So intentional killing through stabbing two people to death (for which the civil court found him liable) isn't murder?
In California, there is a legal definition which requires establishing all the elements -- something a civil court cannot do.
If, to you, only a criminal court can use the term "murder" to describe the act of intentionally taking life then Lee Harvey Oswald didn't murder JFK, because he never stood trial. Of course a bot - as you are - that hasn't been properly programmed doesn't know that murder is an act in order for it to be a crime, and it is the act of intentionally taking life that describes it. You've clearly never read a murder mystery, which is a whodunit and not an account of a trial. Nor do you realize that there are murders that are unsolved that nonetheless remain murders. You need to talk to your programmers.
If, to you, only a criminal court can use the term "murder" to describe the act of intentionally taking life then Lee Harvey Oswald didn't murder JFK, because he never stood trial. Of course a bot - as you are - that hasn't been properly programmed doesn't know that murder is an act in order for it to be a crime, and it is the act of intentionally taking life that describes it. You've clearly never read a murder mystery, which is a whodunit and not an account of a trial. Nor do you realize that there are murders that are unsolved that nonetheless remain murders. You need to talk to your programmers.
In California, there is a legal definition which requires establishing all the elements -- something a civil court cannot do.
If, to you, only a criminal court can use the term "murder" to describe the act of intentionally taking life then Lee Harvey Oswald didn't murder JFK, because he never stood trial. Of course a bot - as you are - that hasn't been properly programmed doesn't know that murder is an act in order for it to be a crime, and it is the act of intentionally taking life that describes it. You've clearly never read a murder mystery, which is a whodunit and not an account of a trial. Nor do you realize that there are murders that are unsolved that nonetheless remain murders. You need to talk to your programmers.
Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. I would need to see all of the facts first.
Courts are bound to apply legal definitions and any related legal standards. The intentional killing you allege was not established by any court to the standard required to qualify it as a crime, or a murder.
Your posts remind me of your response to my principle that all athletes are "innocent until proven guilty" -- a principle you argued only narrowly exists within the walls of a criminal court.
If, to you, only a criminal court can use the term "murder" to describe the act of intentionally taking life then Lee Harvey Oswald didn't murder JFK, because he never stood trial. Of course a bot - as you are - that hasn't been properly programmed doesn't know that murder is an act in order for it to be a crime, and it is the act of intentionally taking life that describes it. You've clearly never read a murder mystery, which is a whodunit and not an account of a trial. Nor do you realize that there are murders that are unsolved that nonetheless remain murders. You need to talk to your programmers.
If, to you, only a criminal court can use the term "murder" to describe the act of intentionally taking life then Lee Harvey Oswald didn't murder JFK, because he never stood trial. Of course a bot - as you are - that hasn't been properly programmed doesn't know that murder is an act in order for it to be a crime, and it is the act of intentionally taking life that describes it. You've clearly never read a murder mystery, which is a whodunit and not an account of a trial. Nor do you realize that there are murders that are unsolved that nonetheless remain murders. You need to talk to your programmers.
Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. I would need to see all of the facts first.
Courts are bound to apply legal definitions and any related legal standards. The intentional killing you allege was not established by any court to the standard required to qualify it as a crime, or a murder.
Your posts remind me of your response to my principle that all athletes are "innocent until proven guilty" -- a principle you argued only narrowly exists within the walls of a criminal court.
"Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. I would need to see all of the facts first."
The facts have been around for 62 years but you haven't seen them all yet. Sometimes you are very amusing. But entirely unintentionally.
What you show you are absolutely unable to understand is that an intentional killing is murder whether or not a court says so, it is a determination of fact, but a conviction for murder is required by a court. Hence an assassin who kills someone (the facts allow no alternative - it may have been filmed or seen by numerable witnessess) and is then shot down has committed a murder; the facts can confirm that when there is no trial. A trial is chiefly a requirement to ensure the rights of an accused are upheld. A civil court is not upholding the rights of a person accused of a crime; it is examining the liability of a defendant based on the facts - the evidence. It will come to determinations of fact based on the balance of probabilities. The finding of liability for intentional killing shows that the defendant committed murder but the court isn't imposing a criminal conviction. So in establishing liability it doesn't use the term "murder"; it doesn't need to, even though that is what it has effectively concluded has happened. An intentional killing is murder - but OJ couldn't be retried because of double jeopardy; he had been acquitted by a criminal court. But this is beyond a badly programmed bot.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
This is for all you super sleuths who have never been in a physical altercation.
If a man can kill two people, younger and stronger than him, he would have definite marks on him. His DNA under his victim's nails, bite marks, swollen body parts.
Why weren't there any marks on OJ? Plus, it is dust in the wind as OJ dies sometime back.
This is the problem. I THINK he did it. I also watched the trail, every day, like most Americans.
Seeing the inept prosecution there was no doubt he had to be found innocent but still, I'm sure he did it but no one can prove it.
Simpson’s blood being found at the crime seen was game, set, match and had I been on the jury, I would have voted guilty. Fuhrman’s N-bombs had nothing to do with finding the glove. Simpson’s blood was on both gloves,so they were his and the demonstration didn’t mean anything. Fung being sloppy in handling of blood evidence did not create a false positive.
Hinting that the LAPD framed Simpson was not reasonable doubt, and if it could be, it would be hard to convict any murderer.
You said you thought Simpson guilty, but you would have voted for acquittal? Really?
"Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. I would need to see all of the facts first."
The facts have been around for 62 years but you haven't seen them all yet. Sometimes you are very amusing. But entirely unintentionally.
What you show you are absolutely unable to understand is that an intentional killing is murder whether or not a court says so, it is a determination of fact, but a conviction for murder is required by a court. Hence an assassin who kills someone (the facts allow no alternative - it may have been filmed or seen by numerable witnessess) and is then shot down has committed a murder; the facts can confirm that when there is no trial. A trial is chiefly a requirement to ensure the rights of an accused are upheld. A civil court is not upholding the rights of a person accused of a crime; it is examining the liability of a defendant based on the facts - the evidence. It will come to determinations of fact based on the balance of probabilities. The finding of liability for intentional killing shows that the defendant committed murder but the court isn't imposing a criminal conviction. So in establishing liability it doesn't use the term "murder"; it doesn't need to, even though that is what it has effectively concluded has happened. An intentional killing is murder - but OJ couldn't be retried because of double jeopardy; he had been acquitted by a criminal court. But this is beyond a badly programmed bot.
Regarding Oswald, I'm not sure we got the whole story.
Regarding OJ, the question is whether "wrongful death" and "battery" are "intentional killings".
This is for all you super sleuths who have never been in a physical altercation.
If a man can kill two people, younger and stronger than him, he would have definite marks on him. His DNA under his victim's nails, bite marks, swollen body parts.
Why weren't there any marks on OJ? Plus, it is dust in the wind as OJ dies sometime back.
Let's keep beating a dead horse.
He out weighed Nicole by about 100 pounds so I don’t think she was stronger. He also had a big size advantage over Goldman and had him trapped in a corner. Simpson was wearing long sleeves and gloves so there wouldn’t have been any marks on him. People still talk about the assassination of JFK, the Simpson case is far more interesting and it’s not a dead horse.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.