NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/27/train.derailment/index.html

Now that he's changed his mind, should we give him death anyways?

No, they should just let him out of jail.

I'm sure someone would be willing to help him out of this world as soon as he leaves police custody.

Life in prison. No parole until he's served at least 15 years.

Life in prison. No parole until he's served at least 15 years.

More like 15,000 years. Life in prison, no parole, period. That must be the punishment for murder. That and this guy has the intelligence of a paper bag anyway.

Look at his name. He's not even American!
Spics like that shouldnt even be here, I say we tie him to the tracks.

Drawing and quartering, complete with pulling out his internal organs before his conscious face and throwing them into a brazier of burning coals.

More like 15,000 years. Life in prison, no parole, period. That must be the punishment for murder. That and this guy has the intelligence of a paper bag anyway.
He didn't intend to derail a train and kill people. Only to commit suicide. Stupidity must be punished, but not as harshly as malice.

He didn't intend to derail a train and kill people. Only to commit suicide. Stupidity must be punished, but not as harshly as malice.

Putting a vehicle on train tracks so that the train hits you inherently puts others' lives at risk. As such, it was a case of gross negligence, not stupidity.

If the guy wanted to kill himself, he should have planned it in such a way that no one else would be harmed.

Putting a vehicle on train tracks so that the train hits you inherently puts others' lives at risk. As such, it was a case of gross negligence, not stupidity.

If the guy wanted to kill himself, he should have planned it in such a way that no one else would be harmed.
That's why I advocate a harsh prison sentance, but with possibility of parole if he becomes more responsible.

they should let me embalm him alive. with horse semen.

That's why I advocate a harsh prison sentance, but with possibility of parole if he becomes more responsible.

If one person died due to gross negligence, that would be appropriate. However, eleven people died and countless others were injured. 15 years is not nearly long enough.

Putting a vehicle on train tracks so that the train hits you inherently puts others' lives at risk. As such, it was a case of gross negligence, not stupidity.

If the guy wanted to kill himself, he should have planned it in such a way that no one else would be harmed.

My thoughts exactly! stick him in a nasty prison and leave him there to rot...

If one person died due to gross negligence, that would be appropriate. However, eleven people died and countless others were injured. 15 years is not nearly long enough.
lets just deport him to cuba and everyone can stop whining, or draft him

If one person died due to gross negligence, that would be appropriate. However, eleven people died and countless others were injured. 15 years is not nearly long enough.
It's only 15 years if a parole board says he's ready to be released.

Look at his name. He's not even American!
Spics like that shouldnt even be here, I say we tie him to the tracks.
Any particular reason why 'spics' shouldn't be here.

Around here, it's easy to see where the men go to kill themselves.

They go to one of the local indoor ranges. You can rent a pistol for 50 dollars (much cheaper than buying one). You don't have to go through a background check via the Federal computer (avoiding revealing that you're a clinically depressed person with a long history of repeated drug offenses and hospitalization).

They buy a small box of ammunition, take the gun into the indoor range, go to their lane, and blow their brains out.

If you're going to be an idiot and kill yourself, have the good sense and common decency to do it in a place where you won't hurt anyone else, and they can use a mop to clean up.

Oh, and make sure that the spent bullet is going in the direction of the downrange area, so that no one else gets hurt.

It's only 15 years if a parole board says he's ready to be released.

Doesn't matter. 15 years is not a low enough minimum amount of time.

That's why I advocate a harsh prison sentance, but with possibility of parole if he becomes more responsible.
exactly what do you become more responsible with in jail? taking up the a**? and what is your idea of a harsh prison sentence in the US? if he has to go to jail, let him serve it in mexico, if that is where he is from. jail is so bad there, all the criminals come here to break the law.

He should be put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life... straightjacket him, stick him in a white room with padded walls so he can't bang his head and kill himself as he slowly goes insane, absolutely no contact with the outside world and no books, etc, and force fed intravenously.

Doesn't matter. 15 years is not a low enough minimum amount of time.
That disagreement isn't going to be resolved. I think 15 years, particularly if they put him in a state prison, is a very long time.

Doesn't matter. 15 years is not a low enough minimum amount of time.
petty criminals should not be put in jail for a "minimum sentence" wasting tax payer money and jail space, they should be "conscripted" into the military for their minimum sentence or until they are released from duty

If one person died due to gross negligence, that would be appropriate. However, eleven people died and countless others were injured. 15 years is not nearly long enough.

This is why I say he should face murder charges. If you park your car on a railroad track without considering that a train would hit it, and that train could be carrying people, then you're insanely dumb and short-sighted. If you change your mind and forget to move you car, then you're not very bright. Stupidity like this is incurable. That said, if any of this was even remotely intentional, the man must be charged with, and convicted of, murder.

And I don't really give a damn what his race is, either. I don't care if he's Hispanic, white, black, Klingon, etc. Stupidity knows no racial boundaries, and I guarantee that white people and other folks can be that dumb, or dumber, as well.

petty criminals should not be put in jail for a "minimum sentence" wasting tax payer money and jail space, they should be "conscripted" into the military for their minimum sentence or until they are released from duty
Isn't that unconstitutional?

