Agreed.
You continue to labor under the misconception that I desire to prove something to you. I don’t.
Correct, again. Which is why I don’t try to prove anything to you.
I’m not the questionee, but:
Nope. Morally, thugs deserve to die. That said, it is firmly possible that the justice system did not work in the sense that there were unwarrantedly high charges and the chargee was also an unreconstructed thug. But not because we should go light on him, but because he is not so obviously guilty that it is possible to tell him from an ordinary non-attempting-murdering person.
This moral structure seems to differ significantly from our justice system, which imposes punishment only for acts (X attempted murder) rather than states of being (X is a thug).
And your point is?
So you really are a troll. I appreciate your candor, and will keep it in mind when you open future threads. Thankyou.
danceswithcats, I can say that I all know about you is that you like to try to make points using stories about African Americans and that you get rear-ended at a higher rate than is usual. While driving… by other cars, that is to say.
So when I saw an OP by you that refers to the “Jena 6”, of course it’s going to be about race. What else does the shorthand reference to the circumstances surrounding the “Jena 6” refer to? Nut up, please (you’re from PA, goddamn it), if you can and acknowledge your actual meaning. This innocent eye-batting is disgusting.
ETA: King o’ Soup, may I just say that “danceswithscat” was a touch of genius? Of course I may.
deleted.
When they attacked him from behind, then tried to kick and beat him to death while he was unconscious.
Bzzt. Conclusory. You can’t assume what you’re trying to prove.
How do you know that they tried to beat him to death when he was unconscious?
In order to prove atempted murder, you have to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they wanted to kill him, but failed for some reason beyond their control.
The defense will say that they intended to assault him, to injure him, but they never intended to kill him.
What is your evidence that they intended to kill him?
A similar argument could be made in a lot of situations where the Defendant is charged and convicted of attempt. Suppose you show up at your wife’s lover’s house with a crossbow and shoot the guy but he survives. In my opinion, those are sufficient facts to charge you with attempted murder. You are free to testify to the jury that you intended only to cause injury and not to kill. And if the jury believes you, you might get acquitted, I suppose.
In the case of the Jena 6, if they did continue to punch and kick after the victim was unconscious and down; and stopped only because they were pulled away, I would say there are sufficient facts to support a charge of attempted murder.
Well one reason you may want to hit someone is to knock them out. If they are out, then you can take their wallet or whatever.
However, if after knocking someone out, you continue to hit them, what else would be their intention? They just wanted to hurt him a lot more but not kill him? Would this action, continued beating after rendering him unconsciousis, be at least reckless endangerment?
They could argue that they were too enraged to stop, but there wasn’t anything the victim had done to cause this rage.
In the hypothetical you offer, a fact-finder is permitted to infer that people intend the ordinary consequences of their actions. Shooting someone with a crossbow is ordinarily something that can kill.
Hitting and kicking someone ordinarily is not. It’s true that fists and feet can kill, but it’s not obvious that a person punching and kicking another intends to kill.
When the method of assault is fists, you typically need either some other evidence of intent, even if it’s a shouted “I’m going to kill that motherfucker,” or enough serious injury inflicted on the victim that you can argue to the jury that the attacker must have known he was in danger of killing his victim. In your crossbow hypothetical, that’s an easy argument to make; when only fists and feet are involved, it’s impossible.
Can you provide a cite to any similar case in which a conviction for attempted murder was obtained and upheld on a similar set of facts – no critical injury to the victim, no weapon, and no external evidence of intent?
No. Because, as a matter of law, those facts are insufficient to sustain a charge of attempted murder.
Sure, or aggravated assault, or a whole host of charges that are quite serious, but stop short of attempted murder. I don’t know about Jena, but here in Virgina there’s an offense styled “aggravated malicious wounding,” and as a Class 2 felony, it carries a penalty of 20 years to life. A person commits aggravated malcious wounding when he maliciously wounds any other person with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill. You could more easily argue that charge to a jury under these facts.
What these facts don’t support (insofar as I have heard them reported, mind you) is an inference that the defendants intended death, as opposed to injury.
And repeatedly punching and kicking someone who is unconscious on the floor can kill too.
I disagree. What do you think will happen eventually if you repeatedly punch and kick someone who’s unconscious on the floor? Eventually, the person is likely to receive a mortal injury. As you say, a jury is entitled to infer that the defendant intended the ordinary consequences of his or her actions.
At this time, I don’t have the time or energy to research the matter. Can you provide a cite to a similar case in which the court held, as a matter of law, that there were insufficient facts to support a charge of attempted murder?
Bricker, you do realize that, you’re disputing matters of fact and law with TLetc., a poster who thinks of a cow as an animal “born and bred for unthinking violence,” don’t you? I mean, the Chicago arson aside, cows are generally bred not so much for unthinking violence as they are for, say, cottage cheese. So perhaps his perception of human motives should be greeted with sympathy rather than seriousness.
Well, the problem is that when a court makes such a ruling, it’s at the trial court level and thus not a matter of appellate record. I can tell you that during the years when I was practicing, a colleague in the PD’s office had a somewhat similar case, in which a grand jury returned an indictment against his guy and two others for attempted murder when the only admissible evidence was punching and kicking a prone (admittedly not unconscious) victim. They went to trial, and after the prosecution’s case-in-chief concluded, moved for a dismissal on the attempted murder charge for precisely the reasons discussed above.
But you’re the one claiming that such a charge is tenable. I’m claiming it’s not. It seems to me that leaves you with the burden of proof: show where it’s happened. My burden would be far greater – show that it hasn’t happened anywhere, the dread ‘prove a negative’.
It’s true that TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW is not likely on the short list for awards in critical thinking – although his presence on the short bus is a matter of some speculation. But I was responding in more detail to brazil84, who is wrong here but not crazy.
In theory, the prosecutor could appeal . . . no? In other words, if a judge dismisses an indictment as a matter of law, doesn’t the prosecutor have the right to appeal that ruling to a higher court?
Not only that, but if somebody was convicted of attempted murder under the circumstances you describe, it is conceivable that they would appeal, and in theory, the appellate court could hold that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
So it seems to me that there are plenty of ways that there could be legal authorities supporting your position.
Well, what I’m really claiming that the charge is not outrageous on its face. More than that would be hard to say without spending some time studying Louisiana law.
No, all I asked for was for an opinion dismissing such a charge or upholding the dismissal of such a charge or holding that there were insufficient facts to support such a charge. Preferably a case in Louisiana.
And I only asked for such a cite because you asked me for a cite the other way.
In any event, you haven’t denied that repeatedly punching and kicking a person who is unconscious on the floor is likely to eventually lead to the victim’s death. So by your own logic, there would appear to be a basis for a jury to infer an intent to kill.
I know Bricker is admirably arguing the case law side of this but, for those who are advocating an attempted murder charge because the victim was unconscious, I have a question.
What evidence do you have that the assailants knew he was unconscious? Wouldn’t they have to know that in order for the any continued battery to move into the territory of attempted murder?
For anyone who is going to argue they had time to see that after he wasn’t moving, remember the incident took place in a flash, not over some extended period of time. If this is done, I like to pre-emptively ask for a cite that *definitively * states how long he was unconscious, even an approximation.