Moderator Warning
jtur88, you’ve been warned previously for political jabs in General Questions. This is another one. If you continue to disregard the rules of this forum, you may find your posting privileges under discussion.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
What is your basis for believing that getting in your car and starting it while carrying the water pistol as your intended murder weapon qualifies as “substantial?”
Not only that, but according to my copy of Witness to Witchcraft, people can die from evil curses.
IIRC, in most jurisdictions based on English Law, the ‘armed’ part of ‘armed robbery’ is based on the perp’s intent, rather than whether or not his ‘weapon’ is actually believable as a threat. If he intended the bank teller to take it seriously, he’s guilty of ‘armed robbery’, even if his ‘weapon’ was ridiculous, and something no bank teller would actually take seriously. IANAL, so I welcome correction from actual Law-Talking-Persons. Your ‘diminished capacity defense’ point, on the other hand, certainly would apply to a charge of ‘armed robbery’, if the weapon were a clownishly colored squirt-gun.
Yes, that’s all that I’m saying. There is a certain reasonable quality that has to be applied. Even with a squirt gun a bank teller might assume that it contains some dangerous substance and not just water, but if someone just pointed their finger at you and said “Hand over the money or I’ll shoot you with my finger” it wouldn’t be reasonable to consider that to be a dangerous weapon in itself. The teller might assume they are still being threatened in some way, or if the finger was in a jacket pocket and the robber is claiming it is a gun then there’s something to charge, but not the naked finger itself was reasonably believed to be a gun.
The simple fact of possession of an “intended murder weapon” while taking steps toward that goal…
Originally Posted by (720 ILCS 5/8-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 8-4)
Attempt.
“It is not a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted.”
It’s the ‘or else’ that makes it an offense. It’s a case of ‘false dichotomy’. Did you offer me the choice to kick you in the 'nads? You’re offering a choice, but the only other side of the ‘choice’ that you offered is what makes it an offense. If the ‘or else’ is ‘I will squirt you with water’, then you’re fine. BUT, if the person on the receiving end of the squirt could think that it might be bleach, and will blind him/her? It’s how your threat might be perceived that’s the problem. The law doesn’t look at the ‘false dichotomy’ choices you offered, it looks at all the other alternatives, and whether or not your ‘bank teller’ victim might have imagined them when you ‘offered’ that supposedly 2 sided choice, but in fact, it’s bloody multivariate, and most of them are… uhh… less than desirable.
OK, my previous post about ‘intent’ was wrong… Ok, a bit off. The perp may not have bleach in there, but he intended it as a threat. Even if he only intended it as “You’ll get wet”.
I think Bricker’s not questioning the intent part of it; he’s raising the factual question of whether getting in the car and starting it (whether carrying a water pistol or real gun) is really a substantial step towards shooting someone. That’s something to decide on a case-by-case basis, of course, but I think it’s an uphill battle to make it clearly a yes.
Yeah, Congratulations. You’re factually guilty of the crime. Can a prosecutor prove it against you? Unless he demonstrates that intent, almost certainly not. Congratulations, again. You got away with attempted murder. I’m not seeing a reason to let people like your example get away with it, just because they were stupid enough to bring a squirt-gun, instead of a real one, to the crime.
No, the simple fact of possession of an intended murder weapon while taking steps toward that goal is NOT sufficient.
You quote an Illinois statute, so I assume you’re discussing Illinois law. I direct your attention to People v. Smith, 593 NE 2d 533 (Ill. 1992).
In Smith, the accused armed himself with a gun, hailed a cab, used the cab to try to locate a specific jewlery store, stole the cab at gunpoint, and admitted to the police he had intended to rob the store and use the cab as a getaway car and haul the jewelry he stole in a pillowcase which he also brought along for that purpose; being stymied only by not finding the specific store he sought.
I assume you’ll agree that those steps are manifestly more “substantial” than our water-gun killer merely starting his car.
However, as the Illinois Supreme Court explained:
Well?
All that and it still wasn’t substantial? :dubious: Did the Court say why all that wasn’t sufficiently substantial? Did the Court suggest what more would have been needed to be substantial? (Like, maybe, if the accused had done his homework and found out ahead of time where the store was located? Was it “insubstantial” because he didn’t know where the store was that he was trying to rob?)
It isn’t a science and will differ based on jurisdiction. It cannot be “mere preparation.” Judges and justices will come out on different sides based upon the circumstances of the individual case, some leaning more towards a strict view and others being more lenient. Generally the facts must show a certain commitment to the act such that it tips the balance from thinking about it and setting up to do it versus in the process of doing it.
We spent two days in first year crim law studying it, and my conclusion was that there really is no fine line. Cases are all over the place. All of the tests simply restate the original problem.
Are there extra penalties if it’s a semi auto squirt gun or if it has a high capacity water tank?
Just curious: I assume that overturning Mr. Smith’s conviction for attempted armed robbery was a bit unimportant given there’s no dispute he committed actual armed robbery (of the cab)?
Depends, some people might say “fuck you, do it if you have the balls!”
So if the guy had a drawing in a notebook at a home that said “Operation : Rob The Jewels”. There’s a drawing of the store, a series of steps (1. Walk in the store. 2. Pull out a gun. Etc), and a shopping list.
This reminds me of a scene in the Marx Brothers’ movie *Go West, * in which Harpo and saloon owner Red Baxter (Robert Barratt) parody the cliché gunfighter scene. They step together in the saloon; Barratt draws his six-shooter. Harpo shows his weapon–a whisk broom! Everyone laughs, including Barratt and Harpo, who carefully dusts Barratt off as if he is home plate. Then the broom fires! :eek:
IANAL, but I’m inclined to think it wouldn’t, at least, not if you don’t explicitly say that was your intent. I don’t see how that scenario, in isolation, could lead to your arrest to begin with, but if, while you were sitting there, the cops roll up and arrest you, there are lots of perfectly legal reasons you would be attempting to start your car that you could say.
Bricker actually IAL, and appears to have had the same thought.
Yes, well, you may not want to testify to that effect, for that very reason.