5 ms·

Here's an excerpt from a case in Kansas specifically mentioning depraved-heart murder. Important part in italics. > "Depraved heart second-degree murder requir

by pwaai 9y ago

Here's an excerpt from a case in Kansas specifically mentioning depraved-heart murder. Important part in italics. > "Depraved heart second-degree murder requires a conscious disregard of the risk, sufficient under the circumstances, to manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life. Recklessness that can be assimilated to purpose or knowledge is treated as depraved heart second-degree murder, and less extreme recklessness is punished as manslaughter. Conviction of depraved heart second-degree murder requires PROOF that the defendant acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. This language describes a kind of culpability that differs in degree but not in kind from the ordinary recklessness required for manslaughter." So yes, you still need to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a prank gone wrong. Unless the accused called assassins, it's going to be hard to argue intent.

tptacek 9y ago
So, having begun your argument with the claim that only "involuntary manslaughter" would be available to prosecutors, because (not that I follow this logic) they'd be missing "malice aforethought", you've now become an expert on how Kansas evaluates gross recklessness?
- pwaai 9y ago
  I'm approaching this with no emotion and pre-judgement but based on facts. Let's take a look at what really happened: > According to the article, allegedly two Call of Duty players were threatening each other over a $2 bet. One call of duty member gives the other a fake address when the other threatens to SWAT him. Police go to the fake address and shoot somebody. Guy who got shot couldn't have possibly prevented the situation and is ironically the least at fault of anybody involved. There is no proof that the accused party intended to kill, in fact it was a random address that another third party had posted, and somebody decided to pull a prank that went horribly wrong. Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Of course I'm not a lawyer but I refrain from allowing emotions to taint the lens of truth. I've yet to see any constructive counter arguments from you, instead you've sidetracked the debate by attacking my character.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This is logic that says that if I point a gun at a crowd of people and shoot blindly, I haven't "murdered" anybody, because there was no one person I intended to kill, and, in fact, I might just as easily have gotten lucky and killed nobody, so what intent could exist to prove against me?
    - pwaai 9y ago
      > This is logic that says that if I point a gun at a crowd of people and shoot blindly, I haven't "murdered" anybody, because there was no one person I intended to kill, and, in fact, I might just as easily have gotten lucky and killed nobody, so what intent could exist to prove against me? No, in the example you've presented, that is directly demonstration of intent to kill using a device (a gun) that has high probability of death. That is not the point I've made and you are attempting to bend what was said.
      - stickfigure 9y ago
        Prosecutors will get to describe the crime in any frame they choose, and a jury of humans will get to decide whether it's murder. Assuming this player is in an extraditable country, I predict he's going to rot in jail for the rest of his life. It's not like he was playing CoD through TOR. He won't be hard to find.
        aseipp 9y ago
        People already have the gamer tags of the two people involved in the shooting (the swatter and the person he was intending to swat, but who gave a false address) and even have tweets from the alleged perpetrator (now deleted) who claimed he wasn't responsible. So yes, it's a very short matter of time before police start knocking.
      - monktastic1 9y ago
        Did you even read the section you italicized? Conviction of depraved heart second-degree murder requires PROOF that the defendant acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. "There is no proof that the accused party intended to kill" It does not require that they "intended to kill." It just requires that they "acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." You find it hard to believe that anyone could consider it reckless (and indifferent to the life of the victim) to send a team of gunmen, who you've explicitly instructed to be on high alert?
Panino 9y ago
Ordering a pizza to someone's house is a prank. Ordering armed people who expect to fight an armed murderer with multiple hostages is not a prank.

by pwaai 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

So, having begun your argument with the claim that only "involuntary manslaughter" would be available to prosecutors, because (not that I follow this logic) they'd be missing "malice aforethought", you've now become an expert on how Kansas evaluates gross recklessness?

pwaai 9y ago
I'm approaching this with no emotion and pre-judgement but based on facts. Let's take a look at what really happened: > According to the article, allegedly two Call of Duty players were threatening each other over a $2 bet. One call of duty member gives the other a fake address when the other threatens to SWAT him. Police go to the fake address and shoot somebody. Guy who got shot couldn't have possibly prevented the situation and is ironically the least at fault of anybody involved. There is no proof that the accused party intended to kill, in fact it was a random address that another third party had posted, and somebody decided to pull a prank that went horribly wrong. Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Of course I'm not a lawyer but I refrain from allowing emotions to taint the lens of truth. I've yet to see any constructive counter arguments from you, instead you've sidetracked the debate by attacking my character.
- tptacek 9y ago
  This is logic that says that if I point a gun at a crowd of people and shoot blindly, I haven't "murdered" anybody, because there was no one person I intended to kill, and, in fact, I might just as easily have gotten lucky and killed nobody, so what intent could exist to prove against me?
  - pwaai 9y ago
    > This is logic that says that if I point a gun at a crowd of people and shoot blindly, I haven't "murdered" anybody, because there was no one person I intended to kill, and, in fact, I might just as easily have gotten lucky and killed nobody, so what intent could exist to prove against me? No, in the example you've presented, that is directly demonstration of intent to kill using a device (a gun) that has high probability of death. That is not the point I've made and you are attempting to bend what was said.
    - stickfigure 9y ago
      Prosecutors will get to describe the crime in any frame they choose, and a jury of humans will get to decide whether it's murder. Assuming this player is in an extraditable country, I predict he's going to rot in jail for the rest of his life. It's not like he was playing CoD through TOR. He won't be hard to find.
      - aseipp 9y ago
        People already have the gamer tags of the two people involved in the shooting (the swatter and the person he was intending to swat, but who gave a false address) and even have tweets from the alleged perpetrator (now deleted) who claimed he wasn't responsible. So yes, it's a very short matter of time before police start knocking.
    - monktastic1 9y ago
      Did you even read the section you italicized? Conviction of depraved heart second-degree murder requires PROOF that the defendant acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. "There is no proof that the accused party intended to kill" It does not require that they "intended to kill." It just requires that they "acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." You find it hard to believe that anyone could consider it reckless (and indifferent to the life of the victim) to send a team of gunmen, who you've explicitly instructed to be on high alert?

Panino 9y ago

Ordering a pizza to someone's house is a prank. Ordering armed people who expect to fight an armed murderer with multiple hostages is not a prank.