Quote :

"A California jury Wednesday recommended the death penalty after convicting a man on murder and arson charges in the deaths of five U.S. Forest Service firefighters who died in a 2006 blaze outside Los Angeles. "

Quote :

"Raymond Lee Oyler of Beaumont, California, was convicted on five counts of first-degree murder, including two special circumstances -- that the murders were committed during an arson and that multiple murders were committed -- making him eligible for the death penalty. Oyler was also convicted of 11 counts of arson and 10 counts of use of an incendiary device in those arsons. Sentencing is set for June 5. Firefighters Mark Loutzenhiser, 44; Jess McLean, 27; Jason McKay, 27; and Daniel Hoover-Najera, 20, died October 26, 2006, during a blaze called the Esperanza fire when the wildfire, fueled by Santa Ana winds, enveloped their engine. The fifth firefighter, Pablo Cerda, 23, died October 31, 2006, at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, where he had been taken after sustaining burns over 90 percent of his body. "

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/california.fire.death.penalty/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

Very unfortuanate is the fact that these firefighters died while doing their duty to protect California from a wild fire started by an irresponsible, malicious, horrendous criminal. Yet did he really commit 1st degree murder? Arson, use of illegal incindiaries, voluntary man-slaughter, yes. Did he though set the fires as a pre-mediated idea to kill firefighters??

Sure deserves to be locked away for a very very long time; but the death penalty seriously?
I have a feeling that emotion (due to those killed being a firefighters) rather than law and precedent are pushing this sentence. Fact is these firefighters were doing their job and they knew the risk when they signed up.

This goes along with the incidents I have heard where during a police pursuit a cop makes a wrong/irresponsible move wrecks his car and dies; than the DA attempts to charge the criminal with the murder of a cop.

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : c]

3/20/2009 10:33:30 AM

hmm, a jury inflamed by personal anger oversteps legal bounds for punishment?
geez, couldn't have seen that coming - http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=561414

3/20/2009 10:35:57 AM

I think first-degree charges are pretty standard if someone is killed while you commit a violent crime, whether you actually meant to kill or not, i.e...carjacking, kidnapping, etc...

3/20/2009 10:37:45 AM

Well I think you when you commit such a large scale arson, you surely know that somebody is going to get hurt.

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason : wtf, load]

3/20/2009 10:39:21 AM

Quote :

"This goes along with the incidents I have heard where during a police pursuit a cop makes a wrong/irresponsible move wrecks his car and dies; than the DA attempts to charge the criminal with the murder of a cop."

What you're actually looking at in this case and the arson case is "felony murder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Quote :

"The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an obviously dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies."

Quote :

"Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder."

The more you know!

3/20/2009 10:51:54 AM

So lets say person A commits a crime and is fleeing the scene. Officer Pete is in pursit. Officer Bill who is 4 miles away wants to be a hero too and proceeds to make a quick u-turn, unsafe pass, take a corner to fast on a 2-lane highway like NC54. In the process loses controls runs into a tree and dies. Is the person A liable for this cops death since he was responding to a chase after a felony crime? What if Officer Bill had been drinking or the wreck was due to a failure of his police cruiser which had not been maintained correctly?

3/20/2009 11:04:30 AM

^

Quote :

"Is the person A liable for this cops death since he was responding to a chase after a felony crime?"

That's what the bullshit law says. (Our country is fucked if people can't see that these laws are complete bullshit.)

Quote :

"firefighters died while doing their duty to protect California from a wild fire started by an irresponsible, malicious, horrendous criminal. Yet did he really commit 1st degree murder?"

Of course not.

Quote :

"incidents I have heard where during a police pursuit a cop makes a wrong/irresponsible move wrecks his car and dies; than the DA attempts to charge the criminal with the murder of a cop"

Not murder.

Also, some lawyer recently won a case of murder against a drunk driver that killed. Hopefully, of course, it'll be overturned on appeal.

All of these laws are 100% bullshit. Of course these arsonists and drunk manslaughterers are heinous and should spend perhaps the rest of their lives in prison, but that doesn't mean that they're murderers.

I think some of this problem with “over-charging criminals” has to do with limits on sentencing. For example, the prison sentence limit on arson, drunken vehicular manslaughter, or burglary may only be 10 years or something, and therefore in situations like these, where cops and firefighters died, that sentence is too light. So instead of [legislatively] changing the sentence limit to allow for these certain situations, they instead [judicially] attempt, successfully it seems, to charge the criminal with an entirely different crime simply in order to be able to get the harsher sentence the criminal deserves. However, this warps the justice system and is wrong.