Isn't that unconstitutional?
compared to jail? id doubt it

petty criminals should not be put in jail for a "minimum sentence" wasting tax payer money and jail space, they should be "conscripted" into the military for their minimum sentence or until they are released from duty
What's the military going to do with theives and drug addicts? Don't you think that would degrade the quality of the military? I say they should be given community service to pay back to society what they took, and perhaps to give them some skills they can use to earn a living when their sentance is done.

petty criminals should not be put in jail for a "minimum sentence" wasting tax payer money and jail space, they should be "conscripted" into the military for their minimum sentence or until they are released from duty

*Personally*, I think this is an absolute clear-cut case of guilt and they should just give the guy his wish and put him to death. However, if jail sentence is the way to go, he should *never* be let out.

Isn't that unconstitutional?
No, due to the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Look at his name. He's not even American!
Spics like that shouldnt even be here, I say we tie him to the tracks.

Ahhh so you are a racist scumbag then! I thought you were.

Still glad to see that you are living up to the stupidity of your previous incarnations here....

So what is an American name?

Jones? Schwarzkopf? Miller? Ito? Sharma? Limbough? Rossini? Pavez?

You are an idiot for saying what you did.

No, due to the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Ahh, thanks.

Although, you would have to wonder about the effectiveness of penal soldiers.

::EDIT:: Sorry, just remembered, wasn't the US in habit of doing this for a while during the Cold War?

What's the military going to do with theives and drug addicts? Don't you think that would degrade the quality of the military? I say they should be given community service to pay back to society what they took, and perhaps to give them some skills they can use to earn a living when their sentance is done.

Something in the mold of the military would do a lot of criminals some good, however...ideally, it should teach them discipline and make them into productive members of society. It can backfire, but we have already seen how the current prison system backfires, so what have we got to lose?

Something in the mold of the military would do a lot of criminals some good, however...ideally, it should teach them discipline and make them into productive members of society. It can backfire, but we have already seen how the current prison system backfires, so what have we got to lose?
While I like the idea it has 2 problems

1 real trouble cases will require extra people (more money) to make sure they behave.
2 putting them in a position to be responsible for other peoples lives seems somehow bad

What's the military going to do with theives and drug addicts? Don't you think that would degrade the quality of the military? I say they should be given community service to pay back to society what they took, and perhaps to give them some skills they can use to earn a living when their sentance is done.
boot. camp. you think people go straight into the military after signnig up? no they are fucknig conditioned first

Ahh, thanks.

Although, you would have to wonder about the effectiveness of penal soldiers.

::EDIT:: Sorry, just remembered, wasn't the US in habit of doing this for a while during the Cold War?
True, this suicidial nutjob, and any other criminals, won't possibly be reliable soldiers. They should be put into lifetime solitary confinement instead, that seems like a far harsher punishment than any sort of death penalty.

what numnut would TRY to commit suicide and at the last second chicken out and cause the deaths of several people and injuries of a hundred? I say give him a punishment, not necesarrily death but maybe life in prison or something. wouldnt want amob of people related to the victims to come and kill this mofo right? :sniper: :mp5:

True, this suicidial nutjob, and any other criminals, won't possibly be reliable soldiers. They should be put into lifetime solitary confinement instead, that seems like a far harsher punishment than any sort of death penalty.
he should be , maybe, but that type of just punishment doesn't exist here in the states. he would get the internet, and get to earn a college degree in his nice comfy cell.

boot. camp. you think people go straight into the military after signnig up? no they are fucknig conditioned first
boot camp isn't very effective conditioning. Normal law abiding citizens experience disloyalty, cowardice, post traumatic stress syndrome at all too high rates so why should we trust a criminal who has nothing at stake in society to fight for a government and society he doesn't care for and commits crimes against? Forced labor in some civilian activity would be far more effective and beneficial to society.

They should put him in car on one of those crahs test things and ram him into a few times. If he survives he can go; if dies, justice is done. Screw the cruel and unusual crap its retarded anyway.

boot. camp. you think people go straight into the military after signnig up? no they are fucknig conditioned first

Speaking as a graduate of the Georgia School for Wayward Boys, and having pushed down my own little section of Georgia for Uncle Sam, I can tell you that boot camp would have absolutely no effect.

Rehabilitation by boot camp is proven to be ineffective. It sells well in political climates where the voters are completely ignorant.

boot camp isn't very effective conditioning. Normal law abiding citizens experience disloyalty, cowardice, post traumatic stress syndrome at all too high rates so why should we trust a criminal who has nothing at stake in society to fight for a government and society he doesn't care for and commits crimes against? Forced labor in some civilian activity would be far more effective and beneficial to society.

This is why we don't necessarily put them in combat, but we take a lot of elements of military discipline and incorporate them into prison life.

