Free speech

Post Reply New Topic

It is called intent. Usually underscored by motive.

But you still seen someone talk that way and not really mean it though, albeit your kids. Like I said genuine premeditated malice vs heated spur of the moment arguments are very different. And like you said how can you even link "you should kill yourself" to an actual suicide. If someone killed themselves after someone told them "you should kill yourself" a single time in an argument then the chances are that person had much more going on in their heads and personal life behind the scenes than just that argument. Nobody commits suicide after a single utterance of "go and kill yourself" unless they were already content on ending their lives.

Murder is clearly defined but common law can even overrule the definition of murder. Common law can even overrule the constitution. Common law is whatever the jury decides on the day. If enough jury's decide it's OK to murder anyone who walks into a house despite the homeowner deliberately leaving their front door wide open and the laying fatal booby traps all around the house with anticipation of someone walking in, then amazingly it'll eventually be legal to set up booby traps with the intention to kill anyone who walks in through your wide open front door. Obviosuly it;s an extreme example but that's what can happen.

Common law is whatever juries decide it should be. I don't make common laws and neither do the government, lawyers or judges.

If one of two people with no pre-existing relationship said to the other "I wish you would kill yourself" in an argument over politics and that person later killed themselves then I would certainly find that person not guilty of murder. The link between what that person said and the death is so tenuous I would never be able to reliably link the two despite the fact it was explicitly said that person should die.

If it's seriously that difficult to not talk that way when you are mad and in a heated argument, you've got bigger issues.

My kids sure had no problems not talking that way anymore when we told them to stop and explained why. Even it wasn't hard for me to stop saying "I am gonna kill her" as a phrase.

As adults, we teach our kids to not talk this way. We don't want them getting into their teens and saying it at school or saying it in their adult hood and then they have the cops called on them. Or what if someone was vulnerable when they said it, don't want to face any charges and having to prove there was no intent behind their words to be found not guilty and be free. Not worth the trouble and stress.

But there are some dumbas**s that don't think like normal people in arguments and do talk that way despite not really meaning it. Do they really have the same level as culpability and premeditation as someone who broke into an old woman's house and murdered her with a shotgun? Do they have the same level of culpability and premeditation as someone who killed another drink driving? What if that person who was told to "kill yourself" committed suicide two years afterwards? Is the person who told him/her to kill themselves still guilty of murder? Where is the line drawn and is someone who decides no time limit should be put on such a scenario really any more moral than a person who told another to kill themselves?

Sorry, that is not common law. Common law is simply from custom and judicial precedent, rather than statute. Juries cannot establish common law. Neither does common law have supremacy over statutory or constitutional law. Common law, for example, cannot infringe on your free speech rights. IRL, I am a policy analyst and deal with law almost daily.

And law does easily account for your scenario. There needs to be intent and motive, which has nothing to do with common law BTW. You would probably never even be charged. Figures of speech are not enough for a prosecution.

Good for you. That is a very good way to approach the world.

But figures of speech, while plot devices in movies, are really not taken seriously IRL.

Be careful with assuming too much.  Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature, nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others, individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices, and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.  Once you start assuming intent/motivation where there is none, you also start assuming guilt where there also is none.

Imagine some crusty old curmudgeon whose only response to any polite statement is a heart-felt "Drop Dead".

"Good morning, Mr. Strawman!"
"Drop Dead!"

"How are you today, Mr. Strawman?"
"Drop Dead!"

"Have a nice day, Mr. Strawman!"
"Drop Dead!"

One day, Mr. Strawman is arrested for murder because he was seen and heard telling someone to "drop dead", and that particular someone later went home and killed himself.

How many years in prison should Mr. Strawman receive as his sentence?

Sorry but I have to disagree

"The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision"

Love it or hate it that's what Wikipedia says. Basically common law can be whatever is decided on the day weighing practicality, public interest and the written law against each other. What was decided in the past doesn't always means that it's still applicable to a similar case in the present provided circumstances are different or even societal attitudes have changed enough (criminalisation and common law of homosexuality in the 40s vs 80s for example). It doesn't matter what the law says, if enough similar cases fail to result in prosecution via jury or even judge then the written law eventually collapses.

It is a common expectation that each civil or legal case will be judged solely on its own merits, and not on the merits of any other case.  However, it is a more common practice for a jury to reach a verdict based on each jurist's personal experiences, his or her personal prejudices, and his or her particular mood on the day a verdict is reached.

I see. So if I say I am going to kill you for arguing with me and you drop dead, then that simple connection is enough to prosecute? You don't have to take the context of the words: it is a real threat or a figure of speech. Or why would I single you out from all the others I argue with? or what advantage do I get from targeting you? You can simply hang me because I use those words (ironic, given your stance).

You also understand that our court process is adversarial. The prosecution and defense are supposed to put up the best argument for the case. Each need to defend their client. I am not sure how you are going differentiate an accident from a purpose without intent (and there is a legal definition of intent in prosecuting criminal cases, BTW). Since the job of the prosecutor is to establish guilt, how do you think that goes without establishing intent?

Lol the analogy is funny as hell. It's almost like a jury will think the cases is really stupid and decide to reach not guilty verdicts. Many more years later when curmudgeon junior is charged with the same crimes the case of the original crusty curmudgeon and it's verdict is brought up in court and once again he is acquitted. It then becomes common law and is referred to in many more cases around the country and many more not guilty verdicts. Eventually the laws that originally charged the very first curmudgeon are scrapped and put in the bin for good because juries no longer care about what the law says in such circumstances.

First, you actually agree with me. Common law is derived from legal precedent. But common law can't be anything on any particular day. There needs to be judicial precedent and that is far more complex than you are making out.

And if you still disagree, well, we disagree.

Well, it is obviously Mr. Strawman's fallacy...

It can't be anything on any particular day but a precedent can be set on one particular day that will eventually and possibly radically change an entire legal landscape for a subtype of case permanently. A jury can decide on the day to acquit a person where no others have been acquitted before, despite a person clearly being guilty as hell of a truly horrific and vile offence for whatever reason and those reasons provided they're in the public interest can be all it takes to completely and utterly annihilate long standing written law overnight.

As for how hard it is, well it's certainly very hard but it's happened before and that's where the million dollar lawyers come out to play.