If drunk drivers that commit manslaughter deserve harsher sentences, then fix whatever you've got to do in order to give them harsher sentences, but don't charge them with murder -- they didn't murder. If arsonists that set fires that kill firefighters deserve harsher sentences, then fix whatever you've got to do in order to give them harsher sentences, but don't charge them with murder -- they didn't murder. If armed criminals that commit burglary where cops die on the way to the scene deserve harsher sentences, then fix whatever you've got to do in order to give them harsher sentences, but don't charge them with murder -- they didn't murder.

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ]

3/20/2009 11:08:21 AM

Willy Nilly is a loon.


of course this is murder. I support the decision. it doesn't matter what method is used to kill somebody... the guy knew such a large fire would kill, and set it regardless of that fact.

3/20/2009 11:22:37 AM

But did they know that starting a small fire would result in such a large fire?

3/20/2009 11:36:39 AM

^^^

3/20/2009 11:37:39 AM

^^^ If I am stealing a big screen TV out of Best Buy; the police show up and grab my wrist as I walk out the door. The TV is heavy and when he grabs my wrist I drop the
TV on his leg breaking it. So it is ok for the DA to charge me with assault on a cop with a weapon (the TV)?

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : s]

3/20/2009 11:37:55 AM

Quote :

"the guy knew such a large fire would could kill, and set it regardless of that fact."

Not murder.

3/20/2009 11:46:58 AM

Quote :

"So lets say person A commits a crime and is fleeing the scene. Officer Pete is in pursit. Officer Bill who is 4 miles away wants to be a hero too and proceeds to make a quick u-turn, unsafe pass, take a corner to fast on a 2-lane highway like NC54. In the process loses controls runs into a tree and dies. Is the person A liable for this cops death since he was responding to a chase after a felony crime? What if Officer Bill had been drinking or the wreck was due to a failure of his police cruiser which had not been maintained correctly?"

I'm not arguing it's right, I'm arguing that this is the doctrine currently in practice. And it's not something new, either - it's been around awhile.

Besides which, mitigating circumstances like those above would be the first thing a defense lawyer would pull out - i.e., separating the act from proximate cause (i.e., in this case, failure to maintain the vehicle).

The problem is, of course, that the doctrine has been successfully applied in cases such as an officer chasing a suspect crashing into an unaffiliated third party, killing them, thus charging the suspect with felony murder. How did the suspect cause this? Well, the only proximate cause is that they committed a crime and fled from the cops.

Again, not saying it's right - but it's been there awhile now.

3/20/2009 11:47:49 AM

This arsonist asshole is a repeat offender -- he's been charged with other fires, too. He's committing an extremely destructive act with obvious intent to harm and kill, and he's doing it more than once. Fry the fucker.

3/20/2009 11:48:32 AM

^
Is he an asshole that repeatedly commits extremely destructive acts? Yes.
Did he have obvious intent to harm and kill? That would have to be proven, but it's possible.
Fry the fucker? Maybe... at least life with no parole.
Is he a murderer? No.
At best, he's guilty of arson and involuntary manslaughter. At worst, he's guilty of arson and voluntary manslaughter.

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2009 12:01:47 PM

his intent was to harm/destroy/kill. he killed. therefore, it is murder. fire was his weapon.

3/20/2009 12:33:46 PM

Quote :

"his intent was to harm/destroy/kill"

harm != destroy != kill

has it been shown that his intent was actually to kill with the fires?

3/20/2009 12:35:41 PM

if I discharge a shotgun towards a group of people, how would one prove it is my intent to kill?

3/20/2009 12:43:04 PM

Malice

3/20/2009 1:07:47 PM

Quote :

"officer chasing a suspect crashing into an unaffiliated third party, killing them, thus charging the suspect with felony murder. How did the suspect cause this"

I'd argue if Leroy high on crack running from the police at 120mph, and hits a civilian is still is not a murderer.
Felon who with all the charges should spend 40 years in prison sure. A murderer? Cut me a fucking break....

What are we 13th century england...

Murder is the INTENT to kill otherwise its manslaughter.

Are we going to start charing heroin dealers for murder the next time a drug addict OD's.

3/20/2009 1:21:12 PM

In NC, element (3)(c) of first degree murder specifically states committing or attempting arson but you have to prove malice. Malice can be showed in three ways. 1) hatred, ill will or spite 2) commission of an inherently dangerous act or 3) some long explanation about state of mind where you take the life of another intentionally or unintentionally which proximately results in death w/out just cause, excuse or justification.