The death penalty isn't cruel enough for murderers - force them to work a labor sentence for life, remembering the sick things they've committed

Speaking as a graduate of the Georgia School for Wayward Boys, and having pushed down my own little section of Georgia for Uncle Sam, I can tell you that boot camp would have absolutely no effect.

Rehabilitation by boot camp is proven to be ineffective. It sells well in political climates where the voters are completely ignorant.
jail doesnt work, its a waste of taxpayer money and jail space, especially for petty criminals sentenced to "minimum sentences"

This is why we don't necessarily put them in combat, but we take a lot of elements of military discipline and incorporate them into prison life.
reaper 2 k3 appears to endorse having our prisoners fight our wars which is pretty questionable. anyways, I think today's prisons are far too luxurious, with exercise faciliities, libraries, socializing between prisoners, etc. The major offenders shouldn't even get warm meals and soft beds.

jail doesnt work, its a waste of taxpayer money and jail space, especially for petty criminals sentenced to "minimum sentences"

In truth, petty criminals have been shown to commit less crimes if they are sent to a prison with an emphasis on rehabilitation. Recitivism rates fall drastically if a prison has an education system, etc.

That has nothing to do with this guy, however, as his actions go way beyond petty criminalism and into the multiple felony range.

I think we should bring back flogging in public for certain petty crimes (shoplifting, etc). It should be hard labor if you go to prison, and I mean useless activity like breaking rocks. And I feel that for particularly heinous crimes, or repeat offenders for violent felonies (two strikes you're dead), there should be death by hanging in public.

reaper 2 k3 appears to endorse having our prisoners fight our wars which is pretty questionable. anyways, I think today's prisons are far too luxurious, with exercise faciliities, libraries, socializing between prisoners, etc. The major offenders shouldn't even get warm meals and soft beds.
Add to that I am all for 8 hour work days so they can pay their own way ... our prison up here used to do that (grow their own food and such) they were 68 percent efficient as far as food goes along with other community improvement

I am not advocating slavery or long work days but just get them to work do something... (I personally would love this if I was locked away)

reaper 2 k3 appears to endorse having our prisoners fight our wars which is pretty questionable. anyways, I think today's prisons are far too luxurious, with exercise faciliities, libraries, socializing between prisoners, etc. The major offenders shouldn't even get warm meals and soft beds.
Depends on the prison. Federal prisons are generally more comfortable than state. State prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. Plus the prisoners need to be kept docile. You don't want frequent riots where guards will be killed. Granting some privelages and threatening to take them away gives you some control over a guy who has life in prison to look foreward to and nothing left to lose.

intent. I do not believe his intent was to kill others I would think that he believed the train would simply smash his vehicle and be on it's way. There is no way in this world that someone should be executed for anything other than murder 1 intent to kill proven beyond doubt.

What troubles me is that they are even considering this for the death penalty.

intent. I do not believe his intent was to kill others I would think that he believed the train would simply smash his vehicle and be on it's way. There is no way in this world that someone should be executed for anything other than murder 1 intent to kill proven beyond doubt.

What troubles me is that they are even considering this for the death penalty.
Weird, isn't it? I guess the voters demand blood.

reaper 2 k3 appears to endorse having our prisoners fight our wars which is pretty questionable. anyways, I think today's prisons are far too luxurious, with exercise faciliities, libraries, socializing between prisoners, etc. The major offenders shouldn't even get warm meals and soft beds.

Having prisoners become soldiers right away is not going to help. Giving them the option down the road might help, under special circumstances as sort of a "good behavior" program.

And yes, I agree that prison has become a little too luxurious. They need to cut off the TV, limit socializing, and force them to work 365 days a year. Yes, you heard me. 365 days a year. 366 if need be. And make them work long shifts without breaks. See how they like prison after that. They need to turn prison into an area that would make Sheriff Joe Arpaio either blush or reach sexual climax.

For the purposes of control in prisons, I believe that they should have remote electrode stimulators implanted in the pain centers of their brains.

That way, if they don't obey, they get to feel something far, far worse than any real physical pain they could experience.

intent. I do not believe his intent was to kill others I would think that he believed the train would simply smash his vehicle and be on it's way. There is no way in this world that someone should be executed for anything other than murder 1 intent to kill proven beyond doubt.

What troubles me is that they are even considering this for the death penalty.

If I drive the wrong way on the freeway, my intent may not be to kill someone, but chance are that it will be the result. If I put a bomb outside a building, I may only want to hurt the building, but people will be hurt/killed in the process.

If this guy was older than three, he was well aware that his actions could, and probably would, result in death for others. He just didn't care because he was going to be dead anyways.

Edit: In fact, intent would be easy to show. The guy wanted to die, and wanted to take others with him.

For the purposes of control in prisons, I believe that they should have remote electrode stimulators implanted in the pain centers of their brains.

That way, if they don't obey, they get to feel something far, far worse than any real physical pain they could experience.
The constitutional legal issues that would bring up combined with the lawsuits would make that plan totally unfeasable.

