You be the Judge: What is the appropiate punishment for something like this? - Page 3

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 16:28

Hey, if the difference is between premeditation, then my conjectural punishment should be the same as hers. I didn't plan to or mean to skewer the guy, anymore than she meant to hit him with the car.

But after the damage was done, we both decided to lock the injured parties away and let 'em die.

-=Vel=-

PLATO · June 25, 2003, 16:42

Good Lord! Some of you have a question about this!?! She is a NURSE who knowingly and willingly and with thought left a man she is qualified to know could be saved to DIE!

WTF is the debate about. This is pure and simple murder. Whatever she gets, you can bet that it will be more humane than what she gave.

Velociryx · June 25, 2003, 16:46

As always, Plato!

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 17:36

Fry the *****.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Good Lord! Some of you have a question about this!?! She is a NURSE who knowingly and willingly and with thought left a man she is qualified to know could be saved to DIE!

A nurse isn't qualified to know if a major trauma patient could be saved or not. Most MD's aren't, because that type of trauma requires specialized evaluation. It's irrelevant to the case though.

Quote:

WTF is the debate about. This is pure and simple murder. Whatever she gets, you can bet that it will be more humane than what she gave.

Damn straight.

Not only murder, but the actual killing act was intentional, premeditated, and torturous. She didn't intend to hit the guy, but the combined drug and alcohol intoxication is far enough across the reckless disregard standard that second degree murder could likely apply even if the had "accidentally" hit the guy and killed him outright.

The actual killing was hiding the guy and withholding help - leaving him hanging there for hours, until he slowly (and no doubt in great pain) bled out. Why? She'd get in trouble and be inconvenienced for driving while drunk and stoned. So you have a choice to kill, a deliberately thought out motive and intent, and complete disregard for not only the possibility of saving the man's life, but for the prolonged death and effective torture being inflicted.

As far as I'm concerned, it's an ok DP case. Since the DA didn't have the balls to pursue that, LWOP.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In order to prove murder you have to prove intent to kill, depraved indifference, or that the death occured as the result of committing another felony. Murder also requires an act. There was no act to kill the man.

Intent is provable from her statement to police, and the testimony of the others. The act was in not extracting him (or calling authorities) from where she put him. Felony hit and run, driving under the influence of a controlled substance which is a felony to possess or use, etc. - how many underlying felonies do you really want? I'm sure one or two more could be had.

Quote:

AFAIK, it is not against the law to let someone die, even as a result of something you did accidentally.

Not in any state I know of. If you have nothing to do with the act, you're not obligated to intervene, but if you have any participation in events leading to the cause of death, you are criminally liable.

Imran Siddiqui · June 25, 2003, 18:01

2nd Degree Murder, AT LEAST!

When she hit the guy and the guy didn't die (if he died then it is vehicular homicide... or perhaps 2nd degree felony murder), she has now a DUTY to provide help for this man because she caused the situation. Neglecting her duty (omission to perform) satisfies intent. It is 2nd degree without a doubt (reckless murder at the least).

There is a VERY good case to made for 1st degree murder here as well. She purposely neglected his moans and actually kept him from being cared for by those that may have saved his life. It was a premeditated murder, because chances are he might not have died if she just left him on the road (someone else might have called 911).

She's gotta get at least some significant jail time. Personally, I'd say go life imprisionment or DP.

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 23:23

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Here you can commit murder by a non-act, if you have created a guarantor status, like this woman has by inflicting potentially fatal injuries. I assume there is a similar concept in US penal laws.

Suppose you hit somebody with your car when drunken, and fled the scene because you're afraid that your drunken state would be discovered, and this person eventually died of a lack of medical care. That's not murder.

To show murder, there must be intent on the suspect's part to take the victim's life before the act. Even the intent is just a fraction of a second long, it's fine, but you need to show it.

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When she hit the guy and the guy didn't die (if he died then it is vehicular homicide... or perhaps 2nd degree felony murder), she has now a DUTY to provide help for this man because she caused the situation.

There's no difference between this and any other hit-and-run cases for the most part, except that she tried to hide it afterward.

DinoDoc · June 25, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
To show murder, there must be intent on the suspect's part to take the victim's life before the act.

