Terror attack in St.Petersburg Metro, 14 dead

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes it is.

Wahhabism is one of the most vile and reprehensible forms of religion out there. Satanism is far better.

Neither is better. They are both highly reprehensible and vile.

Na, I entirely disagree. Satanists are just edge lords who use the name to piss off religious people while espousing individualist ideas.

Wahhabis carry out literal genocide.

[Gim]

Neither is better. They are both highly reprehensible and vile.

Na, I entirely disagree. Satanists are just edge lords who use the name to piss off religious people while espousing individualist ideas.

Wahhabis carry out literal genocide.

I don't like both.

[Bakery Hill]

Na, I entirely disagree. Satanists are just edge lords who use the name to piss off religious people while espousing individualist ideas.

Wahhabis carry out literal genocide.

I don't like both.

Neither, but you're comparing first degree murder to jaywalking here.

[Bakery Hill]

Satanism is far better to be fair.

Of course, because worshipping the enemy of kindness is so much better. Sarcasm/

When's the last time Satanists executed people in your city? When's the last time they blew something up? Never. Satanists exist and have little to no negative affect on the world. Wahhabists murder people every day in their mission for theocracy.

[Luminesa]

Yes it is.

Wahhabism is one of the most vile and reprehensible forms of religion out there. Satanism is far better.

Neither is better. They are both highly reprehensible and vile.

I mean, that was my original point, that Wahhabism is true worship of the Devil. Most people who call themselves Satanists now are just, like Bake says, being edgy and trying to act "enlightened". It certainly doesn't make Satanism any less awful, though, at least in my mind.

[Marado]

Neither is better. They are both highly reprehensible and vile.

I mean, that was my original point, that Wahhabism is true worship of the Devil. Most people who call themselves Satanists now are just, like Bake says, being edgy and trying to act "enlightened". It certainly doesn't make Satanism any less awful, though, at least in my mind.

Oh, I see. Okay, I understand your point.

[Risottia]

No...not really.

Yes it is.

Wahhabism is one of the most vile and reprehensible forms of religion out there. Satanism is far better.

To my knowledge, there aren't groups of Satanist terrorists out there, or authoritarian Satanist regimes who curtain the rights of non-Satanists.

[Shofercia]

Once again, it's not unless I think you should die. Did you commit an act of terror? If so, hasta la vista. If not, then not. Otherwise you're encouraging terrorism. The consequence of terrorism should be death. And when you are committing an act of terror, you get dealt with by the military, not the police. It is war rather than policing. The solution is quite simple: don't massively kill innocent people in large numbers. Why don't you actually talk to the people who were affected by acts of terror, rather than comfortably sitting and typing behind your computer screen. Actual knowledge might change your mind.

And yes, like I said earlier, it would be technically illegal in Russia. I also doubt that anyone would convict you, if you killed a terrorist. Does Jury Nullification ring a bell? There was this giant Hollywood movie, where a black girl gets raped, and murdered, and her rapist and murderer goes free. The father tries working the system, fails. So the father of the girl kills him. Through Jury Nullification, he goes free. And what happened there was a rape & murder, not an act of terror, which is several times worse.

Why don't you ask the parents of the kids he murdered, how they feel about Anders Breivik having the ability to go free.

Once again, who decides? If not the courts who? Who writes your death list? How are they held accountable so that it is not abused?

And is Russia in such anarchy and chaos the civil authorities cannot function? No.
So civil authorities should handle it. Plain and simple.

I know people who have experienced these things. But how angry they are, no matter how justifiably angry, does not justify extrajudicial killings.
Ans argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

We have courts for a reason. And I am very glad such extreme and immoral action is illegal in Russia.
And I am not "encouraging terrorism" any more than saying murderers should have a right to trial is encouraging murder.

And what do you define as terrorism anyways? What if a terrorist kills one person, and a mass shooter with no political cause 30? Why is the terrorist worse?
Who decides and how and who gets put on your death lists?

And I have no problem with the outcome being death. Hold a trial, find them guilty, sentence them to death, execute them. If they resist arrest by violence? Well shooting could certain be justified. If taking them peacefully is impossible you might HAVE to kill them. See there are certainly times killing them without trial may be justified, but not all the times.
You should not kill them where a trial is possible.

That is the law, and the law needs to be enforced. Want them dead? Make the crime punishable by death.

I've already answered "who decides" numerous times. You missed it. Repeatedly. That fault is yours and yours alone. Russia does not have the death penalty. If you knew anything about Russian Laws, you wouldn't be making that asinine suggestion, and yet you are. I provided a very clear definition of terrorism, i.e. mass murder of innocent people. You, once again, heroically missed it. You cannot legally execute people in Russia, as Russia does not have the death penalty. Once again, your lack of knowledge ensures that your suggestions fails. Shocker. Also:

if the SpetzNaz knows who did it, they can go ahead and eliminate said murderers

without a trial, you have no way of knowing

I trust that the Special Forces trained just for this, who are the best, or some of the best, at their jobs, would be able to do their jobs.

And again who makes the determination when it is okay?

It'd be illegal. Now find me a Russian Jury or Judge that would convict someone for killing a terrorist?

Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die" in the Russian constitution?

Because who needs to read the posts, in order to respond to posts?

[Novus America]

Once again, who decides? If not the courts who? Who writes your death list? How are they held accountable so that it is not abused?

And is Russia in such anarchy and chaos the civil authorities cannot function? No.
So civil authorities should handle it. Plain and simple.

I know people who have experienced these things. But how angry they are, no matter how justifiably angry, does not justify extrajudicial killings.
Ans argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

We have courts for a reason. And I am very glad such extreme and immoral action is illegal in Russia.
And I am not "encouraging terrorism" any more than saying murderers should have a right to trial is encouraging murder.

And what do you define as terrorism anyways? What if a terrorist kills one person, and a mass shooter with no political cause 30? Why is the terrorist worse?
Who decides and how and who gets put on your death lists?

And I have no problem with the outcome being death. Hold a trial, find them guilty, sentence them to death, execute them. If they resist arrest by violence? Well shooting could certain be justified. If taking them peacefully is impossible you might HAVE to kill them. See there are certainly times killing them without trial may be justified, but not all the times.
You should not kill them where a trial is possible.

