Terror attack in St.Petersburg Metro, 14 dead

[Gim]

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.

That's a sign of relief. However, I personally wouldn't go on a trip to France at this time of the year. Maybe in a couple of years, with harmony maintained.

[British Prussia]

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.

That's a sign of relief. However, I personally wouldn't go on a trip to France at this time of the year. Maybe in a couple of years, with harmony maintained.

Yeah, that's fine, don't worry I understand. The thing is, I really wanted to go to Syria, especially Palmyra. Thanks ISIS and rebels, for ruining my holiday plans. Couldn't have waited for a year or two?

[Gim]

That's a sign of relief. However, I personally wouldn't go on a trip to France at this time of the year. Maybe in a couple of years, with harmony maintained.

Yeah, that's fine, don't worry I understand. The thing is, I really wanted to go to Syria, especially Palmyra. Thanks ISIS and rebels, for ruining my holiday plans. Couldn't have waited for a year or two?

You can always go to the seaside, can't you?

[British Prussia]

Yeah, that's fine, don't worry I understand. The thing is, I really wanted to go to Syria, especially Palmyra. Thanks ISIS and rebels, for ruining my holiday plans. Couldn't have waited for a year or two?

You can always go to the seaside, can't you?

I wanted to see the Ancient and Roman ruins specifically... You can see the seaside anywhere...

[Gim]

You can always go to the seaside, can't you?

I wanted to see the Ancient and Roman ruins specifically... You can see the seaside anywhere...

Well, Mosul is not exactly a seaside...

[AiliailiA]

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.

That's a sign of relief. However, I personally wouldn't go on a trip to France at this time of the year. Maybe in a couple of years, with harmony maintained.

You personally can make you own choice of holiday location, you don't need a good reason.

But do you seriously perceive France as a dangerous place to visit?

[Gim]

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.

That's a sign of relief. However, I personally wouldn't go on a trip to France at this time of the year. Maybe in a couple of years, with harmony maintained.

You personally can make you own choice of holiday location, you don't need a good reason.

But do you seriously perceive France as a dangerous place to visit?

From an outsiders' point of view, that is quite justified.

[AiliailiA]

You personally can make you own choice of holiday location, you don't need a good reason.

But do you seriously perceive France as a dangerous place to visit?

From an outsiders' point of view, that is quite justified.

No, it's pig ignorant.

[Shofercia]

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:



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



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.

First you cited Wikipedia, now you're citing the Model Penal Code. Except you're not actually citing it. You're claiming to cite it, without providing actual links. And Novus, I'm not paying you jack shit, and if you were my employee, you would've been fired a long time ago. My employees have specific knowledge needed for their tasks; they don't spout off random crap.

That said, after I repeatedly stated that for me, and the actual dictionary definition that I cited, Second Degree Murder requires Malice Aforethought, you managed to cite a definition of Second Degree Murder without said term. The sheer stupidity of that is astounding. Once again, for me, and a legal dictionary, not Wikipedia, not an opinion, but an actual legal dictionary, Second Degree Murder requires Malice Aforethought. It's not that hard to grasp if you can read.

Here is a definition of Heat of Passion from an actual dictionary. Not Wikipedia Novus. An actual dictionary, the place where definitions come from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... of+Passion

A phrase used in Criminal Law to describe an intensely emotional state of mind induced by a type of provocation that would cause a reasonable person to act on impulse or without reflection.

Does it say that it requires immediacy? No. It does not say that. Here's an explanation from the same source. A source Novus America. That's where facts can come from:

A finding that a person who killed another acted in the heat of passion will reduce murder to Manslaughter under certain circumstances. The essential prerequisites for such a reduction are that the accused must be provoked to a point of great anger or rage, such that the person loses his or her normal capacity for self-control; the circumstances must be such that a reasonable person, faced with the same degree of provocation, would react in a similar manner; and finally, there must not have been an opportunity for the accused to have "cooled off" or regained self-control during the period between the provocation and the killing.

Would a reasonable person lose capacity for self-control when confronted with bin Laden, and shoot him? Yes, yes he would. And perhaps to you, Novus America, terror acts, such as mass murder, aren't provocative. Perhaps that's what you think. "A terrorist attack, oh well, that's life." To me, and I think to reasonable people, terrorist acts are provocative. They're bad and provocative.

As for the third part, once again, from the source that I cited: The Rule of Law that adequate provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter was developed by the English courts.

You can certainly argue semantics that some forms of manslaughter are murder. You can pretend that California should devolve labor laws. You can pretend that terrorist acts aren't provocative. You can pretend to claim to not want to fight Russia, and then attempt to provoke Russia at every turn. You can pretend a lot of things. Pretending that a third degree murder equates to murder, is like pretending that statutory rape equates to rape. It's the equivalent of deliberately posting misleading bullshit in an utterly pathetic attempt to attack an opponent, because you have no arguments.

Oh, and one more thing. To address your strawman: Also voluntary man slaughter is still a crime. You still go to jail.

First, I never said that it wasn't a crime; I said the opposite. Second, you don't go to jail if you get Jury Nullification. So you don't always go to jail for that. Duh! Oh, and one more thing, about demonizing an opponent:

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

I advocated hunting down terrorists who committed mass murder. Pretending that applies to all people is once again, misleading, pathetic, bullshit, and disingenuous. But you'll stop at nothing to destroy an opponent in a debate. So if someone said that "Nazis who want to deliberately kill Jews by the thousands should be hunted down like animals" and said person would be debating Novus America, then Novus America would claim that said person wants to hunt people like animals. Misleading. Pathetic. And sad. Just, plain, sad.