OT way OT but GOOD for Mom!

[clare]

Unlikely - and if charged, unlikely it would stick. Now, if you went in with him KNOWING he had a beef with the bartender he intended to settle - yes, you could be charged - and convicted.

[Steve Barker]

worthless weapon if it's locked.

[Steve Barker]

not yet. give obammy another 4 yrs......

[Larry Jaques]

Judging by the REP lineup, he's gonna have that chance. Ick! I'd love to see a Paul/Perot or Thompson/Perot ticket.

The DEMs haven't yet come to their senses, but my sister is finally accepting that AGWK isn't happening. There's hope there yet.

-- Worry is a misuse of imagination. -- Dan Zadra

[Larry Jaques]

Um, they're getting guns now, even -with- registration. Registration only affects those who wish to do this legally and aboveboard.

You do realize that criminals can buy stolen guns and illegally imported guns for less than the stores sell them, don't you? (not all, but many)

-- Worry is a misuse of imagination. -- Dan Zadra

[Larry W]

Maybe you should take the blade off of your table saw too...

[Larry W]

No. Again, I am not a lawyer, and not familiar with the specific laws of your state or Oklahoma, but running a red light is not even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony.

[HeyBub]

Therapy? For God's sake, why?

Who would need therapy for killing a rabid dog? Same thing.

I agree.

[HeyBub]

Let's posit a hypothetical: Two men agree to rob a bank. One will do the robbery, the other will drive the getaway car. During the robbery, a teller is shot and killed.

Do you actually think robber #2 can be charged only with double-parking? No, you might say, he's guilty only of robbery. But HE didn't rob anybody or even attempt to do so! He was merely sitting in the car outside the bank with the engine running.

The sequence here is that when more than one person participates in committing a crime, each member of the gang is equally responsible for any act that any member undertakes.

[Larry W]

A group of people are standing on a cliff on a dark night. One of them tells another, "Go ahead and jump off. There's a lake at the bottom." He does so, falls on to the rocks, and dies. The others in the group testify in court that this is what happened. The jury is satisfied as to the veracity of their testimony and convicts the defendant of murder.

Substitute "Break in to that trailer" for "Go ahead and jump." Seems logical enough to me. Presumably a judge and jury, upon hearing the evdence and arguments in court, (unlike those of us merely speculating in a newsgroup) will make the right decision.

:wq

[Larry W]

Now that's funny!

[HeyBub]

Of course not. In the scenario you propose, I did not participate in the fight or the planning thereof.

But suppose I and my buddy PLAN to go to the bar and whip the shit out of my buddy's enemy (or maybe shoot him) and I drive the car or otherwise participate in the plan, even to the smallest degree of "watching his back," then, yes, I'm guilty of murder.

Suppose I have a car. My buddy says, "Hey, would you drive me over to 1000 Main Street?" and I agree. While at the Main Street location, my buddy murders someone. I face NO charges.

If, on the other hand, my buddy says, "Hey, would you drive me over to 1000 Main Street? There's someone there that needs killing." If I give him the requested lift, I'm a murderer.

This distinction, prior knowledge of the propose crime and participation in the crime, imputes guilt to all the participants. It's been this way in common law since the Magna Carta (probably).

[HeyBub]

Heh! It's BECAUSE criminals can easily obtain guns that the rest of us should be able to obtain a gun just as easily.

Here's how a criminal gets his gun:

• Criminal #1: "Here's the money."

• Criminal #2: "Here's your gun."

Why should it be any different for me? (Fortunately, it's not much different, but you get the idea.)

[HeyBub]

Blame King John when he agreed to the Magna Carta in 1215. This document established the Common Law as binding on all.

Over 800 years, the felony murder rule has been softened quite a bit...

[Leon]

You assume that they go in for drinks but your buddy is taking in a gun to even a score.

[Han]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:lf6dnWVfsKoFzZXSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Well, all of you are right, except for 1 thing: Where did that illegal gun come from? Just like a car can be traced through all its owners by the VIN, a gun - IMO any gun - should be traceable through a similar registration process. It's not only the last perp who has an illegal gun and is guilty, it's all the former owners who "neglected" to legally transfer the weapon, back to the manufacturer.

Now, I agree that isn't likely to be instituted any time soon, but, using Heybub's story up there somewhere as an example: Did the guy whomhe surprised in a burglary take any of Heybub's weapons, and if so did Heybub notify the authorities of their "VIN"'s? Because it is generally stolen or purposely bought and sold guns that are now the "illegal" guns. Tracing them and legally punishing the sobs that brought them on the illegal market in the first place ought to help at least somewhat.

Which brings us to the intriguing question of why the US has the highest % of population in prison of all Western countries, but that should be another thread, perhaps not on the wreck.

[Han]

Larry Jaques wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Hey!! I agree with that - deterrence may even work sometimes.

[Leon]

Agreed but I could cut the barrel as short a legally allowed. You might need to spin around in a hall way quickly.

[Leon]

E#exactly!

[Leon]

It is breaking a law. Therefore you are liable for being punished in some way for being with him.