I don't know what CA looks like.

Quote :

"Are we going to start charing heroin dealers for murder the next time a drug addict OD's."

N.C. GS 14-7 has specifically outlines that a person who unlawfully distributes opium, cocaine, ore any their derivatives or meth and the ingestion of the above substances causes the users death the defendant is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A class B2 Felony.

3/20/2009 1:55:27 PM

United States of Freedom wooo!!!

3/20/2009 2:03:38 PM

Quote :

"Murder is the INTENT to kill otherwise its manslaughter."

That's your definition alone, and it is not the legal definition. Murder is unlawful killing, usually with intent, but intent isn't absolutely necessary. You beat the shit out of someone, but you don't intend to kill them? Guess what? You can still be charged with murder.

Arsonists have been charged with murder in common law countries for centuries.

3/20/2009 2:08:18 PM

If I die of lung cancer, can they charge my pot-smoking roomate of felony murder?

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM. Reason : murdur]

3/20/2009 2:12:37 PM

^
With these bullshit laws, why not?

Quote :

"when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder."

:carlface:
Our system is fucked. Truly fucked. So fucked, in fact, that it almost justifies ignoring all of it. With so many clearly bullshit laws, I think anarchy might be the only suitable alternative. Do you honestly think many of these completley backward laws and legal precedents can be undone? I mean, I'm a good, honest, and non-violent person that simply wants a good life, a job, a family, and some food on the table, but these completely reckless, unjust, and blatantly illogical laws almost make me want to give it all up in order to participate in anarchist "direct action". Quite seriously, anarchism may be the most sensible option. Truly fucking sad. Oh yeah, any of you fuckers that support this crap can fuck yourself with a rusty can.

Quote :

"N.C. GS 14-7 has specifically outlines that a person who unlawfully distributes opium, cocaine, ore any their derivatives or meth and the ingestion of the above substances causes the users death the defendant is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A class B2 Felony."

This is the biggest crock of shit since eugenics. That's right. This bullshit is 100% wrong. Anyone who agrees with this crap is wrong. Period. No debate. It's not even worth it. Fucking crazy. MOTHER FUCKING CRAZY

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2009 4:07:13 PM

If I die of acute respiratory distress, I want the Saudis, Texas, and a bunch of coal companies to be charged with 2nd degree murder

3/20/2009 4:09:53 PM

I think anyone that dies of opium/cocaine/heroin overdose probably deserved to die in the first place; natural selection at its finest. Unless that is the dealer was selling goods cut with poison.

3/20/2009 5:39:32 PM

^There are dolts (chances are, "dolts" includes more than a few of the people who make our laws) who would argue that what is being sold is itself poison.

3/20/2009 7:46:24 PM

Quote :

""N.C. GS 14-7 has specifically outlines that a person who unlawfully distributes opium, cocaine, ore any their derivatives or meth and the ingestion of the above substances causes the users death the defendant is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A class B2 Felony.""

what? i can be charged for someone elses death when I illegally sell drugs to them

3/20/2009 7:48:20 PM

you got to get your illegal drugs FDA approved, inspected by the NC AGR department, and taxed by the NC dept. of revenue before selling down on teh corner.

3/20/2009 7:54:59 PM

Quote :

"Fry the fucker? Maybe... at least life with no parole. Is he a murderer? No. "

As long as you're down with the possibility of frying the fucker, I don't give two shits what you want to call it.

Quote :

"and taxed by the NC dept. of revenue before selling down on teh corner. "

NC Dept. of Revenue already taxes illegal drugs. One of my instructors at NCSU worked with them as well. There's a form you can fill out where you indicate the type and quantity of the drugs you have, you pay for stamps that are then put on the drugs to indicate that you've paid taxes, and somehow you can do all of this without giving your name or address. Virtually nobody actually applies and pays to get these stamps, obviously, and the ones who do are almost exclusively collectors.

Apparently one of the prized items is a stamp for cocaine, from Texas I think, that is just a black background with a skull and crossbones. On one side it says "Death" and on the other it says "Taxes."

I want to say the instructor's name was Kaczynski (no relation to Ted). He may still be there. Ask him some time, he gets a kick out of talking about it.

The more you know...

3/20/2009 10:25:35 PM

if I shoot an arrow randomly into the air and it lands on someone and kills them is that murder?

I didnt aim it at or mean for it to kill anyone

boo hoo

3/21/2009 6:08:39 PM

^That would probably be manslaughter.

3/21/2009 6:11:08 PM