Prosecutors Request New Bond Conditions For Kyle Rittenhouse In Light Of Him Being Seen With The Proud Boys

[Dirty Hipsters]

Here's the relevant DC law.

§ 22–2103. Murder in the second degree. | D.C. Law Library

code.dccouncil.us

It says " Whoever with malice aforethought, except as provided in §§ 22-2101, 22-2102, kills another, is guilty of murder in the second degree. "

The question here is "who/what killed him?" This just says "kills another". If they're a hemophiliac and you give them a bloody nose and they die, did you "kill him"? Is that 2nd degree murder? I doubt it.

It seems that there's no specific definition of "manslaughter" in DC law, which you can check by poking around the linked laws

There's still murder in the third degree, fourth degree, etc.

Murder is still murder, regardless of what degree the prosecutor wants to push for.

And yes, if someone is a hemophiliac and you punch them in the face thereby giving them a bloody nose and killing them then you killed them as you initiated an attack that meant to cause physical harm to them. If you attach someone then you are responsible for what happens.

Btw, based on the way that DC murder law is written you could actually make a claim for first degree murder. The first degree murder law states

Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion, kills another purposely, either of deliberate and premeditated malice or by means of poison, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or without purpose to do so kills another in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any arson, as defined in § 22-301 or § 22-302, first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnaping, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate any housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony involving a controlled substance, is guilty of murder in the first degree.

Bolded the important part for emphasis. You are guilty of first degree murder if you kill someone while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense that is punishable by prison time. Guess what? Felony assault and battery is a thing, and carries a prison sentence of 3 years. Thus if in the process of committing assault and battery you kill your victim technically you have committed first degree murder regardless of intent to kill.

You could also make the argument that treason is an offense imprisonable in the penitentiary, so killing someone while you are committing treason would also be a first degree murder charge, regardless of intent to kill.

 

[Houseman]

There's still murder in the third degree, fourth degree, etc.

Not always. Sometimes it's just manslaughter. Some states just have 2 degrees of murder. 3rd, 4th, etc., isn't universal.

The first degree murder law states

I already went over that in detail. Your bolding is wrong. See #144

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I already went over that in detail. Your bolding is wrong. See #144

You realize those are "or" statements right?

 

[Houseman]

You realize those are "or" statements right?

They aren't. It's split up into two sections: "If you kill someone purposefully" and "if not purposefully"

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

They aren't. It's split up into two sections: "If you kill someone purposefully" and "if not purposefully"

It's split up into 4 sections, only one of which specifies intent and malice.

 

[Houseman]

It's split up into 4 sections, only one of which specifies intent and malice.

Nah, two sections deal with intent and malice "purposely" and "without purpose".
You can't have intent and malice, yet do something "without purpose".

 

[Agema]

Nah, two sections deal with intent and malice "purposely" and "without purpose".
You can't have intent and malice, yet do something "without purpose".

Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion, kills another purposely, either of deliberate and premeditated malice or by means of poison, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or without purpose to do so kills another in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any arson, as defined in § 22-301 or § 22-302, first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnaping, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate any housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony involving a controlled substance, is guilty of murder in the first degree.

Broadly, this definition is split into two, "purposely" and "without purpose".

Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion, kills another purposely, either of deliberate and premeditated malice or by means of poison, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary

So what is the clause in bold for? This is clearly not killing "without purpose", because it is referenced prior to that. It is unlikely to mean intent specifically to kill, because that would make it superfluous and nonsensical given the preceding explanation of intent to kill. So it means some form of intent to do something serious enough that it would warrant imprisonment; but different from an unintended death caused during commission of another crime such as burglary or rape. So what can fill this gap? The only logical thing I can think of would be intent to cause harm.

In support of that notion, we might note that conspicuous by their absence from the crimes detailed under "without purpose" are forms of simple physical assault and wounding. The law states that you can burgle someone's house, accidentally kill the homeowner and be convicted for first degree murder. If it stated you can intend to beat a man up, but accidentally overdo it and kill him and it's not first degree murder, then the law would be laughably absurd.