The constitutional legal issues that would bring up combined with the lawsuits would make that plan totally unfeasable.

That's really too bad. I wonder, though. I bet it would be incredibly effective.

Depends on the prison. Federal prisons are generally more comfortable than state. State prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. Plus the prisoners need to be kept docile. You don't want frequent riots where guards will be killed. Granting some privelages and threatening to take them away gives you some control over a guy who has life in prison to look foreward to and nothing left to lose.
Perhaps if all prisoners were chained to the wall for the rest of their life, forced to make licence plates or do other things that contribute to society, they will be immobilized and not physically capable of rioting. Or perhaps they should be starved to a point where they do not have enough energy to riot. Personal mobility and nutrition are two luxuries that we overindulge our criminals with.

Having prisoners become soldiers right away is not going to help. Giving them the option down the road might help, under special circumstances as sort of a "good behavior" program.

And yes, I agree that prison has become a little too luxurious. They need to cut off the TV, limit socializing, and force them to work 365 days a year. Yes, you heard me. 365 days a year. 366 if need be. And make them work long shifts without breaks. See how they like prison after that. They need to turn prison into an area that would make Sheriff Joe Arpaio either blush or reach sexual climax.
i can smell the number of prison guard deaths rising

Suicide is a form of mental illness; it's the last resort for a person who has lost the handle on reality. They do need some help. It's the humane thing to do. If they refuse it...then, there is nothing left to do except put him in the nut house where he won't be a threat to others.

What he's going through right now has to be worse than death, dontcha think?

The constitutional legal issues that would bring up combined with the lawsuits would make that plan totally unfeasable.
Well that is the whole point we are having this conversation; to convert more people to support effective punishment, so that over time the government will be more willing to implement them.

Suicide is a form of mental illness; it's the last resort for a person who has lost the handle on reality. They do need some help. It's the humane thing to do. If they refuse it...then, there is nothing left to do except put him in the nut house where he won't be a threat to others.

If someone wants to commit suicide - it is their body and their choice.

However, putting another human being's life in danger without their consent is wrong. If someone wishes to commit suicide, fine - do it in such a way that no one else is harmed or endangered.

What he's going through right now has to be worse than death, dontcha think?

Nope.

Well that is the whole point we are having this conversation; to convert more people to support effective punishment, so that over time the government will be more willing to implement them.
I really don't see the point of excessive punishment. It's a known fact that if a convict earns a college degree in prison in almost all cases he won't reoffend. Some punishment is needed as a deterant, but it should only be used in cases where violence was premeditated, IMHO.

edit: I also beleive some punishment should be used as a deterrant against theft if the item or sum of money stolen is above a certain value.

I really don't see the point of excessive punishment. It's a known fact that if a convict earns a college degree in prison in almost all cases he won't reoffend. Some punishment is needed as a deterant, but it should only be used in cases where violence was premeditated, IMHO.

Note that such convicts are generally petty offenders - not violent offenders, and not multiple felons.

In this case, it was quite premeditated. He drove his vehicle into the path of an oncoming train full of people. Then, when he decided not to commit suicide after all, he left the vehicle there, instead of moving it out of the way. He then stood there and watched the train hit and derail.

i can smell the number of prison guard deaths rising

Not if we give the guards shock devices to keep unruly prisoners at bay. I can't imagine the public getting too outraged at that...although considering how people are very litigious...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/27/train.derailment/index.html

Now that he's changed his mind, should we give him death anyways?

Put the bastard on Death Row!

He could've found another way to kill himself, instead of putting numerous people he didn't even know in harms way. This is bullshit. He's a -------dumbass! Tax payers money shouldn't be wasted on trials or time.. just drop him out of a helicopter in a jungle deep in South America somewhere. Maybe it will make him wise up and appreciate his life and fight like hell to stay alive. If not.. well he'll make a fine meal for a boa, croc or gang of pirahna's... whatever the hell finds him.

If I drive the wrong way on the freeway, my intent may not be to kill someone, but chance are that it will be the result. If I put a bomb outside a building, I may only want to hurt the building, but people will be hurt/killed in the process.

If this guy was older than three, he was well aware that his actions could, and probably would, result in death for others. He just didn't care because he was going to be dead anyways.

Edit: In fact, intent would be easy to show. The guy wanted to die, and wanted to take others with him.

I think this would be easy to defeat in court. The guy wanted to die? Then why did he bail at the last second? This shows that he really did not want to die. And how many trains derail after striking a vehicle? I would not impose the death penalty unless you can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that this is murder 1.

Do you believe he should be executed?

I think this would be easy to defeat in court. The guy wanted to die? Then why did he bail at the last second? This shows that he really did not want to die. And how many trains derail after striking a vehicle? I would not impose the death penalty unless you can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that this is murder 1.

Do you believe he should be executed?
Most don't derail after hitting a vehicle.

I think this would be easy to defeat in court.
]
I doubt it. It is for the jury to decide.