That is the law, and the law needs to be enforced. Want them dead? Make the crime punishable by death.

I've already answered "who decides" numerous times. You missed it. Repeatedly. That fault is yours and yours alone. Russia does not have the death penalty. If you knew anything about Russian Laws, you wouldn't be making that asinine suggestion, and yet you are. I provided a very clear definition of terrorism, i.e. mass murder of innocent people. You, once again, heroically missed it. You cannot legally execute people in Russia, as Russia does not have the death penalty. Once again, your lack of knowledge ensures that your suggestions fails. Shocker. Also:

without a trial, you have no way of knowing

And again who makes the determination when it is okay?

Does it say "you have a right to a fair trial unless Shof thinks you should die" in the Russian constitution?

Because who needs to read the posts, in order to respond to posts?

You never answered how. You only said when it was obvious, not saying who makes a determination as to what obvious is. You never laid out the procedure.

And you are wrong. Not all mass murder of innocent people is terrorism either. Some is some us not and sometimes terrorism kills nobody.

And you logic is purely circular still. You simply keep repeating extrajudicial killing is good for terrorism without explaining why except that terrorism is bad, and clearly you do not understand what terrorism even is.

And I do know a bit about Russia. The death penalty still exists in Russian law. There has been a temporary moratorium on its use, but that could be lifted.

If you want executions lift the moratorium. Do them in accordance with the law.
If you do not do not have them at all. Extrajudicial killing destroys law and order.

[Shofercia]

I've already answered "who decides" numerous times. You missed it. Repeatedly. That fault is yours and yours alone. Russia does not have the death penalty. If you knew anything about Russian Laws, you wouldn't be making that asinine suggestion, and yet you are. I provided a very clear definition of terrorism, i.e. mass murder of innocent people. You, once again, heroically missed it. You cannot legally execute people in Russia, as Russia does not have the death penalty. Once again, your lack of knowledge ensures that your suggestions fails. Shocker. Also:







Because who needs to read the posts, in order to respond to posts?

You never answered how. You only said when it was obvious, not saying who makes a determination as to what obvious is. You never laid out the procedure.

And you are wrong. Not all mass murder of innocent people is terrorism either. Some is some us not and sometimes terrorism kills nobody.

And you logic is purely circular still. You simply keep repeating extrajudicial killing is good for terrorism without explaining why except that terrorism is bad, and clearly you do not understand what terrorism even is.

And I do know a bit about Russia. The death penalty still exists in Russian law. There has been a temporary moratorium on its use, but that could be lifted.

If you want executions lift the moratorium. Do them in accordance with the law.
If you do not do not have them at all. Extrajudicial killing destroys law and order.

I answered how repeatedly. You missed it, repeatedly. And then you kept on reposting your lame arguments. If terrorists know that they're going to be killed no matter what, then only those driven purely by insanity will be left. You won't have the cold, calculating ones, like Breivik. As for the definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

So let's see here, if someone mass murders a lot of innocent people, would that be considered:

Intentional use of indiscriminate violence? Yep
Would said violence be a means of creating fear? Yep
Would said violence result achieve some ideological aim? Yep

I cannot think of a single mass murder of innocent people that did not achieve some ideological aim, even if it was the reverse of what said terrorist claimed that he/she wanted.

As for it destroying law and order, that's about the dumbest thing I heard. Law and order is still there. You can still sue them. It's just that no Judge or Jury, as far as I know, would find them guilty. So unless your argument is that Jury Nullification destroys law and order, you have no argument, which, face it, you never did. Of course now you'll rehash your same old crap and completely ignore what I said.

[Novus America]

You never answered how. You only said when it was obvious, not saying who makes a determination as to what obvious is. You never laid out the procedure.

And you are wrong. Not all mass murder of innocent people is terrorism either. Some is some us not and sometimes terrorism kills nobody.

And you logic is purely circular still. You simply keep repeating extrajudicial killing is good for terrorism without explaining why except that terrorism is bad, and clearly you do not understand what terrorism even is.

And I do know a bit about Russia. The death penalty still exists in Russian law. There has been a temporary moratorium on its use, but that could be lifted.

If you want executions lift the moratorium. Do them in accordance with the law.
If you do not do not have them at all. Extrajudicial killing destroys law and order.

I answered how repeatedly. You missed it, repeatedly. And then you kept on reposting your lame arguments. If terrorists know that they're going to be killed no matter what, then only those driven purely by insanity will be left. You won't have the cold, calculating ones, like Breivik. As for the definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

So let's see here, if someone mass murders a lot of innocent people, would that be considered:

Intentional use of indiscriminate violence? Yep
Would said violence be a means of creating fear? Yep
Would said violence result achieve some ideological aim? Yep

I cannot think of a single mass murder of innocent people that did not achieve some ideological aim, even if it was the reverse of what said terrorist claimed that he/she wanted.

As for it destroying law and order, that's about the dumbest thing I heard. Law and order is still there. You can still sue them. It's just that no Judge or Jury, as far as I know, would find them guilty. So unless your argument is that Jury Nullification destroys law and order, you have no argument, which, face it, you never did. Of course now you'll rehash your same old crap and completely ignore what I said.

Umm know, you have not answered. Who decides when extrajudicial murder is okay?
You? Putin? Some capatain in the Spetznaz?

Extrajudicial killing is frowned on for a reason. And yes jury nullification if used to allow extrajudicial killings is bad, hence why we have safe guards.

Also why we do not activated encourage it. Yes disobeying the law is bad for law and order. Hence why we discourage it. We cannot stop it altogether. But we can avoid encouraging committing murder. You are advocating murder.

And as far as terrorism not all violence is murder, and not all mass murder to inflict fear in order to advance ideological aims. If I set off a bomb to cause fear for a political purpose, and nobody is killed, it is still terrorism. If I shoot several people because I am crazy, but without a intent to advance any ideological cause, that is not terrorism.

Mass murder can be terrorism, and terrorism can be murder.

But all mass murder is not terrorism and all terrorism is not necessarily murder.