The fact that she drove home with him (still alive) wedged in her windshield and kept him thier as he slowly bled to death isn't enough for you.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 23:28

The US has a (terms vary in the different states) "reckless disregard" standard that equates to intent.

Suppose my neighbors are having a loud party, and I fire 30 rounds from an M-16 into their house because I'm tired of going across the street and knocking on the door and being ignored. I may not "intend" to kill anyone, but a reasonable person would be aware of the extreme risk and high probability of killing someone by that act - therefore, I'm acting with "reckless disregard" of the consequences of my action.

Proof of a state of mind of a defendant is impossible unless the defendant clearly makes a statement at the time to a witness, or confesses after the fact. The law isn't so naive as to require proof of state of mind, when actions that demonstrate the likely state of mind can be proven - hence, the reckless disregard standard.

Zero · June 25, 2003, 23:32

The fact that she was high on all sorts of drugs is probably gonna be the biggest arguement to the defense case (and therefore she was unable to make the right choice or something like that)

It already seems to be heading that way with them mentioning that she was apologizing to the dying man.. blah blah

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact that she drove home with him (still alive) wedged in her windshield and kept him thier as he slowly bled to death isn't enough for you.

Suppose he wasn't lodged in the windshield, but was thrown off into a ditch or a bush, or even to the side of the road. He would still be dead, because this person was unable to get help himself. She in fact did not prevent him from getting help, she just failed to get help for him.

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US has a (terms vary in the different states) "reckless disregard" standard that equates to intent.

Suppose my neighbors are having a loud party, and I fire 30 rounds from an M-16 into their house because I'm tired of going across the street and knocking on the door and being ignored. I may not "intend" to kill anyone, but a reasonable person would be aware of the extreme risk and high probability of killing someone by that act - therefore, I'm acting with "reckless disregard" of the consequences of my action.

Proof of a state of mind of a defendant is impossible unless the defendant clearly makes a statement at the time to a witness, or confesses after the fact. The law isn't so naive as to require proof of state of mind, when actions that demonstrate the likely state of mind can be proven - hence, the reckless disregard standard.

Okay, but you are arguing that driving under influence is the same as "reckless disregard."

Most people who committed DUI thought they could still control the vehicle.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Suppose he wasn't lodged in the windshield, but was thrown off into a ditch or a bush, or even to the side of the road. He would still be dead, because this person was unable to get help himself. She in fact did not prevent him from getting help, she just failed to get help for him.

She locked him in her garage. That's kidnapping.

Had it been simple hit and run, she would be looking at felony vehicular manslaughter.

Ben Kenobi · June 25, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

This is pure and simple murder. Whatever she gets, you can bet that it will be more humane than what she gave.

LWOP.

Especially for the part where she ignored the moans.

DinoDoc · June 25, 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Suppose he wasn't lodged in the windshield, but was thrown off into a ditch or a bush, or even to the side of the road.

That didn't happen so why should we consider it.

Quote:

She in fact did not prevent him from getting help, she just failed to get help for him.

Which makes her criminally liable for the man's death. As MtG said we have more than enough underlying felonies to sustain the murder charge.

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That didn't happen so why should we consider it.

The two cases are fundamentally the same.

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which makes her criminally liable for the man's death.

Why? There's no law in the US that compels people to obtain help for victims.

Now, if the man was able to get help himself if left unattended, but she prevented him from doing so, that would be different.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Okay, but you are arguing that driving under influence is the same as "reckless disregard."

Most people who committed DUI thought they could still control the vehicle.

The legal standard is what a reasonable person would think. Generally, if someone tests a blood alcohol count (BAC) close to the limit for a DUI standard, then an accident related homicide would be treated as ordinary negligence.

IIRC, California law is explicit that DUI with a BAC that is a certain multiple over the legal limit crosses the threshold into reckless disregard, because any reasonable person that drunk off their ass would know they were lucky to get the keys in the igntion. Combination DUI's (multiple substances) and DUI of certain controlled substances also crosses the standard.

There's a second reckless disregard issue, and that's confining the individual trapped in a garage, waiting for him to die (and in fact discussing what to do with the body when he does die.)