The guy wanted to die? Then why did he bail at the last second? This shows that he really did not want to die.

(a) Most suicide attempts end up changing their minds.
(b) The fact that he didn't die makes the crime that much worse, especially in the eyes of any jury. He killed eleven people and injured countless others for no reason whatsoever!

And how many trains derail after striking a vehicle?

At the speed of a passenger train hitting an SUV, just about any train would derail.

I would not impose the death penalty unless you can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that this is murder 1.

It is obviously premeditated, especially since the guy didn't bother to move the car off the tracks when he decided he wanted to live after all. It is obviously murder, as he knowingly and willfully participated in something that would case death. It is no different than me placing a bomb outside a building and then saying "I didn't know people might die from it!!!!!"

Do you believe he should be executed?

Yes.

Hundreds of trains hit cars every year and don't de-rail, they usually just knock the car into the next county and turn it into scap metal and kill the occupants, he probably had no clue that he was putting anyone at risk, but he should still be punished and multiple cases of negligent homicide will put him away for along time
I personally think we need to brign back the chain gang with really heavy chains, along with shock collars, there is a whole bunch of real estate that needs to be cleaned up and the community service sentence people that do it here are not near enough people to do it

Most don't derail after hitting a vehicle.

This one did, and it was his car that caused it.

Putting a vehicle on train tracks so that the train hits you inherently puts others' lives at risk. As such, it was a case of gross negligence, not stupidity.


Recklessness, not negligence. If you're English at least, not sure if they make the distinction in other countries. [/pedantry]

15 years then possible parole if it's manslaughter
Life if it's murder
I don't agree with the death penalty at all for a few reasons.

We don't know all the facts of the case so i can't say closer than that.

This one did, and it was his car that caused it.
It removes premeditation. That means no murder charge.

It removes premeditation. That means no murder charge.

He tried to commit suicide and changed his mind but failed to move his car.

I say! Put the bastard on Death Row!

At the speed of a passenger train hitting an SUV, just about any train would derail

no, they do not, average speed of a freight train in the countryside where most people get hit by them at unmarked crossing is about 60 mph and the trains do not derail, the commuter train that hit the school bus in chicago about 10 years ago was going 60 and did not derail and a school bus weighs alot more than a jeep cheorkee, the derailment was unusual for this kind of accident

no, they do not, average speed of a freight train in the countryside where most people get hit by them at unmarked crossing is about 60 mph and the trains do not derail, the commuter train that hit the school bus in chicago about 10 years ago was going 60 and did not derail and a school bus weighs alot more than a jeep cheorkee, the derailment was unusual for this kind of accident

And I suppose not a single person on the train was injured?

Well, there is the felony of "criminally negligent homicide" for just such an occasion, and that isn't a capitol offense...

Why is the prevailing attitude toward crime changing from a stance of "rehabilitation" which is what our justice system is based on, to a stance of "Kill 'em all!"?

Why don't these vociferous death advocates actually take a step back for a moment, and realize that that attitude only makes things worse. We're always after WHO fucked up, rather than finding what's fucked up and fixing it...

Look at his name. He's not even American!
Spics like that shouldnt even be here, I say we tie him to the tracks.
so if he was american, it would be alright?

It is obviously premeditated, especially since the guy didn't bother to move the car off the tracks when he decided he wanted to live after all. It is obviously murder, as he knowingly and willfully participated in something that would case death. It is no different than me placing a bomb outside a building and then saying "I didn't know people might die from it!!!!!"

You can prove that he premeditated wanting to kill others? That was his plan and purpose from the begining? I will predict now he does not get the death penalty. It will not be proven that he premeditated murder.

I'm British, so i may not get a say in this, but we don't have the death penalty, and i think its wrong to exact biblical justice like that. I think he should serve for negligant homicide, 15 years, with parole.

criminally negligent homicide" Is exactly what this is and it does not and should not carry with it execution.

You can prove that he premeditated wanting to kill others? That was his plan and purpose from the begining? I will predict now he does not get the death penalty. It will not be proven that he premeditated murder.

If I place a bomb outside a building and then claim I didn't want to kill anyone, does that get me off? Wow, I have a sure-fire way to commit murder now!

criminally negligent homicide" Is exactly what this is and it does not and should not carry with it execution.

There is a difference between a negligent act that kills one person and one that kills eleven, injuring countless others.

By your logic, leaving a nuclear bomb on a train track could only possibly carry a 15 year sentence, as no one could prove I wanted to kill anyone. Never mind that the majority of the population within several miles would be dead or dying.

If I place a bomb outside a building and then claim I didn't want to kill anyone, does that get me off? Wow, I have a sure-fire way to commit murder now!
A bomb is expected to explode because they almost always do. Trains don't normally derail when they strike a motor vehicle.

A bomb is expected to explode because they almost always do. Trains don't normally derail when they strike a motor vehicle.

Unless you can state that no one is generally injured when a fast-moving train strikes an SUV, you have no case. Derailing or not, someone was going to get hurt.

