What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

FreshFish said:
Are you sure you have all the details? She was driving a van with others in the back. the police pulled over the van and had their guns trained on her when she got out. She pleaded with them to lower their weapons. When they did, the others jumped out of the van and slaughtered the police. So, speaking metaphorically, she never actually pulled the trigger, she merely aimed the gun and held it while someone lese pulled the trigger? and somehow this technicality makes a difference because?

Jack McCoy always said that the bullet followed the intent. I know that's just television, but if his assertion is true....
Click to expand...

She never pulled the trigger (actus reus). Had she pulled the trigger, she would have been almost certainly charged with something else besides felony murder and likely would have spent more than 20 years in prison.
 
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Priceless said:
Thomas Jefferson?
Click to expand...

Close. Alan Jackson.

Edit: I should really explain the backstory here. When I was just getting out of undergrad, I taught 6th Grade American History. For their final, they had to do a small research project, and one of my students chose to do the Boston Massacre. In the paper, the student talked about how George Washington led the Boston Massacre, and that Alan Jackson helped fight back against the British (along with many other odd falsities). I failed the student, and had a discussion with the parents. It turns out that, at the time, if you did a google search for Boston Massacre, one of the links that popped up was a facetious site where my student got all his information. Needless to say, that paper was one of my favorites to go back and read whenever I needed a good laugh.
 
Last edited:
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
She never took the "last act" (i.e. pulling the trigger/detonating the device/etc.). I fully agree that she was culpable and deserved to go to prison; however, she did not kill anyone because she never took that last act regardless of her intent. That is why she was charged with (and rightfully convicted of) Felony Murder as opposed to a different form of murder/homicide.

Imagine this hypothetical. Two people (A and B) conspire to rob the bank. They recruit a third person (C) to come pick them up at a specific time/place following the robbery. For this hypothetical, C knows A and B's plan to rob the bank, including the fact that A and B will not have a weapon of any sort. A and B go to the Bank, tell the teller that they have a bomb placed in the bank, and to fill a bag full of money. After getting the bag of money, A and B run out of the Bank. While running out, an undercover cop pulls out a gun, and fires at A and B. The shot ricochets off the floor, and kills innocent bystander D. A and B then successfully get out of the bank, and meet up with C who drives them to their getaway location.

Is C a killer?

What if A and B planned to use weapons and C knew about the use of those weapons, is C now a killer?

What if A and B planned to use weapons but C didn't know about that part of it, is C now a killer?

What if it was A that fired at the cop, and killed D, is C now a killer?

What if instead D dying, the teller has a heart attack and dies after hearing A and B's request...is C now a killer?

In short, depending on the state, C may be convicted of felony murder in all of these scenarios. However, in no way was C the killer in any of these scenarios.
Click to expand...

Felony murder is still generally considered murder 1 though, so it's ultimately not doing the criminal any favors legally by making that distinction.
 
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

unofan said:
Felony murder is still generally considered murder 1 though, so it's ultimately not doing the criminal any favors legally by making that distinction.
Click to expand...

Correct. I wasn't trying to do the criminal any favors, just pointing out the difference (from one of FreshFish's posts a few pages back) between saying someone killed two people and saying that they were convicted for felony murder. Two different things.
 
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
She never took the "last act" (i.e. pulling the trigger/detonating the device/etc.). I fully agree that she was culpable and deserved to go to prison; however, she did not kill anyone because she never took that last act regardless of her intent. That is why she was charged with (and rightfully convicted of) Felony Murder as opposed to a different form of murder/homicide.
Click to expand...

If I hired a hitman, who is more culpable for the murder, me or the hitman?

Hint, it's not the guy who actually pulled the trigger...
 
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Russell Jaslow said:
If I hired a hitman, who is more culpable for the murder, me or the hitman?

Hint, it's not the guy who actually pulled the trigger...
Click to expand...

I never said she wasn't culpable. In fact, if you read what you quoted, "I fully agree that she was culpable."

I'm also not trying to debate who is "more culpable" than another. I'm simply saying, in your scenario, the person who hired the hitman was not the killer. The hitman was the killer.

It's really not that complicated.

EDIT: Here's a football analogy that may help. When the Bills lost Super Bowl XXV, people say that Scott Norwood missed the Field Goal. They don't say that Adam Lingner missed the field goal despite the fact that Lingner's snap set the play in motion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Reportedly, the older brother was on welfare.

Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.
Click to expand...

The younger brother supposedly sold marijuana to some of his classmates from time to time to supplement the scholarship he had.
 
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Old Pio said:
That's a bit of a reach, even by your rather primitive standards, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Huh?

I was merely playing on words that you called all defense lawyers scumbags, but in fact the "scumbag" (again, your word) that defended the British soldiers is one of our key Founding Fathers. The primitive standard is on you, not me.
 
Re: Marathon Killers Apprehended: the Aftermath

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I never said she wasn't culpable. In fact, if you read what you quoted, "I fully agree that she was culpable."

I'm also not trying to debate who is "more culpable" than another. I'm simply saying, in your scenario, the person who hired the hitman was not the killer. The hitman was the killer.

It's really not that complicated.

EDIT: Here's a football analogy that may help. When the Bills lost Super Bowl XXV, people say that Scott Norwood missed the Field Goal. They don't say that Adam Lingner missed the field goal despite the fact that Lingner's snap set the play in motion.
Click to expand...

Okay, I got you. But, I still don't agree.

The person who hired the hitman is indeed the true killer. He was just too chicken to pull the actual trigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top