Appropriate punishment for the Crocodile Hunter?

[Flower]

> I thought that the definition of murder in

>California involved malice and premeditation?

Let me hip shoot here as I don't feel like opening books at the moment to find the case law--however, California was one of the first states that allowed a death by drunk driving in a MVA to go to the jury on a charge of 2d degree murder. They actually tried first degree, but court of appeal said only 2d.

 

More recently cal-trans highway workers were killed by DUI driver and his 2d degree conviction upheld.

 

This is a yahoo quick search, but you will see the point.

 

http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9706/rm970602.htm

 

Quoting from a case contained therein:

"To find Autry guilty of second-degree murder, the evidence against him had to prove "implied malice." Referring to People v. Watson ((1991) 30 Cal.3d 290, 179 Cal. Rptr. 43, 637 P.2d 279), the appellate court noted a conviction for implied malice in the case of a drunk driver requires showing that:

 

. . . the defendant deliberately performed an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, knowing that the conduct endangers the life of another but acting with conscious disregard for that risk of life. "

 

In our discussion,

1.the croc man INTENDED to hold the child while feeding the croc=intent;

2.he has stated on prior occasions that what he does is dangerous and life threatening=knowledge;and

3. he does it anyway=conscious disregard for life.

[Flower]

and

>finally those of you that are parent with a passion. do you

>not want to pass this passion onto your children?

 

hmmmm--is this a joke? You're trying to suck us all in with this one right? Well, I'll take the bait.

 

First and most obvious, If the kid is eaten by the croc, then there is no one to pass anything to; }(

 

But if the father were a football player, say, shold he use a one month old kid as a football?

[Rick Munroe]

>those of you that are parent with a passion. do you

>not want to pass this passion onto your children?

 

I think my father must have really been into getting head and my mother must have been an expert cocksucker. Where else would I have gotten this skill to give, and desire to get, great head? :o

[Guest]

I certainly don't condone Steve Irwin's actions by any means, but I'm uncomfortable condemning what he did with the same degree as I would condemn drunk driving (especially with someone who's over 0.12% or so). I certainly think that courts go a little off the deep end when they call something like that "malicious." It may be wanton and reckless, but I don't think this meets a common sense definition of malice. If there's anything I can say in defense of the jury system (which I oppose, although I oppose it more vehemently for civil cases), it's that juries can say "fuck you" when courts go overboard with their interpretations. Unfortunately, of course, most juries sheepishly follow judges' instructions with no regard for jury nullification.

[Luv2play]

This incident reminded me of another one that happened in Florida a couple of years ago. In that one the spectacle involved gator wrestling, appartently a popular pasttime in the Everglades.The whole thing was caught on film, showing at one moment the gator wrestler masterfully tackling the hapless gator and then all of a sudden, the wrestler muttered "damn" and pulled his hand away, minus one finger. It all happened in the blink of an eye.

 

And Australians may be mindful of that dreadful incident a few weeks ago where a crocodile (not sure if fresh or saltwater, probably former as this happened in a river) where a young Australian was carried away before the eyes of his two friends. After finishing him off, the croc came back for the others and they had to climb a tree and stay there until rescued by helicopter. Talk about determination!

 

As for Mr. Irwin, he should keep his act between him and the crocs and it appears this will be the case in the future, given the uproar his actions have caused.

[Flower]

>I certainly don't condone Steve Irwin's actions by any means,

>but I'm uncomfortable condemning what he did with the same

>degree as I would condemn drunk driving (especially with

>someone who's over 0.12% or so). I certainly think that

>courts go a little off the deep end when they call something

>like that "malicious." It may be wanton and reckless, but I

>don't think this meets a common sense definition of malice.

>If there's anything I can say in defense of the jury system

>(which I oppose, although I oppose it more vehemently for

>civil cases), it's that juries can say "fuck you" when courts

>go overboard with their interpretations. Unfortunately, of

>course, most juries sheepishly follow judges' instructions

>with no regard for jury nullification.

 

Maybe that's because they violate their oath as a juror if they don't follow the law. Both sides are entitled to their taking that oath seriously. Both sides ask them if they will on voir dire examination, and they always assure the parties and judge they will follow the law even if they disagree--in other words, change the law through legislation, not via 12 in the box. While jury nullification makes great drama, it also leads to unequal treatment of individuals under the law.

 

That being said, a jury can reach almost any verdict it wants by it's interpretation of the evidence, without resort to "jury nullification."