There is a difference between a negligent act that kills one person and one that kills eleven, injuring countless others.

By your logic, leaving a nuclear bomb on a train track could only possibly carry a 15 year sentence, as no one could prove I wanted to kill anyone. Never mind that the majority of the population within several miles would be dead or dying.

So then you are equating a nuclear bomb to a SUV? I see.

Unless you can state that no one is generally injured when a fast-moving train strikes an SUV, you have no case. Derailing or not, someone was going to get hurt.
So do you charge boxers who accidentally kill their opponents with murder?

So then you are equating a nuclear bomb to a SUV? I see.

I am equating a negligent act to a negligent act. According to your logic, no negligent act can possibly be considered murder. I disagree.

Leaving an SUV on the tracks is not too far from firing several shots from a rifle into the air in an urban area.

You just might hit someone. And they just might die.

So do you charge boxers who accidentally kill their opponents with murder?

If they are knowingly boxing in a manner that is abnormal and more dangerous to their opponent, yes.

Give him life without parole, 23 hour lockdown, no work, no TV, no books, no anything. The bastard is an admitted serial killer. Justice is to show him the same regard & mercy he showed his victims.

If they are knowingly boxing in a manner that is abnormal and more dangerous to their opponent, yes.
Please tell me you're not a judge or prosecutor.

I am equating a negligent act to a negligent act. According to your logic, no negligent act can possibly be considered murder. I disagree.

I did not state that at all it is not murder but it is not premeditated murder.

To leave a nuclear bomb on RR tracks is a completely different scenario than the one listed and is a poor analogy in my estimate.

why would one leave a nuclear bomb on RR tracks besides the fact to cause bodily harm? That is not negligence that is purposeful.

Why would one leave an suv on RR tracks? A few different reasons could apply even that they put it there to hope the train derailed. That however must be proven and when there are other valid reasons to leave the vehicle on the tracks then they must be taken into consideration. His reasoning is valid it does not make him right but it does make him criminally negligent.

Please tell me you're not a judge or prosecutor.

Why? Because I think people are responsible for their own actions?

If someone does something which they know endangers another, and that person dies, the person should be convicted of murder. Period. There is no "well I didn't mean to murder someone..." free pass.

If someone is obviously guilty of murder, I have no problem with the death penalty being employed. I balk at using circumstantial evidence, but this guy has admitted to the crime.

Meanwhile, I am neither a judge nor a prosecutor, but certainly am a potential juror.

Why? Because I think people are responsible for their own actions?

If someone does something which they know endangers another, and that person dies, the person should be convicted of murder. Period. There is no "well I didn't mean to murder someone..." free pass.

If someone is obviously guilty of murder, I have no problem with the death penalty being employed. I balk at using circumstantial evidence, but this guy has admitted to the crime.

Meanwhile, I am neither a judge nor a prosecutor, but certainly am a potential juror.
It's not a free pass. It's a reduced charge based on mitigating evidence.

To leave a nuclear bomb on RR tracks is a completely different scenario than the one listed and is a poor analogy in my estimate.

It wasn't an analogy. It was an even more exaggerated example of the same thing. I am wondering just how heinous something has to be for you to consider it as such.

Why would one leave an suv on RR tracks? A few different reasons could apply even that they put it there to hope the train derailed. That however must be proven and when there are other valid reasons to leave the vehicle on the tracks then they must be taken into consideration. His reasoning is valid it does not make him right but it does make him criminally negligent.

There is absolutely no valid reason to park an SUV on a set of train tracks. The only reason to put it there is that you want the train to hit it. Anyone above the age of three realizes that this is likely to cause harm to other people.

There is a difference between a negligent act that kills one person and one that kills eleven, injuring countless others.

By your logic, leaving a nuclear bomb on a train track could only possibly carry a 15 year sentence, as no one could prove I wanted to kill anyone. Never mind that the majority of the population within several miles would be dead or dying.

That escapes logic for two reasons. 1. The government has made it illegal for private citizens to own nuclear devices. 2. Setting one off in an urban area is an obvious attempt to kill people.

If you had set off an illegal nuclear device in the middle of nowhere, such as the Nevada desert, and a group hiking around out there wandered into the blast radius, you could argue negligence (though, admittedly not very well).

Changing your mind about suicide in this fashion, resulting in unintended deaths, is not murder. It's despicable and stupid, but not murder. For murder you need to PROVE the intent to kill people other than yourself with malice of forethought. He didn't want to kill people on the train, just himself, thus "criminally negligent homicide". You see?

It's not a free pass. It's a reduced charge based on mitigating evidence.

There is no mitigating evidence. This man directly caused the death of eleven people and injured countless others.

Neither "I wish to claim that I am less intelligent than an infant and didn't know anyone could get hurt" or "I was trying to kill myself" are mitigating evidence.

That escapes logic for two reasons. 1. The government has made it illegal for private citizens to own nuclear devices. 2. Setting one off in an urban area is an obvious attempt to kill people.