* * *

Edit: The other thing to bear in mind is that although some crimes may have murder as a potential charge under the letter of the law, some prosecutors may choose a lesser charge like manslaughter where appropriate. The rationale may be that they believe mitigation exists, and thus chiefly concern that a jury would not convict on the more serious charge where they would under the lesser.

 

[Houseman]

If it stated you can intend to beat a man up, but accidentally overdo it and kill him and it's not first degree murder, then the law would be laughably absurd.

That's already very much a thing in two ways, one is unofficially termed a "crime of passion". If you walk in on your wife cheating on you and go into a blind rage and kill the other guy, that's not first degree murder.

The other way is exactly as you describe. You fought with no intent to kill but the other guy dies. It needs to be proven beyond a doubt in court that you meant to kill him for it to be considered first-degree murder. If I punch a guy in the face, once, nobody should believe that would kill him, unless I'm Mike Tyson. If I swing a fire extinguisher at someone, that should be expected to kill.

 

[Elijin]

We actually had an entire advertising campaign here about how all it takes is one punch to take a life.

So unreasonable, it was a problem that had to be addressed at a national level, eh?

 

[Avnger]

That's already very much a thing in two ways, one is unofficially termed a "crime of passion". If you walk in on your wife cheating on you and go into a blind rage and kill the other guy, that's not first degree murder.

The other way is exactly as you describe. You fought with no intent to kill but the other guy dies. It needs to be proven beyond a doubt in court that you meant to kill him for it to be considered first-degree murder. If I punch a guy in the face, once, nobody should believe that would kill him, unless I'm Mike Tyson. If I swing a fire extinguisher at someone, that should be expected to kill.

You do realize that there are murder categories beyond just first-degree, right? I mean you quoted the DC law on second-degree murder less than a page ago... Second-degree murder in Washington DC only requires malice aforethought.

Malice Aforethought:

1. intent to kill
2. intent to inflict serious bodily injury
3. extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life
4. felony murder rule

Assaulting an on-duty law enforcement officer with a weapon (even an improvised one such as a fire hydrant) easily qualifies for points 2 or 3. The fact that these terrorists were in the middle of committing a felony means point 4 also applies.

If a hemophiliac person dies from a bloody nose due to someone bashing them with a tire iron while robbing a convenience store, that's murder.

If a hemophiliac person dies from a bloody nose due to someone slapping them during a heated argument, that's (at face value at least) manslaughter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a separate note, I do find your attempt to tone police others into using the exact law verbiage (rather than realizing that words often mean different things colloquially than legally) funny. It's very like you to go on for pages about a semantic detail than actually engaging with the topic of the thread because you haven't yet come up with a way to spin it in your ideological favor.

 

[Houseman]

We actually had an entire advertising campaign here about how all it takes is one punch to take a life.

So unreasonable, it was a problem that had to be addressed at a national level, eh?

Advertising campaigns here show children appearing on a highway, out of nowhere, after you look down at your phone for a second. Physically possible? Yes. Absurdly unlikely? Also yes.

Sometimes, yes, PSA's are created to scare the populace away from doing stuff by exaggerating the harms or creating unrealistic scenarios.

Assaulting an on-duty law enforcement officer with a weapon (even an improvised one such as a fire hydrant) easily qualifies for points 2 or 3.

Yes it would, no disagreement there.

On a separate note, I do find your attempt to tone police others into using the exact law verbiage (rather than realizing that words often mean different things colloquially than legally) funny. It's very like you to go on for pages about a semantic detail than actually engaging with the topic of the thread because you haven't yet come up with a way to spin it in your ideological favor.

Give an example of this.

 

[Elijin]

Okay, just for you mr pedantic.

We had an advertising campaign here due to a surge in sucker punch assaults at pubs and clubs that were resulting in deaths and comas.

 

[Houseman]

We had an advertising campaign here due to a surge in sucker punch assaults at pubs and clubs that were resulting in deaths and comas.

How sad.

