Street Racer causes death = 2nd degree MURDER?
01-31-2003, 12:18 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Street Racer causes death = 2nd degree MURDER?
Let me start by saying that I STRONGLY oppose street racing (check my posts if you don't believe me).
But I am troubled by a development here in San Diego.
One of two alleged street racers (for all practical purposes, let's assume theyfre guilty because the facts are painfully obvious) hit a car driven by innocent, uninvolved person with one passenger. The wreck killed the two young occupants.
The driver who hit the car and the driver of the car he was racing against are being prosecuted for 2nd degree murder "because both men (street racers) should have known their conduct was inherently dangerous."
Yes, they should have known. In fact, they probably did know. It's tragic. In fact, it's criminal. But to call that murder is a dangerous precedent.
Does not MURDER imply INTENT to kill?
From Webster's Unabridged:
Murder
1. To kill with premeditated malice; to kill (a human being)
willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully.
They did not INTEND to kill anyone. The deaths were not caused willfully or deliberately.
This is a case of negligent, vehicular manslaughter for the driver that hit the innocent car, and then some sort of accessory to manslaughter charge for the guy he was racing against who did not strike the innocent car.
Such egregious abuse of the law is reprehensible! I hope the jury finds the suspects innocent of 2nd degree murder just so the DA has to retry the case as manslaughter!
Furthermore, that the judge allowed such a charge is pathetic. He is trying to legislate from the bench and should be removed.
Please remember: this post is not meant to be in any way an apologist stance on street racing. I think street racing is wrong and inexcusable. But I also think the DA is abusing the law in this case and we shouldn't stand for it.
I'll post a URL once the San Diego Union Tribune posts the story on their site.
But I am troubled by a development here in San Diego.
One of two alleged street racers (for all practical purposes, let's assume theyfre guilty because the facts are painfully obvious) hit a car driven by innocent, uninvolved person with one passenger. The wreck killed the two young occupants.
The driver who hit the car and the driver of the car he was racing against are being prosecuted for 2nd degree murder "because both men (street racers) should have known their conduct was inherently dangerous."
Yes, they should have known. In fact, they probably did know. It's tragic. In fact, it's criminal. But to call that murder is a dangerous precedent.
Does not MURDER imply INTENT to kill?
From Webster's Unabridged:
Murder
1. To kill with premeditated malice; to kill (a human being)
willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully.
They did not INTEND to kill anyone. The deaths were not caused willfully or deliberately.
This is a case of negligent, vehicular manslaughter for the driver that hit the innocent car, and then some sort of accessory to manslaughter charge for the guy he was racing against who did not strike the innocent car.
Such egregious abuse of the law is reprehensible! I hope the jury finds the suspects innocent of 2nd degree murder just so the DA has to retry the case as manslaughter!
Furthermore, that the judge allowed such a charge is pathetic. He is trying to legislate from the bench and should be removed.
Please remember: this post is not meant to be in any way an apologist stance on street racing. I think street racing is wrong and inexcusable. But I also think the DA is abusing the law in this case and we shouldn't stand for it.
I'll post a URL once the San Diego Union Tribune posts the story on their site.
Last edited by cmlnr; 01-31-2003 at 12:21 PM.
01-31-2003, 01:48 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not exactly clear here; but some further research into CA definitions may help. Anyway...
From Mirriam-Websters dictionary of law:
murder:
the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)
esp:
such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape)
first-degree murder
: a murder that is committed with premeditation or during the course of a serious felony (as kidnapping) or that otherwise (as because of extreme cruelty) requires the most serious punishment under the law
second-degree murder
: a murder that is committed without premeditation but with some intent (as general or transferred intent) or other circumstances not covered by the first-degree murder statute
From Mirriam-Websters dictionary of law:
murder:
the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation)
esp:
such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony (as robbery or rape)
first-degree murder
: a murder that is committed with premeditation or during the course of a serious felony (as kidnapping) or that otherwise (as because of extreme cruelty) requires the most serious punishment under the law
second-degree murder
: a murder that is committed without premeditation but with some intent (as general or transferred intent) or other circumstances not covered by the first-degree murder statute
01-31-2003, 01:53 PM
#3
I think I agree with you.
If it's a murder, what is the motive?
The intent was to street race, not to kill somebody.
It's somewhere between accident and murder, but I'd say it's close to murder than accident. It's so predictable that fatality will happen sooner or later. They are putting themsleves in a position that accident is gonna happen.
I think street racers need to be prosecuted heavily.
They can crash and die all they want, it's their choice and risk.
But absolutely they cannot take innocent with them when they make troubles.
If it's a murder, what is the motive?