I didn't say anything about setting it off. I mentioned putting it somewhere that it just might get set off, but I don't know if it will.

Changing your mind about suicide in this fashion, resulting in unintended deaths, is not murder. It's despicable and stupid, but not murder. For murder you need to PROVE the intent to kill people other than yourself with malice of forethought. He didn't want to kill people on the train, just himself, thus "criminally negligent homicide". You see?

If he didn't want to kill people on the train, he would have shot himself or swallowed poison.

There is no mitigating evidence. This man directly caused the death of eleven people and injured countless others.

Neither "I wish to claim that I am less intelligent than an infant and didn't know anyone could get hurt" or "I was trying to kill myself" are mitigating evidence.
It is mitigating because he killed out of negligence, not malice. Courts in the USA recognize the difference.

If he didn't want to kill people on the train, he would have shot himself or swallowed poison.

Hindsight being 20/20, yes. But how many suicidal people do you know who really think clearly about how, and/or when they would do themselves in? Otherwise every suicidal person would have more consideration, and do just that . However, this is still not murder, no matter how you slice, dice, chop, or puree it.

It's amazing how this has become more about vengeance, and less about the law...

What if someone's car (or suv) died on the railroad tracks, and a train hit it and derailed... killing 11 people? Would you say he killed them on purpose, and he should be punished then? Or would you say that it was an accident? Maybe after he changed his mind, he tried to move his suv, but it was stuck? What would you say to that, if it were the case?

Hindsight being 20/20, yes. But how many suicidal people do you know who really think clearly about how, and/or when they would do themselves in?
As a suicidal person, and occaisional denizen of A.S.M. and A.S.H. (you know what I'm talking about if you know of Usenet), I feel a need to chime in.

Many of us *do* plan it out, and very well too. Often we plan it elaborately. A good many of us don't do something stupid on the spur of the moment like this man did.

What if someone's car (or suv) died on the railroad tracks, and a train hit it and derailed... killing 11 people? Would you say he killed them on purpose, and he should be punished then? Or would you say that it was an accident? Maybe after he changed his mind, he tried to move his suv, but it was stuck? What would you say to that, if it were the case?

I'd say don't buy American made.

Any particular reason why 'spics' shouldn't be here.

Don't even bother with this guy. The less attention he gets the better. He's not even aware that he's shaming himself. Those kid of baits aren't even worthy of a response.

As for what the subject of this thread deserves, he deserves to die. Would I be willing to kill him myself... not so sure I could do it... so, I vote for life in prison without parol and with hard labor.

Zoidberg thinks that because he knowingly put hundreds of people in harms way for his own personal benifit (being that of suicide) that he should be punished as if he had planned on killing them.

Besides, isn't that what he wanted anyway?

You know what?

Screw the Trial! Just hang the lousy wart.

You know what?

Screw the Trial! Just hang the lousy wart.

Zoidberg also thinks that is almost more horrible than the act itself. Why does not a man deserve a fair trial? What if you were in his position? Wouldn't you want a chance at a fair trial that is constitutionally protected?

Zoidberg also thinks that is almost more horrible than the act itself. Why does not a man deserve a fair trial? What if you were in his position? Wouldn't you want a chance at a fair trial that is constitutionally protected?

I see someone missed the sarcasm! LOL!!

He wanted to die anyway so why not help him die?

Of course I want him to have a fair trial Zoidburg XIX! I believe in the Justice System though I will Guaruntee you that whatever verdict comes down will be appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Zoidberg also thinks that is almost more horrible than the act itself. Why does not a man deserve a fair trial? What if you were in his position? Wouldn't you want a chance at a fair trial that is constitutionally protected?

I'd prefer the use of feats-of-strength.

Wasnt his fault. Those people should've been elsewhere

Wasnt his fault. Those people should've been elsewhere
The trains? They should've been elsewhere?
:rolleyes:

It wasn't an analogy. It was an even more exaggerated example of the same thing. I am wondering just how heinous something has to be for you to consider it as such.



There is absolutely no valid reason to park an SUV on a set of train tracks. The only reason to put it there is that you want the train to hit it. Anyone above the age of three realizes that this is likely to cause harm to other people.

Maybe it wasn't parked and was stalled. Anyway he might have not seen he was on the tracks. Besides he couldn't have physically touched the car to begin with

Maybe it wasn't parked and was stalled. Anyway he might have not seen he was on the tracks. Besides he couldn't have physically touched the car to begin with

You gotta be kidding me? He did park it on the train tracks. It didn't stall at all. He did it deliberately to kill himself but changed his mind.