That takes it so far over the reckless disregard standard that arguing the initial incident isn't even necessary, and probably won't be part of the DA's argument at trial. (why confuse the jury with extraneous issues to the minimum essential elements of the charges)

Urban Ranger · June 25, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
She locked him in her garage. That's kidnapping.

Sure, but I still can't see how that would make it first degree murder.

Zero · June 25, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Okay, but you are arguing that driving under influence is the same as "reckless disregard."

Most people who committed DUI thought they could still control the vehicle.

We know DWI and killing a person could be considered murder, but what if you hit a person and he doesnt die? but rather you're so ****ed up that you decide to take him home and apologies for what you've done?

That should be interesting scenario to answer.

MichaeltheGreat · June 25, 2003, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Why? There's no law in the US that compels people to obtain help for victims.

You and Chegitz are wrong on this. There's no law that compels people to obtain help for third parties in general, but if you yourself contribute to the cause of injury, then laws come into effect in different jurisdictions - adding new charges, or increasing the degree of culpability under existing charges.

Same thing for third parties - if you drive past and ignore it, no violation of the law, but if you know someone has someone in their garage, and intends to confine that person there until he dies, and you don't report it, you're an accessory to murder and/or kidnap.

Quote:

Now, if the man was able to get help himself if left unattended, but she prevented him from doing so, that would be different.

Which is exactly what happened - he was locked in a garage, with two broken legs and internal injuries, his body stuck through a windshield and his upper body hanging downward. He was pinned in place, and shut in the garage to keep people from seeing him, until he died, as a deliberate choice by the defendant.

HershOstropoler · June 26, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Suppose you hit somebody with your car when drunken, and fled the scene because you're afraid that your drunken state would be discovered, and this person eventually died of a lack of medical care. That's not murder.

If you flee the scene thinking that the person you hit may well die, but you accept that, it is murder under our laws (dolus eventualis). It's just virtually impossible to prove, unless you have circumstances like in this case. Here we may even have a case of knowingly letting him die.

"To show murder, there must be intent on the suspect's part to take the victim's life before the act."

Depends on two issues: 1. Is dolus eventualis (or reckless disregard) euqal to intent your system?

2. Can you commit murder by a non-act (Garantenstellung here, omission to perform as Imran mentioned). If the answer is yes, knowingly letting that person die is murder for sure.

MichaeltheGreat · June 26, 2003, 00:38

For 1, the answer is yes, in some form, in every state I'm aware of, and in Federal criminal practice.

For 2, generally, yes you can, if the non-act is subsequent to another act. For example, you lock someone up in a remote basement with no food, but then leave them alive and never come back.

HershOstropoler · June 26, 2003, 00:48

I see...

Although the example for 2. would require that "locking someone up in a remote basement with no food" is for some other purpose; otherwise you'd have an action + intent there already.

Dis · June 26, 2003, 02:43

I'd say murder, but she may have been in so much shock she didn't know what she was doing.

I suggest aquitting the suspect and sending her to counselling.

oedo · June 26, 2003, 03:01

Quote:

I'd say murder, but she may have been in so much shock she didn't know what she was doing.

but she had at least two days to reconsider her crime, until Biggs was bleeded to death. she most likely slept over it. shock doen´t seem to be an excuse here.
the longer I thing about it, the worse and more criminal her behavior becomes to me.

Dis · June 26, 2003, 03:02

2 days ehh?

Yes that is too much.

I can see one day to sober up- I'm assuming she was drunk.

I really won't feel bad if she's convicted of murder. I don't care if she spends the rest of her life in jail.

Dis · June 26, 2003, 03:08

Also she could have dropped the guy off at a hospital and hid out for a day to sober up.

We had a guy do that in my town. He hid out for a day to sober up, then turned himself in.

JCG · June 26, 2003, 12:29

to all the people that are indirectly trying to excuse/help the legal team of this *insert expletive*.

From the moment that this woman chose (just as she chose to drive under the influence of narcotics and alcohol) to take the poor man back to her home and deny him assistance, instead of a)taking him to a hospital b)calling 911 c)abandoning him on the spot so that someone else could help him, this stopped being just an accident and became a serious crime.

Whether it's felony murder or 2nd degree or something else doesn't change that.