Cop killed in car chase, thugs charged with murder 1

[The_Ryan]

Bricker

The merger rule, which I discussed earlier in this very thread, means that the assault or murder cannot be the predicate felony for felony murder.

Does it strike no one as odd that someone intends to kill someone will get a lighter sentence than someone who doesn’t? That the difference between first and second degree murder can be whether one intends to kill, with first degree murder being charged if one didn’t intend to kill? Does the merger only work for the intended murder? If one picks up a gun in a fit of rage and shoots someone, but the bullet passes through them and hits someone else, would one be charged with second degree murder for the first death, but first for the second? I realize that the law is not required to make sense, but this seems particularly silly to me.

If we’re talking about a generic case, then it seems obvious from context that Jodi meant that sufficient facts exist to allege evading as well.

I don’t see how the context makes it obvious. Perhaps part of the problem is that Jodi is discussing several different charges (theft, evasion, felony murder) and does not specify which she is discussing where.

Jodi

What I was talking about, as I believe was perfectly clear, is the fact that if the same events had occurred in my jurisdiction, then the predicate felony could just as easily have been evasion as theft.

Then you and I have different ideas about what it means to be talking about a particular case. In my mind, if someone is discussing a hypothetical in which all the facts are the same as a real world example except for one detail, then saying “I’m not talking about this particular case” is not a completely accurate statement.

The clear inference here is that by saying “questions” as to guilt existed, I was saying that those “questions” were sufficient to support an indictment

The author of post is hardly an unbiased judge of what implications are clear.

– hence your pompous and utterly obvious little lecture

Two lines constitute a lecture? Explaining one’s position is “pompous”? Sounds to me that you’ll look for any excuse to take offense.

To which I responded, I never said anything about the sufficiency of the evidence necessary to indict.

If, as Bricker says, you meant that sufficient facts exist to allege [charge] evading, then you are saying something about the sufficiency of the evidence. “The evidence is sufficient” is a statement about the sufficiency of the evidence.

Fortunately, for some time now I have not considered your lack of understanding to be my problem.

How convenient for you. And I suppose if I say that I don’t understand how you can call me pompous without a trace of irony, you’ll be convinced that that is my failing as well. It is rather disingenuous to imply that your conclusion has been arrived at from repeated attempts at patience, seeing as how you attacked me after my very first post. You have never honestly tried to explain anything to me, so it should come as no surprise that you have had little success. A more honest description of your attitude would be “I made a snap judgement the first time I saw you post, have interacted with you through the lens of that snap judgement, and those interaction confirmed in my mind the judgement I already had.”

[bibliophage]

I think the factual questions about the law have long since been answered, so I’ll close this thread. Anyone wishing to debate the fairness or the law or the applicability of the law to specific cases is directed to the Great Debates forum.

bibliophage
moderator GQ