Wasnt his fault. Those people should've been elsewhere

Well, to be fair, it wasn't Amtrak. If they had been riding on one of those deathtraps, the SUV-derailment would simply have been a different means to the same end.

if he did it to suicide then he should've shot himself or drown himself or poisin. Getting hit by a train is painful and not likely used for suicide.

if he did it to suicide then he should've shot himself or drown himself or poisin. Getting hit by a train is painful and not likely used for suicide.
You see, the problemis that the man was an idiot. He should have shot himslef or poisoned himself, but he chose to attempt death by train instead.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't Amtrak. If they had been riding on one of those deathtraps, the SUV-derailment would simply have been a different means to the same end.

exactly. Its the suv capitalist who have the deadliest cars. They are worse then riding a bike down the autobahn

I think that there should be a Suicide Service. If you have the means to pay, it costs 50 dollars, and if you're indigent, the government will pick up the tab.

The service will provide single-shot pistols for the purpose (such as a Thompson Contender) in a suitable caliber. The pistols will be equipped with a chin rest, so that you can put your chin over the proper place so that when the pistol goes off, the bullet will blow off the top of your skull without harming anyone else.

The 50 dollars also includes cleanup, where the team will pick up your body, mop the floor, clean your brains off the ceiling, and dump your body at the local landfill.

For those too weak, physically or mentally, to pull the trigger, there's an extra 20 dollar charge for having the team pull the trigger for you.

What he did was awful. Just 'cause he didn't have the balls to slash his wrists or shoot himself - even if he had seen it through, those innocent people still would have died. It's a totally despicable way of committing suicide. He should face the full consequences for the deaths of those people - he had malice aforethought, the fact that he meant to die as well originally shouldn't make a bit of difference (it doesn't in English law). And if he changed his mind, why the hell didn't he move his car? Or at least try to. He disgusts me.

I did not state that at all it is not murder but it is not premeditated murder.

To leave a nuclear bomb on RR tracks is a completely different scenario than the one listed and is a poor analogy in my estimate.

why would one leave a nuclear bomb on RR tracks besides the fact to cause bodily harm? That is not negligence that is purposeful.

Why would one leave an suv on RR tracks? A few different reasons could apply even that they put it there to hope the train derailed. That however must be proven and when there are other valid reasons to leave the vehicle on the tracks then they must be taken into consideration. His reasoning is valid it does not make him right but it does make him criminally negligent.

He may not have had direct intent - that is, he may not have actually wanted the outcome that occurred; the deaths of those people. But it was virtually certain to occur, and he knew that. Therefore he had oblique intent, which is sufficient for a specific intent crime such as murder. His state of mind was definitely higher than that of manslaughter... sorry... law student.

According to reports, he did slash his wrists AND stabbed himself but it only cause minor injuries. I think the term is superficial wounds?

And I suppose not a single person on the train was injured?

there is nothing saying that there were any injuries on the train, 7 dead and 25 injuries on the schoolbus, the body was ripped completely off the chassis of the bus

It removes premeditation. That means no murder charge.


Whether or not he was in his jeep doesnt matter now. The fact that his plan still involved committing suicide by being hit by that train still stands. I don't think if he had still been in the jeep on impact that it would've changed the outcome of the wreck. It was premeditated.. he just pussied out.

According to reports, he did slash his wrists AND stabbed himself but it only cause minor injuries. I think the term is superficial wounds?


Yeah he wasn't serious about killing himself.. or else he would've stayed in the jeep! Or better yet he would've found another way to do it without bringing anyone else into the mix. It was a stunt.. he's a dumbass, but that doesn't excuse what he has caused.

What if someone's car (or suv) died on the railroad tracks, and a train hit it and derailed... killing 11 people?

It was not intentionally parked there. As long as the person (time permitting) at least tried to call the police/move it/what-have you, there is no fault.

Maybe after he changed his mind, he tried to move his suv, but it was stuck? What would you say to that, if it were the case?

He still parked it there on purpose, with the full intent of having a train hit it. If I point a gun at your head, don't mean to pull the trigger, but you get shot - I have still killed you.

Hindsight being 20/20, yes. But how many suicidal people do you know who really think clearly about how, and/or when they would do themselves in? Otherwise every suicidal person would have more consideration, and do just that.

Most suicides go to great lengths to plan it. Very few do not. And only recently have we seen a rash of people who want to do it in a way that endangers as many people as possible (and usually chicken out anyways).

However, this is still not murder, no matter how you slice, dice, chop, or puree it.

Actually, it is. You could argue that it is second degree rather than first, but it *is* murder, no matter how you slice, dice, chop, or purree it. Meanwhile, even if it is second degree, it is multiple counts - a mass murder, if you will.

lets just deport him to cuba and everyone can stop whining, or draft him

Yes, that's a lovely solution to our troop shortage. Just like Ming China, make military service a punishment for crimes. Many of them are already violent and would make excellent killers in the right location. What could possibly go wrong with gathering criminals together and giving them machine guns? :)

Meanwhile, if they decide not to pursue the death penalty in this case, I think he should be tried separately for each individual case of murder, with the sentences stacking. At that point, he may receive life with parole at 15 years for each sentence, but it would 165 years before he would be eligible.

The hospitalisation of 200, the death of 11 and long delay times for the train system as well as repair costs, that retard should get the death penalty. That way he can end his miserable life without turning out at the last second.