The intent was to street race, not to kill somebody.
It's somewhere between accident and murder, but I'd say it's close to murder than accident. It's so predictable that fatality will happen sooner or later. They are putting themsleves in a position that accident is gonna happen.
I think street racers need to be prosecuted heavily.
They can crash and die all they want, it's their choice and risk.
But absolutely they cannot take innocent with them when they make troubles.
01-31-2003, 03:43 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, taking your point that it's somewhere between accident and murder: it's still not murder (the intent was not to kill, it was to race). When an unintended death occurs from an action, it is called manslaughter. That's what happened. It's a severe case of manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such. The DA and judge crossed an important and dangerous line and should be slapped down for it.
The problem here is that we have a judge and a DA short circuiting the legislative process and making their own laws. That is dangerous: it's called bench legislation and it's fundamentally wrong. It's not their job, and they don't have the power.
What would happen if judges arbitrarily changed laws in cahoots with DAs? It usurps legislative power and destroys the checks and balances of our government.
That scares me.
The problem here is that we have a judge and a DA short circuiting the legislative process and making their own laws. That is dangerous: it's called bench legislation and it's fundamentally wrong. It's not their job, and they don't have the power.
What would happen if judges arbitrarily changed laws in cahoots with DAs? It usurps legislative power and destroys the checks and balances of our government.
That scares me.
Originally posted by go go go
I think I agree with you.
If it's a murder, what is the motive?
The intent was to street race, not to kill somebody.
It's somewhere between accident and murder, but I'd say it's close to murder than accident. It's so predictable that fatality will happen sooner or later. They are putting themsleves in a position that accident is gonna happen.
I think street racers need to be prosecuted heavily.
They can crash and die all they want, it's their choice and risk.
But absolutely they cannot take innocent with them when they make troubles.
I think I agree with you.
If it's a murder, what is the motive?
The intent was to street race, not to kill somebody.
It's somewhere between accident and murder, but I'd say it's close to murder than accident. It's so predictable that fatality will happen sooner or later. They are putting themsleves in a position that accident is gonna happen.
I think street racers need to be prosecuted heavily.
They can crash and die all they want, it's their choice and risk.
But absolutely they cannot take innocent with them when they make troubles.
01-31-2003, 04:03 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
I too am against street racing. My opinion on this is as follows.
Murder is murder and this is most definately not murder.
Main Entry: manˇslaughˇter
Pronunciation: 'man-"slo-t&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice
There was no malice towards towards the victims, malice in this case would be if you heard him say before he struck the car that he was going to intentionaly hit their car. If they could prove he had time to stop but instead specifically swerved into the car then that would be murder 2. If he left the house with plans to kill someone with his car that night that's murder 1.
Manslughter is the correct charge and the DA is wrong to bring a murder charge. This is a tragic event , and we should want to prevent this from happening again. As bad as this crime is, it isn't murder and that sets a dangerous precident if he is convicted and all the appeals are upheld.
Murder is murder and this is most definately not murder.
Main Entry: manˇslaughˇter
Pronunciation: 'man-"slo-t&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice
There was no malice towards towards the victims, malice in this case would be if you heard him say before he struck the car that he was going to intentionaly hit their car. If they could prove he had time to stop but instead specifically swerved into the car then that would be murder 2. If he left the house with plans to kill someone with his car that night that's murder 1.
Manslughter is the correct charge and the DA is wrong to bring a murder charge. This is a tragic event , and we should want to prevent this from happening again. As bad as this crime is, it isn't murder and that sets a dangerous precident if he is convicted and all the appeals are upheld.
01-31-2003, 04:10 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
CA Penal Code 187
Finally a topic I can add something too (I'm still a bit of a noob when it comes to cars). I'm a law student so I know something about CA homicide law.
You don't need express intent to get nailed on a second degree murder charge. CA Penal Code 187 (as in 187 on an undercover cop-- snoop dogg knows his CA law) says:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
CA Penal Code 188 says:
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
They key language for this case is "abandoned and malignant heart". That is essentially a catch all for highly risky behavior where you know that you are putting people's lives in danger. The factors that are relevant to the legal analysis include: a high probablity of death, subjective awareness of risk, and a base purpose or motive (this eliminates prosecuting a doctor for undertaking a risky surgery).
Street racers are almost certainly aware of how dangerous the activity is and it surely serves a base purpose or motive. Their best argument for getting off is that there is not a high probablity of death. It's hard to argue that in front of a jury during a murder trial because someone actually got killed, but you can often win on appeal. This is exactly what happened in the Diane Whipple dog mauling case.