But we will not agree. You support extrajudicial murder and I do not. Our morals and views of the importance of law are clearly irreconcilable.

[Shofercia]

I answered how repeatedly. You missed it, repeatedly. And then you kept on reposting your lame arguments. If terrorists know that they're going to be killed no matter what, then only those driven purely by insanity will be left. You won't have the cold, calculating ones, like Breivik. As for the definition of terrorism:

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

So let's see here, if someone mass murders a lot of innocent people, would that be considered:

Intentional use of indiscriminate violence? Yep
Would said violence be a means of creating fear? Yep
Would said violence result achieve some ideological aim? Yep

I cannot think of a single mass murder of innocent people that did not achieve some ideological aim, even if it was the reverse of what said terrorist claimed that he/she wanted.

As for it destroying law and order, that's about the dumbest thing I heard. Law and order is still there. You can still sue them. It's just that no Judge or Jury, as far as I know, would find them guilty. So unless your argument is that Jury Nullification destroys law and order, you have no argument, which, face it, you never did. Of course now you'll rehash your same old crap and completely ignore what I said.

Umm know, you have not answered. Who decides when extrajudicial murder is okay?
You? Putin? Some capatain in the Spetznaz?

Extrajudicial killing is frowned on for a reason. And yes jury nullification if used to allow extrajudicial killings is bad, hence why we have safe guards.

Also why we do not activated encourage it. Yes disobeying the law is bad for law and order. Hence why we discourage it. We cannot stop it altogether. But we can avoid encouraging committing murder. You are advocating murder.

And as far as terrorism not all violence is murder, and not all mass murder to inflict fear in order to advance ideological aims. If I set off a bomb to cause fear for a political purpose, and nobody is killed, it is still terrorism. If I shoot several people because I am crazy, but without a intent to advance any ideological cause, that is not terrorism.

Mass murder can be terrorism, and terrorism can be murder.

But all mass murder is not terrorism and all terrorism is not necessarily murder.

But we will not agree. You support extrajudicial murder and I do not. Our morals and views of the importance of law are clearly irreconcilable.

That question you keep on asking, that's been answered. If you failed to read it, that's not my problem. Speaking of Jury Nullification, thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand that either. What safeguards are there against Jury Nullification, if all 12 Jurors stay silent? Got source on that? Of course you don't. What a shocker.

If you shoot a massive amount of people, an ideological issue will result. Even if you didn't intend for that happen. In your hypothetical's case, the ideological issue would be whether or not to improve psychological care in the United States. You so badly want to claim that I support something as bad as murder, which I do not, so perhaps I should address why you're wrong there too.

Since you keep on spouting off the term "murder", let me explain why you don't understand that term as well. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Do you see the word premeditated? That's an actual word. Premeditated means that you're planning to do it. SpetzNaz Officers don't wake up thinking "how many terrorists am I going to kill today" and thinking they do is moronic. Rather they respond to an act of terror, if that, unfortunately, occurs.

Furthermore, do you see the word "unlawful" in the definition? Guess what Novus America, that's another word. I explained how it would be lawful, i.e. Jury Nullification. You failed to grasp that, and started babbling about safeguards to Jury Nullification. We are at an impasse. I want to stop terrorism, and you want to argue about semantics that you don't understand. That places us at an impasse.

[Novus America]

Umm know, you have not answered. Who decides when extrajudicial murder is okay?
You? Putin? Some capatain in the Spetznaz?

Extrajudicial killing is frowned on for a reason. And yes jury nullification if used to allow extrajudicial killings is bad, hence why we have safe guards.

Also why we do not activated encourage it. Yes disobeying the law is bad for law and order. Hence why we discourage it. We cannot stop it altogether. But we can avoid encouraging committing murder. You are advocating murder.

And as far as terrorism not all violence is murder, and not all mass murder to inflict fear in order to advance ideological aims. If I set off a bomb to cause fear for a political purpose, and nobody is killed, it is still terrorism. If I shoot several people because I am crazy, but without a intent to advance any ideological cause, that is not terrorism.

Mass murder can be terrorism, and terrorism can be murder.

But all mass murder is not terrorism and all terrorism is not necessarily murder.

But we will not agree. You support extrajudicial murder and I do not. Our morals and views of the importance of law are clearly irreconcilable.

That question you keep on asking, that's been answered. If you failed to read it, that's not my problem. Speaking of Jury Nullification, thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand that either. What safeguards are there against Jury Nullification, if all 12 Jurors stay silent? Got source on that? Of course you don't. What a shocker.

If you shoot a massive amount of people, an ideological issue will result. Even if you didn't intend for that happen. In your hypothetical's case, the ideological issue would be whether or not to improve psychological care in the United States. You so badly want to claim that I support something as bad as murder, which I do not, so perhaps I should address why you're wrong there too.

Since you keep on spouting off the term "murder", let me explain why you don't understand that term as well. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Do you see the word premeditated? That's an actual word. Premeditated means that you're planning to do it. SpetzNaz Officers don't wake up thinking "how many terrorists am I going to kill today" and thinking they do is moronic. Rather they respond to an act of terror, if that, unfortunately, occurs.

Furthermore, do you see the word "unlawful" in the definition? Guess what Novus America, that's another word. I explained how it would be lawful, i.e. Jury Nullification. You failed to grasp that, and started babbling about safeguards to Jury Nullification. We are at an impasse. I want to stop terrorism, and you want to argue about semantics that you don't understand. That places us at an impasse.

I will correct you were you are clearly wrong. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice. It does not require premeditation. Second degree murder is still murder, obviously.

And if you shoot people without intent to advance an ideological cause, it is not terrorism. Regardless of what ideological result happens. Terrorism requires intent.

And as far as jury nullification the prosecution can reject jurors, and jurors intending to nullify can be removed.

[Shofercia]

That question you keep on asking, that's been answered. If you failed to read it, that's not my problem. Speaking of Jury Nullification, thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand that either. What safeguards are there against Jury Nullification, if all 12 Jurors stay silent? Got source on that? Of course you don't. What a shocker.

If you shoot a massive amount of people, an ideological issue will result. Even if you didn't intend for that happen. In your hypothetical's case, the ideological issue would be whether or not to improve psychological care in the United States. You so badly want to claim that I support something as bad as murder, which I do not, so perhaps I should address why you're wrong there too.