 

The term "malice" under the law is not the same word as used in Webster's or the "commonsense" interpretation--this is true, and a jury instruction makes it clear, or at least defines it. This is also true with may other words that have commonality between legal definitions and everyday usage--many are defined differently as legal terms. That's just the way it is:+

 

Quite frankly, "wanton and reckless" disregard for human life should be all that's required to support a 2d degree murder charge--don't forget, these are all labels--the judge, after a probation report, decides the sentence--it's not like they all go to prison and the key thrown away.

 

On a similar note, I just read where a woman that had the pit bull that was trained to attack and did attack a child and killed him, was just released from prison--seems she only was in around 2 years.

 

Another woman was convicted of murder + manslaughter for knowingly having a dangerous dog -- a trained attack dog -- These are prosecuted under statutes that the legislator mandated, not by the whim of a judge or court.

http://www.mydogandi.com/news%5Cnews15.htm

 

Again, the name of the crime is a lable--people have done more time for manslaughter than for these types of "murder." Just my thoughts.

[Guest msclonly]

RE: This is just a lot of CROC!

 

I am going to pass on this case study.

 

I will wait for the string, that starts, when the CROC consumes his bait!

 

 

 

}(

[Guest msclonly]

RE: This is just a lot of CROC!

 

The only punishment at this would be for the CROC HUNTER to have to listen to Gloria Allred and see if he can get a word in edgewise!

 

 

:7

[Guest]

>Maybe that's because they violate

>their oath as a juror if they don't follow the law. Both

>sides are entitled to their taking that oath seriously.

 

What a bunch of horse hockey! Jurors are not employees of the court, nor have they chosen to enter a certain profession for which an oath is required. I can't believe you can even say that with a straight face (so to speak)! :o Jurors are "asked" to take the oath at gunpoint. Neither side is paying any of the jurors one god-damned cent, and neither is entitled to so much as kiss any of the jurors' asses, as far as I'm concerned.

 

> Both

>sides ask them if they will on voir dire examination, and they

>always assure the parties and judge they will follow the law

>even if they disagree--in other words, change the law through

>legislation, not via 12 in the box. While jury nullification

>makes great drama, it also leads to unequal treatment of

>individuals under the law.

>

Well, I must admit that I've gotten out of jury duty by informing the judge if I'm put on a jury I will follow my, not his, interpretation of the law. But you have to admit that is rare for a juror to have the balls to tell this to a judge.

 

>That being said, a jury can reach almost any verdict it wants

>by it's interpretation of the evidence, without resort to

>"jury nullification."

>

If that were really true, then there is only a semantic difference. You know as well as I do, however, that in reality, the judge selectively lets certain evidence in and certain evidence out, then explains the laws using his personal interpretations in order to maximize the chance that the jury will rule the way he wants them to. And in those rare instances when the jury surprises him, he can simply issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Mind you, I'm not against judges making judgments. I think they should. It's the farce of the jury trial I object to.

 

>The term "malice" under the law is not the same word as used

>in Webster's or the "commonsense" interpretation--this is

>true, and a jury instruction makes it clear, or at least

>defines it.

 

Well, this is another example of our legal system's bullshit. The legislature never said "We will define malice as not being what's written in Webster's. It really means 'committing a crime while having a carrot stuck up your ass.'" It's judges who simply "define" words such as "malice" any way they damned feel like, in order to achieve the result they desire. Don't tell me they're just following the legsilature's intent!! Excuse me, but if the legislature or the people (in a referendum) don't say "malice means committing a crime while having a carrot stuck up you ass," I will tell any judge who wants to give me his own definition of malice to put his definition where the carrot should go. And if the legislature doesn't specify otherwise, malice is what Webster's says it is.

 

 

>Quite frankly, "wanton and reckless" disregard for human life

>should be all that's required to support a 2d degree murder

>charge

 

Well, if you think that's what "should be all that's required to support a 2nd degree murder charge," why don't you run for the Assembly and introduce a bill to change the definition of murder from the "malicious" taking of human life to "the wanton and reckless disregard for human life." Or start a petition drive to introduce a referendum. What "shouldn't" be is judges deciding what the legislature "should be" doing.

 

>On a similar note, I just read where a woman that had the pit

>bull that was trained to attack and did attack a child and

>killed him, was just released from prison--seems she only was

>in around 2 years.

>

The difference is obvious. One person is intending to put innocent peoples' lives at risk. The other is just being a dumb ass.