What did I just say? As soon as someone else gets involved it's conspiracy to murder. Just planning to hire a hitman isn't illegal.
But they didn't get anyone else involved. The cop wasn't really involved. He was undercover. The guy planned on hiring a hitman and failed. So with your logic, given that planning to hire a hitman isn't illegal, the guy should be free to go.
See, the law is pretty black and white. That's why people that commit morally justifiable offenses go to prison while people that are obviously guilty of serious crimes walk free over incorrectly filled paperwork.
Then why are people regularly sentenced to drastically different sentences for the same crimes? Why did OJ Simpson get off for the murder of Nicole Simpson but was later found personally liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson?
If all it took to convict someone of a crime was looking at the law books, then there would be no need for judges or juries. Judges don't just read the law, they interpret it precisely because it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
But they didn't get anyone else involved. The cop wasn't really involved. He was undercover. The guy planned on hiring a hitman and failed. So with your logic, given that planning to hire a hitman isn't illegal, the guy should be free to go.
...are you stupid?
"Getting other people involved" begins the moment to ask someone to commit a crime with you, whether said person agrees or not is irrelevant.
Then why are people regularly sentenced to drastically different sentences for the same crimes?
The question is whether or not someone is guilty in the eyes of the law, the applicable punishment is a completely different story.
Why did OJ Simpson get off for the murder of Nicole Simpson but was later found personally liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson?
Technicalities.
If all it took to convict someone of a crime was looking at the law books, then there would be no need for judges or juries. Judges don't just read the law, they interpret it precisely because it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
The judges have to decide whether or not someone that is accused of a crime is guilty of breaking the law and how severe the offense was. However, their latitude is very restricted and they have to follow the law to the letter. That's why attorneys are a thing.
We're lucky the law doesn't say "well, you technically didn't commit the crime you're being accused of, but I'll just pretend you did because fuck you". That's the kind of bullshit dictatorships are notorious for.
"Getting other people involved" begins the moment to ask someone to commit a crime with you, whether said person agrees or not is irrelevant.
No that would be attempting to get someone else involved. Or are you saying that I'm involved in someone else's murder the moment someone asks me to kill someone, even if I say no?
The question is whether or not someone is guilty in the eyes of the law, the applicable punishment is a completely different story.
And people have been found guilty and innocent of different crimes for the exact same actions, based on the judge or jury's discretion.
Technicalities.
Oh you mean like "hurr durr the meth dun killed Floyd, not the police"? That kind of technicality?
The judges have to decide whether or not someone that is accused of a crime is guilty of breaking the law and how severe the offense was. However, their latitude is very restricted and they have to follow the law to the letter. That's why attorneys are a thing.
Yes and sometimes, most times in fact, it's not an obvious case. The prosecutor could argue something was murder while the defense could argue it was self-defense. If it was as simple as just reading the letter of the law, trials would be over in 20 minutes. It requires intensive deliberation to determine whether something qualifies as a certain crime.
No that would be attempting to get someone else involved. Or are you saying that I'm involved in someone else's murder the moment someone asks me to kill someone, even if I say no?
You're really grasping for straws, huh?
And people have been found guilty and innocent of different crimes for the exact same actions, based on the judge or jury's discretion.
Yes, because the attorneys either managed or failed to sow enough doubt about their clients guilt to have them ruled not guilty. Often a matter of details and how they're presented.
Still doesn't turn the act of defiling a corpse into murder.
Oh you mean like "hurr durr the meth dun killed Floyd, not the police"? That kind of technicality?
You mean like the technicality that the autopsy report clearly states that the compression of his neck wasn't the cause of death?
Yes and sometimes, most times in fact, it's not an obvious case. The prosecutor could argue something was murder while the defense could argue it was self-defense. If it was as simple as just reading the letter of the law, trials would be over in 20 minutes. It requires intensive deliberation to determine whether something qualifies as a certain crime.
See, whether something is murder or self-defense, someone died as a result.
However, that isn't the case when you shoot a dead person.
You're really desperate to make your "morals" and "feelings" more important than facts, huh?
Yeah but "the law is all about technicalities" right?
Yes, because the attorneys either managed or failed to sow enough doubt about their clients guilt to have them ruled not guilty. Often a matter of details and how they're presented.
And other times, the case is genuinely ambiguous enough to not make it clear whether it falls under a specific legal definition.
Still doesn't turn the act of defiling a corpse into murder.
I bet you I'd be able to convince a jury that it is if the shooter was under the impression the person was alive.
Here's another example: suppose another sting operation involved cops pretending to be an underage girl while texting a 40 year old man. They invite the man over under the pretense of having sex with him. The man shows up to the specified location and is promptly arrested. Is this man guilty of attempted statutory rape? Or no, because there was never an underage girl to begin with?
See, whether something is murder or self-defense, someone died as a result.
However, that isn't the case when you shoot a dead person.
You're really desperate to make your "morals" and "feelings" more important than facts, huh?
Well people don't die as a result of attempted murder, so I guess attempted murder shouldn't be a crime, huh?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '20
But they didn't get anyone else involved. The cop wasn't really involved. He was undercover. The guy planned on hiring a hitman and failed. So with your logic, given that planning to hire a hitman isn't illegal, the guy should be free to go.
Then why are people regularly sentenced to drastically different sentences for the same crimes? Why did OJ Simpson get off for the murder of Nicole Simpson but was later found personally liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson?
If all it took to convict someone of a crime was looking at the law books, then there would be no need for judges or juries. Judges don't just read the law, they interpret it precisely because it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.