 

[Agema]

That's already very much a thing in two ways, one is unofficially termed a "crime of passion". If you walk in on your wife cheating on you and go into a blind rage and kill the other guy, that's not first degree murder.

That is covered by the phrase "of sound mind" in the definition of first degree murder.

The other way is exactly as you describe. You fought with no intent to kill but the other guy dies. It needs to be proven beyond a doubt in court that you meant to kill him for it to be considered first-degree murder. If I punch a guy in the face, once, nobody should believe that would kill him, unless I'm Mike Tyson. If I swing a fire extinguisher at someone, that should be expected to kill.

No, the law is stating you do not need to prove intent to kill. Other forms of intent or accidental killing in the commission of another crime are adequate to justify first degree murder.

That definition provides a guide to whether a causing death by a single punch is adequate grounds to indict on first degree murder. In that US law, the grounds are "imprisonable offence". Is a single punch an imprisonable offence? I would suggest potentially it is, depending on circumstance and jurisdiction.

 

[Thaluikhain]

We actually had an entire advertising campaign here about how all it takes is one punch to take a life.

So unreasonable, it was a problem that had to be addressed at a national level, eh?

Assuming that's the Australian coward punch thing, that was rather stupid, though. 1 person every 6 months, ok, that's not great, but the guy that sparked it died at a NYE party, IIRC, and the police response to a rape at anotehr party the same NYE was "women, don't get raped", like usual. Bit more than 1 person gets raped every 6 months. There's also usually crickets when it comes to domestic violence murders, which is about 1 a week.

 

[Gordon_4]

If I punch a guy in the face, once, nobody should believe that would kill him, unless I'm Mike Tyson.

You know I read this right here and it leads me to believe - correctly or otherwise - that you don’t really have that much experience if any of being in a fight or being struck in general. Striking someone in the head and face is incredibly dangerous and unpredictable.

 

[Houseman]

You know I read this right here and it leads me to believe - correctly or otherwise - that you don’t really have that much experience if any of being in a fight or being struck in general. Striking someone in the head and face is incredibly dangerous and unpredictable.

*Looks at boxing, UFC, where people get punched/kicked/elbowed in the head by professional athletes*
Yeah okay

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

*Looks at boxing, UFC, where people get punched/kicked/elbowed in the head by professional athletes*
Yeah okay

Here's a list of deaths sustained from boxing injuries.

List of deaths due to injuries sustained in boxing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is in a professional setting where both participants are the same size and weight, are prepared to get hit, where there are refs to stop the fight, where the boxing ring is empty and padded in the event that you fall so you can't hit your head and where people are getting hit with padded gloves.

You utter buffoon.

 

[Houseman]

Here's a list of deaths sustained from boxing injuries.

Did I ever say "this never, ever happens, it's impossible, it absolutely can't happen"?
No, I didn't.

This is in a professional setting where both participants are the same size and weight, are prepared to get hit, where there are refs to stop the fight, where the boxing ring is empty and padded in the event that you fall so you can't hit your head and where people are getting hit with padded gloves.

You claimed that being struck in the face is incredibly dangerous and unpredictable. Not being struck and falling down on a sharp object. Not being struck repeatedly past the point that a referee would need to step in. Just being struck. You're moving the goalposts. And in boxing and UFC, people are struck in the face all the time, and as your own link shows, it is very rare for someone to die.

Also, the padded gloves aren't there to protect the head, they're there to protect the fragile bones in the hand and wrist.

Sorry, the evidence does not back up your point. Did you mean to say something like "street fights are incredibly dangerous and unpredictable" instead?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You claimed that being struck in the face is incredibly dangerous and unpredictable. Not being struck and falling down on a sharp object. Not being struck repeatedly past the point that a referee would need to step in. Just being struck. You're moving the goalposts. And in boxing and UFC, people are struck in the face all the time, and as your own link shows, it is very rare for someone to die.

Also, the padded gloves aren't there to protect the head, they're there to protect the fragile bones in the hand and wrist.

Sorry, the evidence does not back up your point.

If you don't think getting hit in the head is dangerous then you're an absolute moron.