The Justice Department is suing Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over a floating barrier that the state placed on the Rio Grande to stop migrants from entering the U.S.
If I design a trap that will kill someone climbing thorough my window there’s an argument for that to be 1st degree murder: it was pre-planned even if I didn’t have a specific target.
Setting a trap wouldn’t rise to the “intent to kill”. You can set Booby traps all day and not kill anyone. So setting the trap itself isn’t some overt act to kill. Setting a trap creates a situation that will likely result in the death of someone. That would probably be some form of manslaughter with terms like reckless or negligent depending on specifics. That’s why drunk drivers get manslaughter charges. They intended to get drunk and killed someone, but they didn’t drive drunk with the intent to kill someone. They created the dangerous situation (though that could carry the caveat if someone got drunk and intentionally drove into someone they intended to kill).
That’s in Illinois where a lot of what would constitute as manslaughter in other states gets grouped under second degree murder instead. So it depends a lot on the state.
You said it doesn’t meet the “intent to kill” element. The Illinois first degree murder statute has an intent to kill element. He was not convicted of second degree murder which is a different charge.
I didn’t say anything about intent to kill, I’m not the person you initially replied to. What I’m saying is that a murder charge in Illinois (or Florida) has nothing to do with Texas. Different states have different qualifications for murder vs manslaughter, in some states abortion is considered murder for example, so if you want to make an argument for why someone would or wouldn’t be charged with murder for booby trapping in Texas you should use an example from Texas.
Sorry I didn’t realize you weren’t OP. But, I’m not sure whyyou’re bringing up something irrelevant to the comment I was responding to. OP was talking about booby traps not meeting the “intent to kill” standard. I was providing a case where it met that standard.
Talking about the law in Texas isn’t particularly beneficial anyway because there very likely isn’t a booby trap case from Texas, these cases aren’t particularly common (and based on my cursory research I haven’t been able to find one). The Illinois case would be of use in a Texas case because it would be persuasive authority for Texas to interpret the law the same way. The equivalent to the Illinois first degree murder statue in Texas appears to be capital murder and second degree murder. Both have the intent requirement (Texas actually doesn’t have something called first degree murder). So, if Texas follows Illinois’s interpretation then one would similarly face murder charges in Texas.
It’s a class issue. Rich people are allowed to break almost any law they want with few (if any) repercussions.
The Republicans do break more laws than Dems, but Dems break laws and get away with it as well. There are many well-documented cases of both sides using Insider Trading for their personal gain despite it being against the law.
The buoy is clearly visible during the day. This tells me people are crossing at night (and they don’t see it), hitting the buoy, and instead of turning around, they try to swim around or through the buoy, and drown in the process.
Given that people have been killed by this, wouldn’t a federal murder charge be more appropriate?
By way of comparison, if a private homeowner sets a booby trap for burglars and a burglar is killed by it, the homeowner is guilty of murder.
Generally not murder, but some lesser yet still serious crime. But the sentiment is there.
If I design a trap that will kill someone climbing thorough my window there’s an argument for that to be 1st degree murder: it was pre-planned even if I didn’t have a specific target.
Setting a trap wouldn’t rise to the “intent to kill”. You can set Booby traps all day and not kill anyone. So setting the trap itself isn’t some overt act to kill. Setting a trap creates a situation that will likely result in the death of someone. That would probably be some form of manslaughter with terms like reckless or negligent depending on specifics. That’s why drunk drivers get manslaughter charges. They intended to get drunk and killed someone, but they didn’t drive drunk with the intent to kill someone. They created the dangerous situation (though that could carry the caveat if someone got drunk and intentionally drove into someone they intended to kill).
This is not some hypothetical, there is precedent for booby traps being murder. It’s a common line of cases taught in law school.
https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/murder-conviction-upheld-for-man-who-rigged-shotgun-booby-trap-to-guard-his-shed
Source: am a lawyer
You’re a lawyer? Yeah right, name every law
*
That’s in Illinois where a lot of what would constitute as manslaughter in other states gets grouped under second degree murder instead. So it depends a lot on the state.
You said it doesn’t meet the “intent to kill” element. The Illinois first degree murder statute has an intent to kill element. He was not convicted of second degree murder which is a different charge.
I didn’t say anything about intent to kill, I’m not the person you initially replied to. What I’m saying is that a murder charge in Illinois (or Florida) has nothing to do with Texas. Different states have different qualifications for murder vs manslaughter, in some states abortion is considered murder for example, so if you want to make an argument for why someone would or wouldn’t be charged with murder for booby trapping in Texas you should use an example from Texas.
Sorry I didn’t realize you weren’t OP. But, I’m not sure whyyou’re bringing up something irrelevant to the comment I was responding to. OP was talking about booby traps not meeting the “intent to kill” standard. I was providing a case where it met that standard.
Talking about the law in Texas isn’t particularly beneficial anyway because there very likely isn’t a booby trap case from Texas, these cases aren’t particularly common (and based on my cursory research I haven’t been able to find one). The Illinois case would be of use in a Texas case because it would be persuasive authority for Texas to interpret the law the same way. The equivalent to the Illinois first degree murder statue in Texas appears to be capital murder and second degree murder. Both have the intent requirement (Texas actually doesn’t have something called first degree murder). So, if Texas follows Illinois’s interpretation then one would similarly face murder charges in Texas.
Ribbit
It’s a class issue. Rich people are allowed to break almost any law they want with few (if any) repercussions.
The Republicans do break more laws than Dems, but Dems break laws and get away with it as well. There are many well-documented cases of both sides using Insider Trading for their personal gain despite it being against the law.
The only time rich people get burned by breaking the law is when it fucks over other rich people.
No, they made insider trading legal for themselves.
How are people killed by buoys? Also, where are you even getting that people “have been killed by this”?
People were dying in the river before Texas tried to drown them on purpose. Which is what those buoys will do.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/us/migrant-drownings-texas-mexico-border/index.html
That article doesn’t explain how they are killed by buoys. But this article has a picture:
https://www.axios.com/2023/07/24/texas-buoys-rio-grande-doj-greg-abbott
The buoy is clearly visible during the day. This tells me people are crossing at night (and they don’t see it), hitting the buoy, and instead of turning around, they try to swim around or through the buoy, and drown in the process.