Since you keep on spouting off the term "murder", let me explain why you don't understand that term as well. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Do you see the word premeditated? That's an actual word. Premeditated means that you're planning to do it. SpetzNaz Officers don't wake up thinking "how many terrorists am I going to kill today" and thinking they do is moronic. Rather they respond to an act of terror, if that, unfortunately, occurs.

Furthermore, do you see the word "unlawful" in the definition? Guess what Novus America, that's another word. I explained how it would be lawful, i.e. Jury Nullification. You failed to grasp that, and started babbling about safeguards to Jury Nullification. We are at an impasse. I want to stop terrorism, and you want to argue about semantics that you don't understand. That places us at an impasse.

I will correct you were you are clearly wrong. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice. It does not require premeditation. Second degree murder is still murder, obviously.

And if you shoot people without intent to advance an ideological cause, it is not terrorism. Regardless of what ideological result happens. Terrorism requires intent.

And as far as jury nullification the prosecution can reject jurors, and jurors intending to nullify can be removed.

So if a former ISIS member shoots a lot of people, gets killed in the process, but doesn't leave any note behind talking about his intent, that's not terrorism according to Novus America.

Second degree murder requires malice aforethought. What is that? Let's ask a legal dictionary: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198

the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Oh, wait, there goes your argument. Out the window. Again. Maybe you should read the actual definition of murder before spouting off "murder here, murder there, murder everywhere!" Pretty sure that Special Forces neutralizing terrorists are, at the very least, slightly concerned about the victims of terrorism.

[Novus America]

I will correct you were you are clearly wrong. Murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice. It does not require premeditation. Second degree murder is still murder, obviously.

And if you shoot people without intent to advance an ideological cause, it is not terrorism. Regardless of what ideological result happens. Terrorism requires intent.

And as far as jury nullification the prosecution can reject jurors, and jurors intending to nullify can be removed.

So if a former ISIS member shoots a lot of people, gets killed in the process, but doesn't leave any note behind talking about his intent, that's not terrorism according to Novus America.

Second degree murder requires malice aforethought. What is that? Let's ask a legal dictionary: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198

the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Oh, wait, there goes your argument. Out the window. Again. Maybe you should read the actual definition of murder before spouting off "murder here, murder there, murder everywhere!" Pretty sure that Special Forces neutralizing terrorists are, at the very least, slightly concerned about the victims of terrorism.

"Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated."

"Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions."

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ee-murder/

Second degree murder is LITERALLY BY DEFNITION NOT premeditated. You said all murder has to be premeditated. You were wrong.

Malice aforethought is NOT premeditation. Being concerned about the victims does not make it not murder. Saying you murdered someone out of what you though is good does not counteract that. Obviously said Spetznaz would not have any regard for the lives of the suspected terrorists when they pulled the trigger. Killing without premeditation can still be murder.
If you purposely shoot someone without premeditation to commit murder, you still had malice when you pulled the trigger. You pulled the trigger knowing they are likely to die. That is malice aforethought.

Feeling bad for victims does not outweigh that.

Terrorism requires intent yes. Intent need not be explicitly stated to be proven. Just because said ISIS member did not leave a note, you could still prove intent.

Not all terrorism is murder, and not all murder is terrorism. They are separate crimes with separate elements. One single incident could be both of course. Sometime murder is terrorism. And quite often terrorism is murder. But not all terrorism is murder and not all murder terrorism.

[Shofercia]

So if a former ISIS member shoots a lot of people, gets killed in the process, but doesn't leave any note behind talking about his intent, that's not terrorism according to Novus America.

Second degree murder requires malice aforethought. What is that? Let's ask a legal dictionary: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198



Oh, wait, there goes your argument. Out the window. Again. Maybe you should read the actual definition of murder before spouting off "murder here, murder there, murder everywhere!" Pretty sure that Special Forces neutralizing terrorists are, at the very least, slightly concerned about the victims of terrorism.

"Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated."

"Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions."

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ee-murder/

Second degree murder is LITERALLY BY DEFNITION NOT premeditated. You said all murder has to be premeditated. You were wrong.

Malice aforethought is NOT premeditation. Being concerned about the victims does not make it not murder. Saying you murdered someone out of what you though is good does not counteract that. Obviously said Spetznaz would not have any regard for the lives of the suspected terrorists when they pulled the trigger. Killing without premeditation can still be murder.
If you purposely shoot someone without premeditation to commit murder, you still had malice when you pulled the trigger. You pulled the trigger knowing they are likely to die. That is malice aforethought.

Feeling bad for victims does not outweigh that.

Terrorism requires intent yes. Intent need not be explicitly stated to be proven. Just because said ISIS member did not leave a note, you could still prove intent.

Not all terrorism is murder, and not all murder is terrorism. They are separate crimes with separate elements. One single incident could be both of course. Sometime murder is terrorism. And quite often terrorism is murder. But not all terrorism is murder and not all murder terrorism.

And here you are, arguing semantics. And getting it wrong. As usual. For instance: You pulled the trigger knowing they are likely to die. That is malice aforethought.

No, that's not malice aforethought. As was explained to you earlier, as you've once again heroically failed to grasp, this is the actual definition of malice aforethought: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198

malice aforethought
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

That's not some crap that Novus America made up. That's an actual, legal, definition. The first step talks about first degree murder. First degree. You're talking about second degree. So that part is not relevant, since, I hope, you understand that 1 and 2 are different numbers. The second step talks about a person being unconcerned for the lives of others. As in plural. As in general intent rather than specific intent. The example it gives is a bank robbery. With a gun. With many people shooting. And an innocent bystander dying. Innocent. As in didn't just waste 50 people like Tommy Vercetti on a rampage. Innocent.

Also, I did not claim that all murder is terrorism. I said mass murder. As in more than one person. As in mass murder. Big numbers. Massive. So if someone murders someone else for sleeping with his wife/husband/daughter/son/mother/father/uncle/aunt/cousin/niece/whatever, that's not terrorism. Even though it's murder. So you claiming that not all murder is terrorism is completely irrelevant to my point. It's a strawman. Do you understand that?

