Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Who says? A reporter? Maybe a police officer or lawyer? Maybe they're all the same person!? Shouldn't there be a lengthy investigation into this person since they wrote/spoke about the situation? What about the their telephone logs? Shouldn't we look for the connection between them, the mother and the two men who tried breaking into the woman's house? What if this person had problems with the two men so they crafted a scheme to get the men addicted to pain killers... then what if this person planted Cancer in the woman's husband knowing it would kill him some day, knowing the two men would attempt to break into the house to find pain killers? What if this same person also sold the woman the gun and was the 9-1-1 operator suggesting that she could "shoot to protect the baby"? It's obvious that this person is one of Rupert Murdoch's secret ninja assassins, so I think it's important we scrutinize this other player otherwise we'd essentially give the green light for legalized murder. I think this objection is reasonable.

PS: "No, I'm not breaking in to hurt you with this knife or anything... I just want to steal your pain killers and life. Promise to repay you back k?"

This is why I love you Eturnal.

Still - I think it's fairly obvious that every story ever is a massive conspiracy.

His assertion that you should find out more information before jumping to conclusions is still appropriate.



I have absolutely no problem with people being held accountable for their actions. If you and dreys wouldn't have robbed the bank dreys wouldn't have died. If more than one person commits a crime and one dies in a issue of justifiable defense, the death should be on all the guilty parties. If the two of you decided to steal candy from a baby and the mother shot dreys, I don't feel you should be charged because deadly force is not justifiable in that case (it could be but there is no reason to believe it would be).

You should both also be equally held accountable for the actions of the entire party. "charge them for what they did" would let lookouts and get-away drivers get off without punishment. If the two of you rob a bank and Dreys kills 10 people while you save a little girl's kitten from a tree outside, you both should be charged with 10 counts of homicide, with your sentence being lenient.



This is not even slightly true. She didn't know why the pair were attempting the home invasion, and even if she did these events don't happen in a calm peaceful manner. She was right to do what she did.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I disagree. Its not justifiable homicide if someone still gets charged with it.

It's justifiable in the sense that the person who killed Dreys was found to be justified in doing so according to the law. At no point were you and Dreys justified in robbing the bank, and so you were both responsible for the actions that occured. Likewise if you gave someone a heart-attack and died, you should be charged with homicide. Notice I said charged, not locked up and/or put to death. Judges and juries exist to determine guilt and amount of punishment and there should be lee-way, but you should be accountable for the consequences of your illegal actions.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Yeah but I didn't kill him. I shouldn't be charged with his murder. I think that shit is backwards.

You're responsible for the situation that lead to his death. It's homicide as opposed to involuntary manslaughter or willful indifference because you were in the act of committing a crime when he was killed. You are responsible and you should be charged.

Dvergar /
Quisling

No, he voluntarily went. He wasn't under duress.

In the case of the robbery, him getting killed is fine by me. so is the guy going to jail for attempted robbery and whatever else.

I don't think in any way were the two robbers responsible for each other, if they entered into the situtation of their own free will.

She knew these people personally. I find it hard to believe she had no idea as to their intentions. Hell, why not just ask?



I don't think you (or Usd) know what the word "conspiracy" means.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Conspiracy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see]
noun, plural -cies.
- the act of conspiring.
- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
- a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
- Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

ohhhhhh that's what it means. Man I was way off.

I agree with this. You should be charged with what you did. I don't think getaway drivers and lookouts should be charged with murder, they should be charged with driving the getaway car and looking out, respectively.

That's just my opinion on the matter, though.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

Fanta that's not quite my disagreement.

Anything bad that a group of criminals does, even if its just one individual doing it(ie a murder) they all should either be tried for the crime(the murderer) or as an accomplice(the others.)

If something bad happens to a criminal(ie someone murders him back) then fucking good. But I don't think it should affect the other criminals one way or another.

You all agreed to commit the felony, therefore you are all responsible. Your actions led to the death of another, that's just the way it is. The only real argument is that Dreys would have robbed the bank by himself if you went or not, but that can be argued at trial, you should be charged regardless.



So first you get upset about people jumping to conclusions about what really happened, and now you're jumping to conclusions about what really happened. How do you know she didn't? How do you know what was said at all? Regardless of what was said, it is clear he was an intruder and she felt threatened (which is sufficient for justification).

Dvergar /
Quisling

It's called the felony-murder rule, I brought it up on page 3.

It exists mostly as an added deterrent to crimes, though how effective a deterrent it can be when no one knows it exists is anyone's guess. The policy reasoning is, if you're going to embark in dangerous criminal activity, you (and all accomplices) bear the responsibility for any and all harm that occurs as a result of your initial illegal act.

If Dreys dies while the two of you are perpetrating a felony, it's on you. If a bystander is mistakenly killed by your intended victim, you and Dreys are responsible for that death.

I read a case where an old guy died of a heart attack after his business was robbed, but before the intruders reached a place of "safety" (which would end the "perpetrating a crime" phase and close the felony-murder timetable). Since they were deemed to have still been in the act of committing the crime when the heart attack began (if I remember right, they were fleeing the scene in a vehicle), the perps got felony-murder ruled.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh