Marine of the year arrested for shooting in MA.

[NHBB]

lawrence is an absolute dump... a lot of crime in NH in my observations has been committed by those traced back to "lawtown" as the thuggish types proudly refer to their shanty.

I believe this was the same general area as well with that thread about that marine that returned some time ago and had an altercation in some dunkin donuts parking lot where some guy tried to kill him but he took him down with just a grazing as the bullet skimmed off his head. life is pretty cheap down there.

 

[Tory]

So loud and so wrong......

" Murder requires the intention to kill."

WRONG. As in, 'Not even close."

FIRST Degree murder requires intent to kill. PERIOD.

Your self-deluding tirades are irrelevant; homicide law across the country deems both intent to do harm AND reckless endangerment (a/k/a reckless disregard) grounds for Second Degree murder charges. Firing a shotgun out a window and hitting two people in the crowd qualifies, your unqualified opinion notwithstanding.

Grasp the concept and try to keep up.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

"Perhaps those folks who've not spent a year in Iraq should not rush to judgment about this Marine's action."

BS.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Gunsnrovers

BS

Agreed.
It doesn't matter what he did in Iraq, or Vietnam, or the moon. What he did was not done in any of those places.

Using that logic I suppose we can not judge what John Kerry has done, post Vietnam, unless we were in Vietnam.

 

[BostonGeorge]

No, it is NOT murder. Murder requires the intention to kill. Even if he aimed a gun directly at a specific individual and pulled the trigger, if his intention was to wound rather than to kill, it still would not be murder.

So you're telling me that in all his years as a coroner in the armed forces, during wartime no less, he hadn't learned that gunshot wounds bring with them a high probability of death? If you shoot somebody, you are trying to kill them, point blank. If you want to injure someone there are plenty of ways to do so with a much slimmer chance of them dying.

In this case, so far all reports we have seen indicate that he did NOT "shoot into a crowd of people," he fired one shot in a direction where he thought nobody would he hit. Those of you screaming about shooting into crowds, please give me a link to what you are citing as evidence, because I haven't seen anything to support that fantasy.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of it being a "warning shot." Quite simply, there is no evidence of either assertion, but I would fall into the "knowingly shoot a gun in the direction of human life and you're trying to do harm" catagory.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

WRONG. As in, 'Not even close."

FIRST Degree murder requires intent to kill. PERIOD.

No, you are wrong.

Not all jurisdictions differentiate between first degree murder and second degree murder. Not being from MA I do not know if they do or not.

Where there is such a distinction, first degree murder requires both the intent to kill AND premeditation. Second degree murder also requires an intent to kill, but does not require premeditation. Manslaughter/negligent homicide applies when the intention is to harm rather than to kill, but death results as an unforeseen consequence.

Sorry, but I do not think I am categorically WRONG, as your post implies. I think you need to do your homework before engaging your keyboard so forcefully on topics you do not understand.

From the legal definitions available on www.findlaw.com

Murder: First Degree

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Murder: Second degree

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Manslaughter: Voluntary

Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

Manslaughter: Involuntary

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

In the case of the Marine-of-the-year, so far there has been nothing to prove that he DID fire into the crowd, and there is his (or his attorney's) statement that his intention was to fire a warning shot. The article we are all reading did, I believe, state that the two individuals who were wounded were injured by ricocheting particles rather than directly by gunfire, supporting the statement that the shot was intended as a warning shot.

Combine the facts as we currently have them with the definitions from Findlaw, and even if one of the people had been killed it sure looks to me as though "criminally negligent homicide" strikes a lot closer to the facts of the case than "assault with intent to murder."

 

[Tory]

Still specious

"Not all jurisdictions differentiate between first degree murder and second degree murder."

Let's see you cite ONE that does not. By actual statute; not "findlaw," which is Wikipedia for wanna-bees. It is inferior to Lexis and Lois; even CaseBase is better.

"Where there is such a distinction, first degree murder requires both the intent to kill AND premeditation."

Here's a clue: Premeditation is PROOF of the intent.

"Second degree murder also requires an intent to kill, but does not require premeditation."

Wrong again. Second degree murder, as I already explained to you, requires only intent to HARM. When death results from the harmful act, you go from assault and battery (for example) to Second Degree murder.

"Manslaughter/negligent homicide applies when the intention is to harm rather than to kill, but death results as an unforeseen consequence."

Utter nonsense. Negligent homicide results from - SURPRISE! - negligence . There is NO "intention to harm rather than kill;" there is carelessness. Grasp the distinction.

Here are REAL definitions, if you're up to them:

Murder : The killing of a human being WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.

Felony Murder : Murder that occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony [Burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping].

First-degree murder : Murder that is willful, deliberate or premeditated, or that committed during the course of a dangerous felony [see above].... All types of murder NOT involving willful, deliberate and premeditated killing are usually considered Second-degree murder.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) (2004) at Page1043.

Call and raise...

 

[WT]

Some background info on this Marine. A link to the Marine Corps Times.


http://www.militarycity.com/promos/smoy05/moyone05.php?loc=mc


CITATION:
Sergeant Daniel Cotnoir
Ordnance Maintenance Company
4th Maintenance Battalion
Devens, MA

Sergeant Daniel Cotnoir is a natural leader who epitomizes the Marine commitment to fellow Marines. He is an example of the essential role our Reserve forces have today. But it is the special, unsung role he has played, honoring and caring for our fallen heroes, that calls us to honor him tonight.

For Sgt. Cotnoir was called upon to do what no other Marine really wants to do, but what must be done: take charge of bringing fallen Marines home to their final resting place, from the battlefield. This he has done with a tremendous sense of honor and dignity befitting the memory, sacrifice and integrity of those who have given their lives for our country. He has seen first-hand the sacrifices that many of us back home see only in abstract terms.

An armorer by military specialty, Sgt. Cotnoir, during his deployment to Iraq, found himself assigned to a new area. The Marines had no mortuary affairs specialists, and desperately needed his funerary skills from civilian life. He volunteered for this particularly difficult, traumatic and often thankless battlefield assignment, because he knew he could handle it, and he knew how important it is to honor the fallen Marines. Sgt. Cotnoir pioneered a new mortuary affairs military occupational specialty for the Corps. He wrote the manual, and volunteered to train 40 Marines in mortuary and remains-recovery skills. He designed a special training package covering subjects including anatomy, blood-borne pathogens, and the conduct of search and recovery missions. His counsel, encouragement and compassion were an example to these Marines engaged in a very psychologically stressful mission.

His selflessness and dedication to fallen Marines, and to their families back home, is truly inspiring. This noble mission is always emotionally traumatic, and often dangerous – searching through blast areas, gathering remains and personal effects, often while under enemy fire. Sgt. Cotnoir’s efforts are responsible for returning 182 fallen heroes to their families. On one occasion, for instance, he crawled into a burned LAV-25 to recover a set of remains trapped in the dangerous wreckage. He did this in full knowledge that he would be exposed to large quantities of depleted uranium rounds.

Back home, Sergeant Cotnoir is an active volunteer in his community. A fellow Marine says, “He’s just an all-around example of an excellent Marine.” A resident of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Sergeant Cotnoir is married and has two daughters. It is truly our honor to recognize this outstanding, unsung hero. Please join in saluting Sergeant Daniel Cotnoir as 2005’s Marine Corps Times Marine of the Year. "

______________________

This Marine has done good for his Country.

 

[Art Eatman]

Tory, relax. Different states DO have slightly different definitions. Black's Dictionary is fine for generalizing, but it's not the actual legal definition on a state-by-state basis.

It's the old, old deal: No one size fits all.

, Art

 

[Tory]

Definitions

"Black's Dictionary is fine for generalizing, but it's not the actual legal definition on a state-by-state basis."

I never said it was a state definition. It IS, however, the generally accepted "legal definition" absent a superceding statute or decision. Black's is a standard reference work and is cited accordingly. Findlaw is not.

And drivel remains drivel, regardless of repetition.