Oh, and if a former ISIS member shoots up a school, how do you what his intent was? If he fought for ISIS, then he's guilty for the rest of his life in your eyes? Even 20-30 years down the line? What if he reformed and fought against ISIS. And then still commits mass murder. What's his intent?

[Novus America]

"Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated."

"Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions."

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ee-murder/

Second degree murder is LITERALLY BY DEFNITION NOT premeditated. You said all murder has to be premeditated. You were wrong.

Malice aforethought is NOT premeditation. Being concerned about the victims does not make it not murder. Saying you murdered someone out of what you though is good does not counteract that. Obviously said Spetznaz would not have any regard for the lives of the suspected terrorists when they pulled the trigger. Killing without premeditation can still be murder.
If you purposely shoot someone without premeditation to commit murder, you still had malice when you pulled the trigger. You pulled the trigger knowing they are likely to die. That is malice aforethought.

Feeling bad for victims does not outweigh that.

Terrorism requires intent yes. Intent need not be explicitly stated to be proven. Just because said ISIS member did not leave a note, you could still prove intent.

Not all terrorism is murder, and not all murder is terrorism. They are separate crimes with separate elements. One single incident could be both of course. Sometime murder is terrorism. And quite often terrorism is murder. But not all terrorism is murder and not all murder terrorism.

And here you are, arguing semantics. And getting it wrong. As usual. For instance: You pulled the trigger knowing they are likely to die. That is malice aforethought.

No, that's not malice aforethought. As was explained to you earlier, as you've once again heroically failed to grasp, this is the actual definition of malice aforethought: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198

malice aforethought
n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

That's not some crap that Novus America made up. That's an actual, legal, definition. The first step talks about first degree murder. First degree. You're talking about second degree. So that part is not relevant, since, I hope, you understand that 1 and 2 are different numbers. The second step talks about a person being unconcerned for the lives of others. As in plural. As in general intent rather than specific intent. The example it gives is a bank robbery. With a gun. With many people shooting. And an innocent bystander dying. Innocent. As in didn't just waste 50 people like Tommy Vercetti on a rampage. Innocent.

Also, I did not claim that all murder is terrorism. I said mass killing. As in more than one person. As in mass killing. Big numbers. Massive. So if someone murders someone else for sleeping with his wife/husband/daughter/son/mother/father/uncle/aunt/cousin/niece/whatever, that's not terrorism. Even though it's murder. So you claiming that not all murder is terrorism is completely irrelevant to my point. It's a strawman. Do you understand that?

Oh, and if a former ISIS member shoots up a school, how do you what his intent was? If he fought for ISIS, then he's guilty for the rest of his life in your eyes? Even 20-30 years down the line? What if he reformed and fought against ISIS. And then still commits mass murder. What's his intent?

"Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated."

"Although the act of killing may be the same in first-degree murder and second-degree murder, the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime is different. Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions."
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ee-murder/

That is not something I made up. Those are facts. Something you never addressed. Something you ignored while just repeating the same thing.

And in murder cases semantics matter, a lot.

"States have adopted several different schemes for classifying murders by degree. The most common separates murder into two degrees, and treats voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as separate crimes that do not constitute murder.
First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[12]
Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.[13]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees

"The four states of mind that are now recognized as constituting "malice aforethought" in murder prosecutions are as follows:[7]

i.Intent to kill,
ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

Malice aforethought can occur only an instant before the crime. Did you intend to point the gun at them? Yes? Did you intend to pull the trigger? Yes? Malice aforethought. Mere intent to shoot is considered malice aforethought.
Yes, it still could be first degree murder, depending on the jurisdiction. But that does not help your cause.

Not all mass murders are terrorism either, even though it usually is. You still need intent.
And in law the answer is not always easy, if it was, we would not have lawyers.
You do not know for sure what his intent was. But can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If you can, you can get the terror conviction. Sometimes the answer is not always clear. Which is why we have courts, not vigilante executions.

And here, on murder, for your enlightenment...

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 37-2.html#
"Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 1

Facts: Fast Boyle is walking along a busy street. Clay bumps into Boyle and continues walking without saying, "Sorry." Angered by Clay's rudeness, Boyle immediately pulls out a gun and kills Clay.

Verdict: Boyle could probably be convicted of second degree murder, because he killed Clay intentionally. A judge or jury is unlikely to conclude that the killing was premeditated, which would elevate the shooting to first degree murder. On the other hand, this wasn’t the kind of heat-of-passion killing that equals voluntary manslaughter. While Boyle might have been provoked in some sense, the circumstances weren’t so extreme to cause a reasonable person to lose control.

Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 2

Facts: Standing next to each other in a bookstore a few feet away from the top of a flight of stairs, Marks and Spencer argue over the proper interpretation of free will in Hobbes's philosophy. The argument becomes increasingly animated and culminates when Spencer points a finger at Marks and Marks pushes Spencer backwards. The push is hard enough to cause Spencer to fall backwards and down the stairs. Spencer dies from the resulting injuries.

Verdict: Marks would probably be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It was criminally negligent of him to shove a person standing near the top of a stairway. But the circumstances don't seem to suggest that his behavior was so reckless as to demonstrate extreme indifference to human life, which would have elevated the crime to second degree murder. If the evidence had indicated that Marks intended to kill Spencer with the push, a judge or jury would have had to determine whether the extent of the provocation made the homicide voluntary manslaughter.

Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 3

Facts: Lew Manion comes home to find that his wife Lee has been badly beaten and sexually abused. Manion takes Lee to the hospital. On the way, Lee tells Manion that her attacker was Barnett, the owner of a tavern that she and Manion occasionally visit. After driving Lee home from the hospital about four hours later, Manion goes to a gun shop and buys a gun. Manion then goes to the tavern and shoots and kills Barnett.

Verdict: Manion could be convicted of first degree murder, because the time for reflection and his purchase of the gun indicates premeditation and deliberation. Voluntary manslaughter is a somewhat less likely alternative because a judge or jury could find that the heat of passion had cooled, even though Manion remained angry at the time he acted."

