Tweet
OK I give you that big pros are mostly ordering hits, not doing it themselves. But then again, that's how it is everywhere.
"This is the way the courts interpret it. If you do an act whose intention is to kill, say shoot someone in the head, you are commiting a murder even in Finland."
Not so simple. I mean, when you think about it, it's that simple, but then again courts of law in here are fighting to get the minimum charges, not the other way around.
If you shoot someone in the head execution style, of course it's a murder. But then again that often is also sign of brutality. Sure, of course it also shows the intention. However, almost everyone who thinks about killing someone, goes and does it, excluding clear pro execution, is just a normal kill and not murder. What I mean is, when I have determined to kill someone over dispute, and I go do it, meaning I have the motive to do it, I have more time than one hour, I actually go over that place, armed, and the other person dies, it's more often than not just a kill, not murder. In those cases it needs to show unusual brutality. It's not a kill when you thinka bout it, go armed, clearly you have planned to kill that person, and more often than not it's not murder. Because murders are relatively rare in here, but killings are common. I'm not talking about drunk stabber.
Also if you carry a knife with you and you are sober, and you stab a bystander 30 times, I say that's a murder even if you don't know the person. You are carrying a weapon with you, you aren't even drunk, and if you initiate the attack, then it's a murder. Like the stabbers lately, who have attacked random folks in the street, I don't see that as attempted manslaughter or anything, I see that as attempted murder. Like I said, I don't need a powerpoint presentation, if that other person is just random dude, and the gang goes in, talks smack and pushes the person around and at the end stabs them multiple times, that's attempted murder in my books. Because there was enough intention. And when you go and kill someone when you actually have a motive and knwo the person, that needs to be a murder in every single case, unless it truly happened suddenly and it was a weird situation. MOre often that not, it's never murder in here for some reason.
I never said intentional killing isn't a murder. I said it is, but the court of law rarely sees it the same. Outside drunk stabbers who stab friends with kitchen knife, those situations happen by accident, or by what ever extremely rarely. Someone is always already armed, and they go and do it. THat's a murder. Rarely it's seen as one in the court.
Besides, the word harkiten leaves too much air. What is harkiten? Where is the line drawn? In my opinion it's drawn in the absolute minimum, meaning that if there's any kind of intention beforehand, it's always harkiten. But somehow almost no one gets convicted of murder, but lesser manslaughters etc all the time for clear situations.
"This is the way the courts interpret it. If you do an act whose intention is to kill, say shoot someone in the head, you are commiting a murder even in Finland."
Not so simple. I mean, when you think about it, it's that simple, but then again courts of law in here are fighting to get the minimum charges, not the other way around.
If you shoot someone in the head execution style, of course it's a murder. But then again that often is also sign of brutality. Sure, of course it also shows the intention. However, almost everyone who thinks about killing someone, goes and does it, excluding clear pro execution, is just a normal kill and not murder. What I mean is, when I have determined to kill someone over dispute, and I go do it, meaning I have the motive to do it, I have more time than one hour, I actually go over that place, armed, and the other person dies, it's more often than not just a kill, not murder. In those cases it needs to show unusual brutality. It's not a kill when you thinka bout it, go armed, clearly you have planned to kill that person, and more often than not it's not murder. Because murders are relatively rare in here, but killings are common. I'm not talking about drunk stabber.
Also if you carry a knife with you and you are sober, and you stab a bystander 30 times, I say that's a murder even if you don't know the person. You are carrying a weapon with you, you aren't even drunk, and if you initiate the attack, then it's a murder. Like the stabbers lately, who have attacked random folks in the street, I don't see that as attempted manslaughter or anything, I see that as attempted murder. Like I said, I don't need a powerpoint presentation, if that other person is just random dude, and the gang goes in, talks smack and pushes the person around and at the end stabs them multiple times, that's attempted murder in my books. Because there was enough intention. And when you go and kill someone when you actually have a motive and knwo the person, that needs to be a murder in every single case, unless it truly happened suddenly and it was a weird situation. MOre often that not, it's never murder in here for some reason.
I never said intentional killing isn't a murder. I said it is, but the court of law rarely sees it the same. Outside drunk stabbers who stab friends with kitchen knife, those situations happen by accident, or by what ever extremely rarely. Someone is always already armed, and they go and do it. THat's a murder. Rarely it's seen as one in the court.
Besides, the word harkiten leaves too much air. What is harkiten? Where is the line drawn? In my opinion it's drawn in the absolute minimum, meaning that if there's any kind of intention beforehand, it's always harkiten. But somehow almost no one gets convicted of murder, but lesser manslaughters etc all the time for clear situations.
)
Comment