Texas to Commit Murder in 3 Weeks

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Maybe it was part of a three strikes your out type of deal. I know this ocurs in other states other then texas.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I guess that Texas wasn't one of them?

Nah, we try to nail all the murdering scum. If there is a murder for hire (one of the capital special circumstances) we get the triigerman, the person who hired him, and all intermediaries. Sam with all other cooperative capital murder situations.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Accomplace AFTER the fact. If you knowingly help the actor after the crime, you have willingly ratified his acts and become repsomsible for them. Been the law around much of the world for longer than the majority of nations have existed. It does tend to rather harsh results, and has been modified to various extent is many jurisdictions.

Although the law has many principles with dubious justification, this is one of the more glaring examples. It seems to me to be, as you say, designed more to gain leverage over accomplices than to accurately reflect the distribution of culpability in such cases.

I am, however, a somewhat dubious that the "specfic intent" requirement for "capital murder" was present in this case, there was, however, conflicting testimony and evidence (you will have to read a record of the evidence to get any real facts, not the .001% of such presented in news stories and lying biased blogs), and the jury was free to choose the credibility and weight of such evidence as between the prosecution witnesses the (lying theiving murderous scumbag gang banger*) buddies of the defendant. It does not tke a whole lot of prosecution evidence to tip that balance.

It seems that the murder was the result of a spontaneous altercation between the murderer and the victim. Evidence that the murder was an unplanned act was not heard at trial. Although the guy should have got jail time for helping the murderer after the fact, the death penalty is wildly disproportionate and utterly nonsensical.

That the victim was the son of one the more prominent and popular criminal defense attornies here in town probably did not help his case either; it at least shrank the available pool for his choice of counsel.

And there we have it. He was involved in the killing of one of the favoured classes. As if he could expect a fair trial after that.

*Yeah, all these 4 were gang bangers from years before this, with long histories already in just their 20s, and no one on any jury here would believe any lie about one of them not knowing another one was carrying. Any one of them would rob any one of you if they had the opportunity.

One of the better aspects of the law is that people are supposed to be tried on the crimes they are charged with, and not on the basis of other crimes, alleged or no.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Nah, we try to nail all the murdering scum. If there is a murder for hire (one of the capital special circumstances) we get the triigerman, the person who hired him, and all intermediaries. Sam with all other cooperative capital murder situations.

That's reasonable, since there is a clear chain of intent and an obvious conspiracy. All of that seems to be lacking in the Foster case.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's reasonable, since there is a clear chain of intent and an obvious conspiracy. All of that seems to be lacking in the Foster case.

How so? Gunman announces that since they have a gun that they should go jack someone. They then proceed to commit 4 armed robberies with said gun that same night. When did this clear chain of intent to put other's lives at risk and obvious conspiracy stop?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? Gunman announces that since they have a gun that they should go jack someone. They then proceed to commit 4 armed robberies with said gun that same night. When did this clear chain of intent to put other's lives at risk and obvious conspiracy stop?

Where the other three participants testified that Foster had no knowledge that the gun had been taken from the car, and that none of them had agreed to rob LaHood (apparently, they stopped to chat up his girlfriend and then he turned up). It isn't clear that the murder was the result of a botched robbery, and even if it were, it isn't clear that it was planned by them all.

But the law itself, like many laws, is pathetic nonsense.

"A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if, (A) in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators; [then] all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, [or] (B) if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy."

The bolded portion is what is objectionable. In order for this law to make sense, it has to have some relationship with common standards by which responsibility is judged. Otherwise the law is entirely arbitrary (this one of the points on which the "legal positivism" idiocy comes unstuck).

The second part (B) assigns responsibility to those who are negligent, which is pretty straightforward and unobjectionable.

The first part (A) is simply nonsense. In the absence of negligence the only way to establish culpability in the ordinary sense is intent (you can inherit responsibility in certain cases, like being an shareholder of a corporation, but while you must pay, you aren't held culpable in the same way).

Let's say that my brothers and I set out to steal cookies from the larder. Each goes in and fills his pockets with cookies. The last brother discovers our mother's purse in the larder and empties it without telling us. If both actions were to count as felonies, then the law of parties as stated would hold us all responsible for the theft, despite our complete ignorance of it, and even if we would have acted to thwart it had we known.

Again, if my friends and I agree to rob someone, and I have a knife to compel the person to hand over his wallet, then we are culpable in respect of robbery. But if one person unbeknownst to us brings a gun and shoots the victim in anger, it beggars belief to claim that we are responsible for anything other than the robbery.

This law is completely idiotic, and the lawyers who defend it should be torn to death by wild dogs.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

where is balance in the world, in the UK you rape and murder get 10 years, get out after four and do it again...

look at this - only 25 - yes that is right 25! people who were given life in jail for good

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4066947.stm

all the rest gets released back eventually...

while in Texas you drive a murderer away, while having some history and you get executed ...

moral of the story, it's better to be a wannabe Brit than a wannable Texan when crime is your thing. Make sure that you only rape women and children plus do not shoot any policemen while you are at it. Tip - being apologetic in court helps get out early too... mind boggles in both cases - far ends of the same scale...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Agathon All of that seems to be lacking in the Foster case.

Says a person whos knowlege of the case is litmited to few sentences out of weeks worth of evidence/testimony, and that tidbit selected by persons with an anti death penalty agenda. Let me give a clue, if someone select a few sentences or paragraphs of defense presented evidence and tries to convince you the verdict is wrong, they are intentionally decieving you. That said, as I noted above, I have some reservations about the "specific intent" requirments of capital murder being present here, but am willing to defer to the persons who actually hear all the evidence, and observed the demenor of the witness.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Says a person whos knowlege of the case is litmited to few sentences out of weeks worth of evidence/testimony, and that tidbit selected by persons with an anti death penalty agenda.

The justice of this sentence has little to do with the death penalty agenda. Even if you agreed with the death penalty, that does not prevent you from thinking it disproportionately applied in this case, or thinking that the law is moronic. That is unless you were one of those rare people who thought all crimes should be punishable by death.

Let me give a clue, if someone select a few sentences or paragraphs of defense presented evidence and tries to convince you the verdict is wrong, they are intentionally decieving you.

That's a candidate for non sequitur of the week.

That said, as I noted above, I have some reservations about the "specific intent" requirments of capital murder being present here, but am willing to defer to the persons who actually hear all the evidence, and observed the demenor of the witness.

Tyrannical regimes love it when people do that.

[Kuciwalker]

[DaShi]

Texas is ****ed up!

[SlowwHand]

Compared to Japan? Thanks, I needed a laugh after a long day.

[Winston]

3½ hours ago: Governor Rick Perry commutes the death sentence of Kenneth Foster to one of life in prison. The announcement from the governor came six hours before the scheduled execution was to have been carried out, and followed a rare 6-1 recommendation of clemency from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. As a result of the governor's decision, Foster's death sentence is commuted, while his murder conviction stands. The Governor cited concern over the fact that Foster and triggerman Maurecio Brown were tried, convicted and sentenced together, and that Foster, if tried separately, might have been able to persuade a jury of not sentencing him to death. Brown was executed last year for his role in the murder of Michael LaHood during a robbery spree in which Foster acted as the driver of the getaway vehicle.

So if you haven't already, calm down - and try to find something else to whine about.

[SlowwHand]

YEAH! What Winston said!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Yup, goes without saying. Oh the irony...



Wiggie's got the lead role

Is that "lead" like "leed" or lead like "led"