[Shofercia]

And here you are, arguing semantics. And getting it wrong. As usual. For instance: You pulled the trigger knowing they are likely to die. That is malice aforethought.

No, that's not malice aforethought. As was explained to you earlier, as you've once again heroically failed to grasp, this is the actual definition of malice aforethought: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1198



That's not some crap that Novus America made up. That's an actual, legal, definition. The first step talks about first degree murder. First degree. You're talking about second degree. So that part is not relevant, since, I hope, you understand that 1 and 2 are different numbers. The second step talks about a person being unconcerned for the lives of others. As in plural. As in general intent rather than specific intent. The example it gives is a bank robbery. With a gun. With many people shooting. And an innocent bystander dying. Innocent. As in didn't just waste 50 people like Tommy Vercetti on a rampage. Innocent.

Also, I did not claim that all murder is terrorism. I said mass killing. As in more than one person. As in mass killing. Big numbers. Massive. So if someone murders someone else for sleeping with his wife/husband/daughter/son/mother/father/uncle/aunt/cousin/niece/whatever, that's not terrorism. Even though it's murder. So you claiming that not all murder is terrorism is completely irrelevant to my point. It's a strawman. Do you understand that?

Oh, and if a former ISIS member shoots up a school, how do you what his intent was? If he fought for ISIS, then he's guilty for the rest of his life in your eyes? Even 20-30 years down the line? What if he reformed and fought against ISIS. And then still commits mass murder. What's his intent?

"Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated."

"Although the act of killing may be the same in first-degree murder and second-degree murder, the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime is different. Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions."
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ee-murder/

That is not something I made up. Those are facts. Something you never addressed. Something you ignored while just repeating the same thing.

And in murder cases semantics matter, a lot.

"States have adopted several different schemes for classifying murders by degree. The most common separates murder into two degrees, and treats voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as separate crimes that do not constitute murder.
First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[12]
Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.[13]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_&# ... tates_law)#Degrees

"The four states of mind that are now recognized as constituting "malice aforethought" in murder prosecutions are as follows:[7]

i.Intent to kill,
ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

Malice aforethought can occur only an instant before the crime. Did you intend to point the gun at them? Yes? Did you intend to pull the trigger? Yes? Malice aforethought. Mere intent to shoot is considered malice aforethought.
Yes, it still could be first degree murder, depending on the jurisdiction. But that does not help your cause.

Not all mass murders are terrorism either, even though it usually is. You still need intent.
And in law the answer is not always easy, if it was, we would not have lawyers.
You do not know for sure what his intent was. But can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If you can, you can get the terror conviction. Sometimes the answer is not always clear. Which is why we have courts, not vigilante executions.

And here, on murder, for your enlightenment...

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 37-2.html#
"Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 1

Facts: Fast Boyle is walking along a busy street. Clay bumps into Boyle and continues walking without saying, "Sorry." Angered by Clay's rudeness, Boyle immediately pulls out a gun and kills Clay.

Verdict: Boyle could probably be convicted of second degree murder, because he killed Clay intentionally. A judge or jury is unlikely to conclude that the killing was premeditated, which would elevate the shooting to first degree murder. On the other hand, this wasn’t the kind of heat-of-passion killing that equals voluntary manslaughter. While Boyle might have been provoked in some sense, the circumstances weren’t so extreme to cause a reasonable person to lose control.

Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 2

Facts: Standing next to each other in a bookstore a few feet away from the top of a flight of stairs, Marks and Spencer argue over the proper interpretation of free will in Hobbes's philosophy. The argument becomes increasingly animated and culminates when Spencer points a finger at Marks and Marks pushes Spencer backwards. The push is hard enough to cause Spencer to fall backwards and down the stairs. Spencer dies from the resulting injuries.

Verdict: Marks would probably be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It was criminally negligent of him to shove a person standing near the top of a stairway. But the circumstances don't seem to suggest that his behavior was so reckless as to demonstrate extreme indifference to human life, which would have elevated the crime to second degree murder. If the evidence had indicated that Marks intended to kill Spencer with the push, a judge or jury would have had to determine whether the extent of the provocation made the homicide voluntary manslaughter.

Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 3

Facts: Lew Manion comes home to find that his wife Lee has been badly beaten and sexually abused. Manion takes Lee to the hospital. On the way, Lee tells Manion that her attacker was Barnett, the owner of a tavern that she and Manion occasionally visit. After driving Lee home from the hospital about four hours later, Manion goes to a gun shop and buys a gun. Manion then goes to the tavern and shoots and kills Barnett.

Verdict: Manion could be convicted of first degree murder, because the time for reflection and his purchase of the gun indicates premeditation and deliberation. Voluntary manslaughter is a somewhat less likely alternative because a judge or jury could find that the heat of passion had cooled, even though Manion remained angry at the time he acted."

Wow, selective quotation by Novus America from a selective source. I used a legal dictionary. You used something else. I'm not sure if you're aware, but definitions generally come from this thing called a dictionary. And even with your source, you still opted to quote it selectively. Here's a part you didn't pay enough attention to:

Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions. This is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter, which is reserved for crimes committed in a “heat of passion” where the defendant may not have fully understood what he or she was doing. Additionally, while second-degree murder may result from impulsive actions of the defendant, voluntary manslaughter is typically reserved for impulsive killings that are provoked.

Hmm, a killing that is provoked, perhaps provoked by an act of terror? Like terrorism? Oh yeah, that would really make sense, considering that I was talking about terrorism. From your very own definition, the one that you cited, has malice aforethought. Did you address that with an actual source? Nope. I cited a legal dictionary. You cited, Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Legal dictionary vs Wikipedia. Actual Law vs Wikipedia. Yeah, I'm going to go with actual law here. Not Wikipedia. I don't think that the argument "Your Honor, Novus America told me that Wikipedia said XYZ so I'm innocent" is going to fly in Court. I'm not a lawyer, but there's just something hilariously wrong about that argument.

Now let's go over your examples. First one. The murderer has abandoned and malignant heart. Doesn't apply here. Second one. No abandoned and malignant heart. Not murder. You did read what you posted, right? Third example. I not only explained why it doesn't apply, but I actually cited it. Wow. Just wow. I actually cited it as murder, and you, Novus America, went ahead and used it to prove that I was wrong. You're claiming that I made the wrong claim, but proving that my claim was right. What the actual fuck?

