1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Interesting Legal Situation - What's Your Opinion

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by LiquidMidnight, Apr 29, 2006.

  1. LiquidMidnight


    Dec 25, 2000
    First, let me state that I'm not a lawyer, so if I sound like a goober, I apologize.

    There's a very interesting legal situation going on where I live. Apperently, it was thought that someone killed a kid 10 years ago. A young man was passed out at a party, and another kid slit his throat, wrists, etc. while it was believed he was passed out. It turns out that now that the kid who was believed to have been killed may have actually already been dead due to a drug overdose. The murderer is being retried in the face of this new evidence.

    Even though the victim may have been dead prior to being "murdered," should the "murderer" be retried on different counts? From a philosophical standpoint, I don't think he should, since his intention was to kill. I remember a comedian (I believe it was Bill Mahar) once made a joke that he didn't see what the difference was between a count of murder and a count of attempted murder because the later just meant that someone was a bad shot. Even though it was a joke, a have to agree with this. I believe that if your attempt is to kill someone, you should be tried for murder. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so that's only my layman's opinion. What do you think?
  2. Trevorus


    Oct 18, 2002
    Urbana, IL
    I agree with you here. I think that if he wanted to kill the person, then he's a murderer. If not for the little detail about the victim already being dead, he would have been the one to kill him, no doubt. Still a murderer.
  3. IanStephenson

    IanStephenson UnRegistered User

    Apr 8, 2006
    It's in the simpsons:
    "Sideshow Bob was sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit"..."Atempted Murder? Do they give Nobel prizes for Atempted physics?"

    Strictly I guess they should reclassify the conviction, and to do that they need to retry them. However they're guilty of the same actions, even though the rfesult my be technically different. As long as they're found guilty again, and get the same sentence, then fine - but it seems a lot of work with no effect.

    On the other hand if they get reduced time, I'd object.

  4. Kibuddy


    Apr 30, 2005
    I don't see why they're even revisiting this case. The guy slit someone's throat and wrists. He had every intention of killing this other person, and he would have been successful if had gotten to him earlier. He's a murderer in my book.
  5. I think they would have to do an evaluation to determin whether the murderer thought the guy was already dead or not

    Then depending on that i reckon he would still get murder for believing the guy was still alive and something to do with mutilation if he thought he was dead

    Of course the murderer is going to say he thought the guy was already dead, but they have ways of determining how true he is being

    Thats what i think should happen, either way a lengthy session in prison!
  6. SuperDuck


    Sep 26, 2000
    I would have to say that I agree with this. Slitting someone's throat and wrist is a _pretty_ good sign that this person should NOT be allowed to roam the streets.
  7. AxtoOx


    Nov 12, 2005
    Duncan, Okla.
    I share your feelings, although he may get off on the murder charge.
    There were other crimes committed, I'm not a lawyer either, but you can't do that.
  8. mkrtu9


    Mar 2, 2006
    it all boils down to intent. I agree w/ u
  9. Munjibunga

    Munjibunga Total Hyper-Elite Member Gold Supporting Member

    May 6, 2000
    San Diego (when not at Groom Lake)
    Independent Contractor to Bass San Diego
    If he didn't kill him, he didn't kill him. He mutilated a dead body. I find it remarkable that this would come to light ten years later. If the person was dead at the time of the mutilation, there would have been much less blood on the floor than if he had been alive. Corpses don't bleed out. Any real coroner would have recognized that immediately at the scene.
  10. not to make fun of the situation, but wow!
    here i thought it was bad when someone drew on you with markers when you passed out...

    the kid has to be sick in the head. I'd put him in jail for the intent to kill...i find it hard to believe he slit a kid's wrists and throat for any other reason than to kill him...of course the court system has been known to make some pretty outrageous judgements, but thats bound to be a closed thread in the lobby :)

    but that kid is still sick in the head :)
  11. I agree with you unless the kid knew that the other kid was dead before he cut him up. But still, that kid is insane in the membrane.

    Unfortunately, this kid will probably get off with less time now because of this.
  12. Bob Clayton

    Bob Clayton Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Aug 14, 2001
    Philly Suburbs
    one would think that if the kid was already dead,

    the crime would be reduced to mutilation of a corpse
  13. LiquidMidnight


    Dec 25, 2000
    I'm a little sketchy on the exact details, but I believe that the body was burned after the "murder".
  14. Isn't there some sort of law against defacing a corpse or something? That can't be legal.
  15. That will be one interesting court session.

    If I was trying to prove he was a killer I would try to get evidence that the drug overdose was also from the killer.

    Drugged him first, then slashed him. Lets just say the drug the victim overdosed on was also found on the killer. You could present that to a jury and it would be hard to disprove,..... I think.

    Maybe I watch to much TV.

Share This Page