4 ms·

He lied with intention, I said something I believe to be true. By the definition of murder, my statement seems to be accurate. https://www.merriam-webster.com

by kick 7y ago

He lied with intention, I said something I believe to be true. By the definition of murder, my statement seems to be accurate. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

ImpressiveWebs 7y ago
The article says: > While officers are allowed to use a ruse, investigators said the officer’s lie “shocked the conscience” and was inconsistent with the police department’s policy. He did something that he’s allowed to do (lie) but he took it a little too far. He might be negligent to some degree, but this is not “murder”.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
> By the definition of murder, my statement seems to be accurate. You're going to have to clarify that a bit. Lol.
close04 7y ago
> By the definition of murder, I believe my statement is accurate Murder implies intention. This would be more akin to involuntary manslaughter since there's no reasonable expectation that the intent of the lie was to cause death (or any physical harm for that matter). This doesn't mean he doesn't deserve punishment, just not for murder. But the fact that you believe something to be correct would serve as mitigating circumstances at best since the very definition you quote describes something completely different from what is being discussed. > the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought > to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
- kick 7y ago
  I'm no lawyer, so I was trying to not argue on those grounds, however: What he did seems to fall under modern interpretations of malice aforethought/what it's morphed to (see page 428-429; ctrl-f "recklessness" if desired). https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1337&context=dlj https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... It wasn't premeditated, so it seems like second degree murder, doesn't it?
  - close04 7y ago
    > It wasn't premeditated, so it seems like second degree murder, doesn't it? Still no. You can google "involuntary manslaughter" as mentioned in my previous comment. Murder implies malice, intent, when the death of the victim is a likely outcome. You're talking about getting into a bar fight and stabbing someone. There's a distinct possibility stabbing someone will kill them. But nobody reasonably expects a verbal accusation will kill anyone.
    - jdkee 7y ago
      "But nobody reasonably expects a verbal accusation will kill anyone." It was a foreseeable consequence of the officer's actions. Thus intent could be imputed. Therefore, it could reasonably be construed as an intentional homicide i.e. murder.
      - close04 7y ago
        > It was a foreseeable consequence of the officer's actions. The only case that I know of when words lead to suicide for one and manslaughter conviction for the other is when one urged the other to do it [0]. And it still wasn't murder. This feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no way a reasonable judge and jury would ever consider this to be murder. And it would be a very dangerous precedent to set. Investigators, as far as I've heard, have free reign to lie during interrogations in order to extract more information, and will eventually even have an innocent person as a suspect. Regular people might say something to someone who was more sensitive than they expected. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/16/woman-who-sent-texts-urging-suicide-guilty-manslaughter/403330001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/16/woman-w...
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      I agree that the cop committed homicide by negligence rather than premeditated, but I will never understand why people sometimes make the argument that words are so powerless, when they're our species's primary form of communicating information. Anything anybody has ever done has ultimately been a reaction to information. "Nobody reasonably expects a verbal accusation will kill anyone" is just a blatantly wrong claim.

by kick 7y ago

ImpressiveWebs 7y ago

The article says: > While officers are allowed to use a ruse, investigators said the officer’s lie “shocked the conscience” and was inconsistent with the police department’s policy. He did something that he’s allowed to do (lie) but he took it a little too far. He might be negligent to some degree, but this is not “murder”.

SamReidHughes 7y ago

> By the definition of murder, my statement seems to be accurate. You're going to have to clarify that a bit. Lol.

close04 7y ago

> By the definition of murder, I believe my statement is accurate Murder implies intention. This would be more akin to involuntary manslaughter since there's no reasonable expectation that the intent of the lie was to cause death (or any physical harm for that matter). This doesn't mean he doesn't deserve punishment, just not for murder. But the fact that you believe something to be correct would serve as mitigating circumstances at best since the very definition you quote describes something completely different from what is being discussed. > the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought > to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

kick 7y ago
I'm no lawyer, so I was trying to not argue on those grounds, however: What he did seems to fall under modern interpretations of malice aforethought/what it's morphed to (see page 428-429; ctrl-f "recklessness" if desired). https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1337&context=dlj https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... It wasn't premeditated, so it seems like second degree murder, doesn't it?
- close04 7y ago
  > It wasn't premeditated, so it seems like second degree murder, doesn't it? Still no. You can google "involuntary manslaughter" as mentioned in my previous comment. Murder implies malice, intent, when the death of the victim is a likely outcome. You're talking about getting into a bar fight and stabbing someone. There's a distinct possibility stabbing someone will kill them. But nobody reasonably expects a verbal accusation will kill anyone.
  - jdkee 7y ago
    "But nobody reasonably expects a verbal accusation will kill anyone." It was a foreseeable consequence of the officer's actions. Thus intent could be imputed. Therefore, it could reasonably be construed as an intentional homicide i.e. murder.
    - close04 7y ago
      > It was a foreseeable consequence of the officer's actions. The only case that I know of when words lead to suicide for one and manslaughter conviction for the other is when one urged the other to do it [0]. And it still wasn't murder. This feels like arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no way a reasonable judge and jury would ever consider this to be murder. And it would be a very dangerous precedent to set. Investigators, as far as I've heard, have free reign to lie during interrogations in order to extract more information, and will eventually even have an innocent person as a suspect. Regular people might say something to someone who was more sensitive than they expected. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/16/woman-who-sent-texts-urging-suicide-guilty-manslaughter/403330001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/06/16/woman-w...
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    I agree that the cop committed homicide by negligence rather than premeditated, but I will never understand why people sometimes make the argument that words are so powerless, when they're our species's primary form of communicating information. Anything anybody has ever done has ultimately been a reaction to information. "Nobody reasonably expects a verbal accusation will kill anyone" is just a blatantly wrong claim.