(Insert title here)
I'll look into South Carolina's murder statute later, but the police chief apparently intends to recommend the death penalty. Whether prosecutors will follow that route is not yet known. However, if the event was so blatant as news reports might lead us to believe, and considering that Mr. Patrick possessed the firearm illegally, it might be that premeditation is not required for the first degree; murder with aggravating circumstances may suffice.
I condemn the stupidity of the act. Whether it is a crime, or even a capital crime, is left to the laws of South Carolina and the jury.
Max, it's not just a matter of my brain or his. Some analyses are plainly wrong. If Grinnell is accurate, for instance, and Mr. Patrick realized he'd made a mistake as soon as he'd opened the door, then we might conclude—at least until he or his attorney argue otherwise—that he had no idea who he was shooting at. In such a case, I would suggest that ringing a doorbell is not reasonably described as a threat worthy of death.
Now here's a problem. Mr. Patrick's girlfriend was arrested for obstruction of justice—she allegedly gave false statements to the police—and $7,500 was confiscated. If it turns out, theoretically, that the money, which police regard as somehow suspicious, came from some sort of nefarious activity (e.g., a drug deal) and Patrick suspected his business associates might be coming after him, that's not going to sit well with a jury.
Was he specifically expecting someone trying to do him harm? There's a big question mark we don't have an answer to yet. And that might explain why a likely undereducated convicted felon apparently opened fire upon hearing his doorbell ring on Hallowe'en.
One effect of this point is that one need not have a reason to think they are under threat; they merely need to say afterward, "I was frightened", and then they can shoot whomever they wish for whatever reason. Or no reason at all.
This is neither reasonable nor responsible. And therein lies the question Mr. Patrick must answer.
Somewhat reasonable?
Okay, how?
So what did he do? Hear the doorbell ring and look out the peephole, make a rational decision according to limited information, and then open fire? It took all of a few seconds at most, according to the information we have available to us. What, was he camping behind his front door?
You keep accentuating that it won't bring back the kid. Life goes on, Max, except for the dead. But there are also considerations that some people—e.g. police and prosecutors—have to make for the future. They feel this man committed a crime. Should they just throw up their hands and walk away? Should they say, "We think this man is dangerous, but arresting and convicting him won't bring back the kid, so who cares?"
He might not. Attempting to ask directions has been considered by a jury reasonable grounds for shooting someone to death through a closed door. If he gets a good lawyer, he might be able to convince the jury of exactly what you're arguing.
So complain to Madanthonywayne. Or Stryder. Or Plazma. (I'm under the impression you're not a fan of Asguard, String, or James at present.)
But what do you find insulting? That I find your egotism—which results in many curious twisted and presumptuous leaps in order to express hostility—bloated and inflamed? Or that sometimes we have childish, bullshit arguments? In the case of the former, I'll merely point out that even recently you've been pissing and moaning about my regard for the police, even though you have yet to explain your absurd comparison of a police officer to a black man; and I might chuckle and recall your more recent tantrums, as well. Indeed, if you ever get around to making your case regarding the "injustice" of the last couple weeks, you'll only lend weight to my point. As to the latter, well, when you want to focus on me instead of the general discussion, I do find that childish. And when I entertain it, there's not really much to serve up except bullshit. Unless, of course, you want to make a substantial case.
Baron Max said:
I'll look into South Carolina's murder statute later, but the police chief apparently intends to recommend the death penalty. Whether prosecutors will follow that route is not yet known. However, if the event was so blatant as news reports might lead us to believe, and considering that Mr. Patrick possessed the firearm illegally, it might be that premeditation is not required for the first degree; murder with aggravating circumstances may suffice.
I condemn the stupidity of the act. Whether it is a crime, or even a capital crime, is left to the laws of South Carolina and the jury.
Max, it's not just a matter of my brain or his. Some analyses are plainly wrong. If Grinnell is accurate, for instance, and Mr. Patrick realized he'd made a mistake as soon as he'd opened the door, then we might conclude—at least until he or his attorney argue otherwise—that he had no idea who he was shooting at. In such a case, I would suggest that ringing a doorbell is not reasonably described as a threat worthy of death.
Now here's a problem. Mr. Patrick's girlfriend was arrested for obstruction of justice—she allegedly gave false statements to the police—and $7,500 was confiscated. If it turns out, theoretically, that the money, which police regard as somehow suspicious, came from some sort of nefarious activity (e.g., a drug deal) and Patrick suspected his business associates might be coming after him, that's not going to sit well with a jury.
Was he specifically expecting someone trying to do him harm? There's a big question mark we don't have an answer to yet. And that might explain why a likely undereducated convicted felon apparently opened fire upon hearing his doorbell ring on Hallowe'en.
One effect of this point is that one need not have a reason to think they are under threat; they merely need to say afterward, "I was frightened", and then they can shoot whomever they wish for whatever reason. Or no reason at all.
This is neither reasonable nor responsible. And therein lies the question Mr. Patrick must answer.
Somewhat reasonable?
Okay, how?
So what did he do? Hear the doorbell ring and look out the peephole, make a rational decision according to limited information, and then open fire? It took all of a few seconds at most, according to the information we have available to us. What, was he camping behind his front door?
You keep accentuating that it won't bring back the kid. Life goes on, Max, except for the dead. But there are also considerations that some people—e.g. police and prosecutors—have to make for the future. They feel this man committed a crime. Should they just throw up their hands and walk away? Should they say, "We think this man is dangerous, but arresting and convicting him won't bring back the kid, so who cares?"
He might not. Attempting to ask directions has been considered by a jury reasonable grounds for shooting someone to death through a closed door. If he gets a good lawyer, he might be able to convince the jury of exactly what you're arguing.
So complain to Madanthonywayne. Or Stryder. Or Plazma. (I'm under the impression you're not a fan of Asguard, String, or James at present.)
But what do you find insulting? That I find your egotism—which results in many curious twisted and presumptuous leaps in order to express hostility—bloated and inflamed? Or that sometimes we have childish, bullshit arguments? In the case of the former, I'll merely point out that even recently you've been pissing and moaning about my regard for the police, even though you have yet to explain your absurd comparison of a police officer to a black man; and I might chuckle and recall your more recent tantrums, as well. Indeed, if you ever get around to making your case regarding the "injustice" of the last couple weeks, you'll only lend weight to my point. As to the latter, well, when you want to focus on me instead of the general discussion, I do find that childish. And when I entertain it, there's not really much to serve up except bullshit. Unless, of course, you want to make a substantial case.