If you wanna read the statutes look here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve
You don't need express intent to get nailed on a second degree murder charge. CA Penal Code 187 (as in 187 on an undercover cop-- snoop dogg knows his CA law) says:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
CA Penal Code 188 says:
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
They key language for this case is "abandoned and malignant heart". That is essentially a catch all for highly risky behavior where you know that you are putting people's lives in danger. The factors that are relevant to the legal analysis include: a high probablity of death, subjective awareness of risk, and a base purpose or motive (this eliminates prosecuting a doctor for undertaking a risky surgery).
Street racers are almost certainly aware of how dangerous the activity is and it surely serves a base purpose or motive. Their best argument for getting off is that there is not a high probablity of death. It's hard to argue that in front of a jury during a murder trial because someone actually got killed, but you can often win on appeal. This is exactly what happened in the Diane Whipple dog mauling case.
If you wanna read the statutes look here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve
01-31-2003, 04:16 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Its the whole 2nd degree part about without intent. They may not have intended to kill a person but by racing like that on a public road the possibilities were obvious and they should have taken that into account. The two people were killed in the process of an illegal act. So they were killed in the commision of a crime. Wreckless endangerment, exhibition of speed, assault with a deadly weapon (felony) or felony assault. So yes it would meet the requirement for murder cause they don't have to have intent to kill for it to be murder. They killed somebody in the commision of another crime after all.
Screw the bastards! If their too damn cheap to go to a track or auto-x and pay $20 to have some fun then let them sit in jail for 10-20 paying people not to rape their ***. I drive on 95 everyday so I speed but I do it responsibly and not in a competition with some other jackass. Not to mention that speeding on 95 simply means you were keeping up with the flow of traffic.
Screw the bastards! If their too damn cheap to go to a track or auto-x and pay $20 to have some fun then let them sit in jail for 10-20 paying people not to rape their ***. I drive on 95 everyday so I speed but I do it responsibly and not in a competition with some other jackass. Not to mention that speeding on 95 simply means you were keeping up with the flow of traffic.
01-31-2003, 04:19 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 181
Car Info: 02 WRX
what you havent mentioned was how it happened... I'd be interested in whether the 'racer' hit the victims after losing control of his car, in which case i'd think manslaughter. To clarify... did he hit because he spunout and was completely off his 'line', or, did he hit simply because he was braking late?
what do you think?
what do you think?
01-31-2003, 04:19 PM
#9
VIP Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Posts: 469
Car Info: 02 WRB Wagon (Cobb AccessPort, P7's), 2-73 914 2.0, 74 914-2.0
The issue isn't necessarily the "intent" to kill the warrants seeking the murder charge. The issue that is relevant is that the driver of the car that caused the accident knowingly placed himself/herself into an situation unlawful situation that resulted in the death of another person.
There may be precedence for this in a high speed pursuit case (I don't know the case number). If I remember correctly, the person was involved in a robbery that resulted in a high speed chase. During the chase two helicopters (I believe one was a police helicopter and the other was a news helicopter), collided and one crashed resulting in the death of the people on board. The individual ended up being convicted of murder because he caused the situation and circumstances for the collision. So, even though his intent obviously wasn't to kill the people in the helicopter his actions put them in that situation.
I'm not an attorney so if anybody out there remembers the case and has the case number, please post. If I remember correctly, it happened in LA County in the 1980's.
Check out what Soya has to say. Besides, I agree with whoever posted that they dumb@$$es for being cheap and not taking their racing the the track where it belongs.
There may be precedence for this in a high speed pursuit case (I don't know the case number). If I remember correctly, the person was involved in a robbery that resulted in a high speed chase. During the chase two helicopters (I believe one was a police helicopter and the other was a news helicopter), collided and one crashed resulting in the death of the people on board. The individual ended up being convicted of murder because he caused the situation and circumstances for the collision. So, even though his intent obviously wasn't to kill the people in the helicopter his actions put them in that situation.
I'm not an attorney so if anybody out there remembers the case and has the case number, please post. If I remember correctly, it happened in LA County in the 1980's.
Check out what Soya has to say. Besides, I agree with whoever posted that they dumb@$$es for being cheap and not taking their racing the the track where it belongs.
Last edited by Sea Dragon Rex; 01-31-2003 at 04:22 PM.
01-31-2003, 05:05 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CA Penal Code 187
Originally posted by Soya
CA Penal Code 188 says:
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
CA Penal Code 188 says:
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
and headed off fully aware that people do die from street racing andshowing his indifference for human life.
Last edited by Giamilton; 01-31-2003 at 05:10 PM.