Your third example:

Facts: Lew Manion comes home to find that his wife Lee has been badly beaten and sexually abused. Manion takes Lee to the hospital. On the way, Lee tells Manion that her attacker was Barnett, the owner of a tavern that she and Manion occasionally visit. After driving Lee home from the hospital about four hours later, Manion goes to a gun shop and buys a gun. Manion then goes to the tavern and shoots and kills Barnett.

Verdict: Manion could be convicted of first degree murder, because the time for reflection and his purchase of the gun indicates premeditation and deliberation. Voluntary manslaughter is a somewhat less likely alternative because a judge or jury could find that the heat of passion had cooled, even though Manion remained angry at the time he acted."

My hypothetical, the very one that you were responding to:

Also, I did not claim that all murder is terrorism. I said mass killing. As in more than one person. As in mass killing. Big numbers. Massive. So if someone murders someone else for sleeping with beating up his wife... that's not terrorism. Even though it's murder. So you claiming that not all murder is terrorism is completely irrelevant to my point. It's a strawman. Do you understand that?

Damn, this is truly entertaining. Just a quick pro-tip Novus America. If you ever think about law school, you might want to give preference to Legal Argument from Legal Sources over those of Wikipedia.

[Novus America]

"Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated."

"Although the act of killing may be the same in first-degree murder and second-degree murder, the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime is different. Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions."
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offense ... ee-murder/

That is not something I made up. Those are facts. Something you never addressed. Something you ignored while just repeating the same thing.

And in murder cases semantics matter, a lot.

"States have adopted several different schemes for classifying murders by degree. The most common separates murder into two degrees, and treats voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as separate crimes that do not constitute murder.
First-degree murder: any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder is typically first-degree.[12]
Second-degree murder: any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.[13]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_&# ... tates_law)#Degrees

"The four states of mind that are now recognized as constituting "malice aforethought" in murder prosecutions are as follows:[7]

i.Intent to kill,
ii.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
iii.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
iv.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

Malice aforethought can occur only an instant before the crime. Did you intend to point the gun at them? Yes? Did you intend to pull the trigger? Yes? Malice aforethought. Mere intent to shoot is considered malice aforethought.
Yes, it still could be first degree murder, depending on the jurisdiction. But that does not help your cause.

Not all mass murders are terrorism either, even though it usually is. You still need intent.
And in law the answer is not always easy, if it was, we would not have lawyers.
You do not know for sure what his intent was. But can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? If you can, you can get the terror conviction. Sometimes the answer is not always clear. Which is why we have courts, not vigilante executions.

And here, on murder, for your enlightenment...

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 37-2.html#
"Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 1

Facts: Fast Boyle is walking along a busy street. Clay bumps into Boyle and continues walking without saying, "Sorry." Angered by Clay's rudeness, Boyle immediately pulls out a gun and kills Clay.

Verdict: Boyle could probably be convicted of second degree murder, because he killed Clay intentionally. A judge or jury is unlikely to conclude that the killing was premeditated, which would elevate the shooting to first degree murder. On the other hand, this wasn’t the kind of heat-of-passion killing that equals voluntary manslaughter. While Boyle might have been provoked in some sense, the circumstances weren’t so extreme to cause a reasonable person to lose control.

Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 2

Facts: Standing next to each other in a bookstore a few feet away from the top of a flight of stairs, Marks and Spencer argue over the proper interpretation of free will in Hobbes's philosophy. The argument becomes increasingly animated and culminates when Spencer points a finger at Marks and Marks pushes Spencer backwards. The push is hard enough to cause Spencer to fall backwards and down the stairs. Spencer dies from the resulting injuries.

Verdict: Marks would probably be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It was criminally negligent of him to shove a person standing near the top of a stairway. But the circumstances don't seem to suggest that his behavior was so reckless as to demonstrate extreme indifference to human life, which would have elevated the crime to second degree murder. If the evidence had indicated that Marks intended to kill Spencer with the push, a judge or jury would have had to determine whether the extent of the provocation made the homicide voluntary manslaughter.

Murder and Manslaughter: Case Example 3

Facts: Lew Manion comes home to find that his wife Lee has been badly beaten and sexually abused. Manion takes Lee to the hospital. On the way, Lee tells Manion that her attacker was Barnett, the owner of a tavern that she and Manion occasionally visit. After driving Lee home from the hospital about four hours later, Manion goes to a gun shop and buys a gun. Manion then goes to the tavern and shoots and kills Barnett.

Verdict: Manion could be convicted of first degree murder, because the time for reflection and his purchase of the gun indicates premeditation and deliberation. Voluntary manslaughter is a somewhat less likely alternative because a judge or jury could find that the heat of passion had cooled, even though Manion remained angry at the time he acted."

Wow, selective quotation by Novus America from a selective source. I used a legal dictionary. You used something else. I'm not sure if you're aware, but definitions generally come from this thing called a dictionary. And even with your source, you still opted to quote it selectively. Here's a part you didn't pay enough attention to:

Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions. This is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter, which is reserved for crimes committed in a “heat of passion” where the defendant may not have fully understood what he or she was doing. Additionally, while second-degree murder may result from impulsive actions of the defendant, voluntary manslaughter is typically reserved for impulsive killings that are provoked.

Hmm, a killing that is provoked, perhaps provoked by an act of terror? Like terrorism? Oh yeah, that would really make sense, considering that I was talking about terrorism. From your very own definition, the one that you cited, has malice aforethought. Did you address that with an actual source? Nope. I cited a legal dictionary. You cited, Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. Legal dictionary vs Wikipedia. Actual Law vs Wikipedia. Yeah, I'm going to go with actual law here. Not Wikipedia. I don't think that the argument "Your Honor, Novus America told me that Wikipedia said XYZ so I'm innocent" is going to fly in Court. I'm not a lawyer, but there's just something hilariously wrong about that argument.

