely.
What you are saying makes no sense because you ignore intent and negligence as to a reasonable person should have expected.
According to you, if you do something perfectly legal, like loan a neighbor a ladder, and they use it wrong, fall off a roof, and die, then you are guilty of manslaughter.
The action caused the death whether you meant it or not.
You DO get to ignore the outcome if that outcome could not have reasonably been expected or predicted.
It is only legal to punish someone for what they actually do, not the bizarre, random chance, unintended outcome.

 

[Rigby5]

So, do tell other than posting stupid ass shit on a political forum, how are you fighting against this vast injustice that is the US legal system?

That's classified.
Although I am way too old for that sort of activism any more.

But police should know that most people think the war on drugs is illegal, so police who do no-knock-raids do so at their own risk.