The NCIS affect

[rwilson452]

Court martials

I got picked to sit on two court martial boards ( jury) If you have children in the service and they go before a General court tell them NOT to ask for enlisted people on the panel

 

[44 AMP]

... go before a General court tell them NOT to ask for enlisted people on the panel

Because...?????

 

[kilimanjaro]

Because they will give you what they got or could get for the same offense.

That goes double for something putting a grunt in danger.

 

[44 AMP]

When I was in the Army a court martial consisted of officers (only, and I think the minimum needed was 3). Not sure what they do today, or what other services did then.

The generally accepted wisdom of the day was that, (depending, to a degree on the offense) that if you were innocent, your odds were better with a court martial. If you were guilty, your odds were better in a civilian court.

Getting back to the TV effect (NCIS, etc) saw a new one tonight on Bones.
catching the killer happened because of the "new ammunition" Nice computer graphics of how it worked.

Essentially the old chain/cable shot idea. originally the lab crew thought they were dealing with fragment of a rifle bullet, from the size of the holes, but couldn't find the fragments, themselves. Then they discovered this "new ammo (pistol) where "on firing the bullet separates into 3 pieces, joined with Kevlar" line. The plot had the killer using this, then grabbing the Kevlar line, and pulling the "bullets" back out! SHE was caught because while pulling on the Kevlar, she cut her nail, leaving a tiny fragment that the lab crew used to get her DNA, identifying the killer.

The imagination of the writers amuses me. The only "casual" relationship between what they write and reality doesn't bother me a lot, because I know the difference.

What worries me is that a LOT of people do not.

 

[doofus47]

44AMP Dude, you could have prefaced that with "spoiler alert"!!!
lol
24 hours later: I watched the episode with my wife last night via DVR.
I wonder how a former hand model ended up on the DNA database....

 

[TimSr]

There are jurisdictions where without murder weapon there cannot be murder charge.

Really? I don't think so. I think you are confusing absence of a body with a murder weapon, and even that doesn't much hold true any more.

 

[44 AMP]

There are jurisdictions where without murder weapon there cannot be murder charge.

Not knowing all jurisdictions, I cannot say this is impossible, but knowing the levels of legalese involved, it might be "technically" correct in some places.

Consider that there are several charges possible in the legal systems all of which require a death, but only some of which are "murder", and some places don't use the word "murder" at all in their legal code.

Some places call it Murder, 1, 2, 3?
Others call the same crime homicide (with various qualifiers)

depending on how you parse the language, perhaps no "murder" charge apples, but a "homicide" charge might...

 

[TimSr]

Murder or homocide, or whatever you wish to call it is a state crime, sometimes a federal crime, and those are the "jurisdictions".

While a bullet in a body matching a gun in somebody's possession makes a great piece of evidence, I can guarantee that if there is sufficient evidence to bring up charges without it and the investigative agency has a policy of not doing so simply because they cannot recover the murder weapon, there will be a lawsuit, and the investigative agency will be relieved of it's investigation when another agency takes over.

Successfully disposing of a gun, knife, stick, long rusty nail, brick, rock, or water that you held somebody's head under does not make you immune from a murder prosecution if other evidence links you to the crime.

If I break into your home and beat you to death with a baseball bat, and then burn it and bury the ashes in the woods, and the murder is all on your home video surveilence system with me easily identified, you think they do not have case without the murder weapon?

 

[rickyrick]

Homicide is any death of a human as a result of actions directly performed by a homo sapiens.
Homicide is a cause of death
Now a justified self defense death is still a homicide regardless of a murder charge.

An execution at a prison is still a homicide.

Doctor makes a mistake... Homicide

You accidentally kill someone still is a homicide


Murder is completely different..
Murder is also a homicide but homicide is not always murder.

The media sometimes plays this. ... The will sometimes report that a death was listed as homicide in order to make a justified action appear to be something bad.

Homicide is not a crime.
Manslaughter is
Murder is
Homicide is not an indicator of a crime... But the circumstances surrounding the death could be a crime

 

[Frank Ettin]

Homicide is any death of a human as a result of actions directly performed by a homo sapiens.
Homicide is a cause of death
Now a justified self defense death is still a homicide regardless of a murder charge....

Let's have a comprehensive look at "basic principles."

• "Homicide" is simply the killing of one person by another. So let's examine how the law looks at "homicide."
  
  
  • "Homicide" is not a crime. Homicide might be a crime, or it might not be a crime.
    
    
  • A homicide can be --
    
    
    1. Accidental;
       
       
    2. Negligent;
       
       
    3. The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;
       
       
    4. Intentional without malice (evil intent);
       
       
    5. Intentional with malice; and
       
       
    6. Intentional, premeditated and with malice.
    
    
  • An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.
    
    
  • A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.
    
    
  • Homicides (3) - (6) are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.
    
    
  • The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.
    
    
  • If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.
    
    
  • Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.
  
  
• Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.
  
  
  • Our society takes a dim view of the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
    
    
    1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
       
       
    2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
       
       
    3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
    
    
  • The amount of force an actor my justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
    
    
    1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
       
       
       • Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
         
         
       • Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
         
         
       • put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
       
       
    2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
       
       
    3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
       
       
    4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
       
       
    5. And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
    
    
  • If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
    
    
    • Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
    • If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
      
      
    • Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
      
      
      1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
         
         
      2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
         
         
      3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
         
         
      4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
    
    
  • Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

 

[TimSr]

Wow, so for all these different definitions of how people died, for which ones is a person who is responsible for the death of another immune from prosecution if the murder weapon is never recovered?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Wow, so for all these different definitions of how people died, for which ones is a person who is responsible for the death of another immune from prosecution if the murder weapon is never recovered?

None of them.

Rather, having the instrument which was used to cause the death of another person is only one factor in determining the nature of the homicide and whether the person responsible has civil or criminal responsibility.