Now let's go over your examples. First one. The murderer has abandoned and malignant heart. Doesn't apply here. Second one. No abandoned and malignant heart. Not murder. You did read what you posted, right? Third example. I not only explained why it doesn't apply, but I actually cited it. Wow. Just wow. I actually cited it as murder, and you, Novus America, went ahead and used it to prove that I was wrong. You're claiming that I made the wrong claim, but proving that my claim was right. What the actual fuck?

Your third example:

Facts: Lew Manion comes home to find that his wife Lee has been badly beaten and sexually abused. Manion takes Lee to the hospital. On the way, Lee tells Manion that her attacker was Barnett, the owner of a tavern that she and Manion occasionally visit. After driving Lee home from the hospital about four hours later, Manion goes to a gun shop and buys a gun. Manion then goes to the tavern and shoots and kills Barnett.

Verdict: Manion could be convicted of first degree murder, because the time for reflection and his purchase of the gun indicates premeditation and deliberation. Voluntary manslaughter is a somewhat less likely alternative because a judge or jury could find that the heat of passion had cooled, even though Manion remained angry at the time he acted."

My hypothetical, the very one that you were responding to:

Also, I did not claim that all murder is terrorism. I said mass killing. As in more than one person. As in mass killing. Big numbers. Massive. So if someone murders someone else for sleeping with beating up his wife... that's not terrorism. Even though it's murder. So you claiming that not all murder is terrorism is completely irrelevant to my point. It's a strawman. Do you understand that?

Damn, this is truly entertaining. Just a quick pro-tip Novus America. If you ever think about law school, you might want to give preference to Legal Argument from Legal Sources over those of Wikipedia.

My sources are based on legal sources. The Wikipedia article is citing the Model Penal Code.
I did not only cite from Wikipedia. But I am not writing a legal brief here. I did not Bluebook the citations. Cause you are not paying me enough to make it worth the effort.

And you legal encyclopedia would not really be a proper source. But the MPC is...

And yes, you finally got around to the heat of passion defense. I was wondering how long that would take you. That should have been the first thing you brought up.

Took you long enough to figure that one out.

So you agree with
Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions. This is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter, which is reserved for crimes committed in a “heat of passion” where the defendant may not have fully understood what he or she was doing. Additionally, while second-degree murder may result from impulsive actions of the defendant, voluntary manslaughter is typically reserved for impulsive killings that are provoked.

So if it is not adequately provoked you admit it is murder.

Now problem with that argument is see hypo #3.

"Voluntary manslaughter is a somewhat less likely alternative because a judge or jury could find that the heat of passion had cooled, even though Manion remained angry at the time he acted."

See heat of passion must be immediate. If the terror attack occurred hours, let alone days ago heat of passion does not apply. It would only apply right after the attack occurred.

But you intially adovocated hunting people down and killing them. That is premeditation.

Also voluntary man slaughter is also called third degree murder.

So in most cases it would, in fact still be murder. Also voluntary man slaughter is still a crime. You still go to jail.

[Gim]

What has Europe become?

[British Prussia]

What has Europe become?

I travel quite a bit and to be honest, I still feel safer in the dark streets of Paris at night compared to daytime New York... Personally, I'm not worried.

[Gim]

What has Europe become?

I travel quite a bit and to be honest, I still feel safer in the dark streets of Paris at night compared to daytime New York... Personally, I'm not worried.

That's a relief. I don't want to see anyone in danger.

[British Prussia]

I travel quite a bit and to be honest, I still feel safer in the dark streets of Paris at night compared to daytime New York... Personally, I'm not worried.

That's a relief. I don't want to see anyone in danger.

That said, I am aware that terrorism is a threat in Europe nowadays. Still I don't really like it when people portray Europe to be this Islamist warzone. Because I've never really witnessed a terror attack before, and it's unlikely I'll ever do in Europe, I'm not worried. But I can understand that people do tend to focus on crime.

For example, one of my friends read that someone in New Zealand was beat up in Queen St (the main road in the largest city, interestingly the same name as the attack on Stockholm) and from that one action, she's convinced herself that New Zealand isn't very safe. That's probably the safest country I've ever been to. Sure, it's not as lively as Europe where you're surrounded by people, where there's safety in numbers, but still. Feels great to feel like you're alone sometimes.

[Gim]

That's a relief. I don't want to see anyone in danger.

That said, I am aware that terrorism is a threat in Europe nowadays. Still I don't really like it when people portray Europe to be this Islamist warzone. Because I've never really witnessed a terror attack before, and it's unlikely I'll ever do in Europe, I'm not worried. But I can understand that people do tend to focus on crime.

For example, one of my friends read that someone in New Zealand was beat up in Queen St (the main road in the largest city, interestingly the same name as the attack on Stockholm) and from that one action, she's convinced herself that New Zealand isn't very safe. That's probably the safest country I've ever been to. Sure, it's not as lively as Europe where you're surrounded by people, where there's safety in numbers, but still. Feels great to feel like you're alone sometimes.

Yes, but Europe has been victimized multiple times by the ISIS, and the danger is expanding to even Russia. A small incident in New Zealand does not make the usually safe nation a warzone; however, the situation in Europe seems to be quite different from that.

[British Prussia]

That said, I am aware that terrorism is a threat in Europe nowadays. Still I don't really like it when people portray Europe to be this Islamist warzone. Because I've never really witnessed a terror attack before, and it's unlikely I'll ever do in Europe, I'm not worried. But I can understand that people do tend to focus on crime.

For example, one of my friends read that someone in New Zealand was beat up in Queen St (the main road in the largest city, interestingly the same name as the attack on Stockholm) and from that one action, she's convinced herself that New Zealand isn't very safe. That's probably the safest country I've ever been to. Sure, it's not as lively as Europe where you're surrounded by people, where there's safety in numbers, but still. Feels great to feel like you're alone sometimes.

Yes, but Europe has been victimized multiple times by the ISIS, and the danger is expanding to even Russia. A small incident in New Zealand does not make the usually safe nation a warzone; however, the situation in Europe seems to be quite different from that.

Of course, I was just saying that people tend to overblow things, especially when it comes to Europe. It's a concern, yes, but not so much that it affects me, or alters my lifestyle. I'm not thinking about Islam, Muslims, and terror threats, I'm not afraid to go out, for example.