02-02-2003, 12:32 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Sea Dragon Rex
So, even though his intent obviously wasn't to kill the people in the helicopter his actions put them in that situation.
So, even though his intent obviously wasn't to kill the people in the helicopter his actions put them in that situation.
This is like saying if I had caused some kind of a traffic infraction and a cop came speeding down to pull me over, clipped a passing car and crashed into a tree and killed himself, then I am responsible for his death?!
02-02-2003, 05:05 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
They don't have to prove that they set out that day to race. That would be intent. What they did is an implied danger. They all had a license and are legally sane so they would have known that what they did was dangerous and illegal. They knew they were racing so its not like they can claim that they thought it was legal or safe to do on a public road. Your also not mentioning that it doesn't have to be intended if it is the result of the commision on another crime. Thats how they send robbers to jail who end up shooting somebody and killing them during a crime. They didn't set out to kill the person but in the commision of another crime it happened. Especially if its the commision of a felony which assault with a deadly weapon or wreckless endangerment would be considered in those cases. So tough **** its time to grow up little street racer wannabe thugs. Your going to have to speak in the big boy voice in court cause your going to spend the next decade taking it in the *** at the state lockup.
02-02-2003, 06:04 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Murder is the wrong charge.
posted by n/a
Its the whole 2nd degree part about without intent. They may not have intended to kill a person but by racing like that on a public road the possibilities were obvious and they should have taken that into account. The two people were killed in the process of an illegal act. So they were killed in the commision of a crime. Wreckless endangerment, exhibition of speed, assault with a deadly weapon (felony) or felony assault. So yes it would meet the requirement for murder cause they don't have to have intent to kill for it to be murder. They killed somebody in the commision of another crime after all.
So basicly your saying that when you speed on the 95 and your tire blows out for whatever reason. And lets say you lose controll of your car.It's then strikes another car and kills 2 people that you should go to prision for murder. After all speeding is illegal.Your car would be a deadly weapon. Speeding would be wreckless endangerment. You would then be guilty of killing somebody during the commision a another crime.
posted by n/a
Its the whole 2nd degree part about without intent. They may not have intended to kill a person but by racing like that on a public road the possibilities were obvious and they should have taken that into account. The two people were killed in the process of an illegal act. So they were killed in the commision of a crime. Wreckless endangerment, exhibition of speed, assault with a deadly weapon (felony) or felony assault. So yes it would meet the requirement for murder cause they don't have to have intent to kill for it to be murder. They killed somebody in the commision of another crime after all.
So basicly your saying that when you speed on the 95 and your tire blows out for whatever reason. And lets say you lose controll of your car.It's then strikes another car and kills 2 people that you should go to prision for murder. After all speeding is illegal.Your car would be a deadly weapon. Speeding would be wreckless endangerment. You would then be guilty of killing somebody during the commision a another crime.
02-02-2003, 10:15 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I speed on 95 I'm not doing so in an effort to take part in a illegal speed competition. I am talking about going with the flow of traffic not acting like some *** clown weaving in and out of traffic at double the speed limit trying to stay ahead of some other complete tool who is trying to compensate for his lack of a adult sized johnson. If I am going 90mph on 95 and a cop catches me doing so then yes it is wreckless driving and I can lose my license and go to jail. Thats exactly my point. However doing 65 in a 55. If my tire blows out the tire blowing out is something that is beyond my control where as racing somebody is completely controllable. If I have a blow out at 65mph the car will simply pull to one side and I can let off the gas and slow down until I can get to the side of the road. Ford proved that concept for their tire blow out cases. However if your doing 80mph and get a blow out and panic, stomp the brakes and turn the wheel to the shoulder of the road you can bet your *** you will wreck. A blown tire causing you to hit somebody isn't considered murder because you can't intend for the tire to blow out and very few things could be implied to cause tire failure. If you don't like the shooting with a gun comment then consider that if you run from the police and somebody gets hurt as a result you are held responsible for what happens cause you are what setup the circumstances that led to it happening. As far as speeding goes most states have precidents as to when speeding becomes wreckless driving which apparently the people your talking about met that requirement.
If the whole idea of treating driver for what it is bothers you then please turn in your license and have your car crushed. In case some people forgot driving in a damn privaleage and not some right that appears in the Constitution. Maybe if the US followed other countries like Germany and Japan with the driver education, costs and training then some people would get the hint that we don't have to let them drive a car.
If the whole idea of treating driver for what it is bothers you then please turn in your license and have your car crushed. In case some people forgot driving in a damn privaleage and not some right that appears in the Constitution. Maybe if the US followed other countries like Germany and Japan with the driver education, costs and training then some people would get the hint that we don't have to let them drive a car.