AMC's "The Walking Dead" Discussion (2010-2022)

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

I know exactly what they would happen, under the assumption the victim was honest. There would be an initial charge of conspiracy to commit murder as soon as the hitman was hired, but as soon as the victim said, I had no idea he was there to kill me, he punched in the face and walked out, there would be no case for it, and it would be dropped.

I guess that would depend on how it all played out. I would think the hitman would still point the gun at the person with intent to do what he was paid to do, but maybe he came to a conscious decision and punched him in the face instead. That would still be attemped murder i would think due to breaking into a house and waiting with a gun, then pointing then gun at the victim. Even if he did not pull the trigger the intent is still there.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

Yes, indeed, because you couldn't be more wrong, and good luck in getting that to stick.

One of us is a practicing lawyer with multiple bar admissions (including the subject state, Georgia)...one of us is married to a paralegal at a law firm. I'll side with the former.

You're only talking about the affirmative defense of abandonment. It's an affirmative defense, nothing else. In your example, homeboy would be charged with attempted murder and he'd lose if he raised the abandonment defense.

Do some legal research then let's chat. The fact that you're so intent on defending Shane's actions is sickening.

EDIT: Did some research for you. I invite everyone to review these cases and the subject statute, and I'm sure you'll all agree that what Shane did is "attempt". There's even a Georgia case on all fours (the last case cited below). Grumpz couldn't possibly change his position after all this time and this many posts in light of this legal authority (as opposed to "Grumpz and Grumpz's Wife on the Law") could he? I guess we'll see...

147 Ga.App. 351
Ga. Code Ann., § 16-4-5
702 S.E.2d 183
41 S.E.2d 274

Anywho, like I said more than once, this conversation needs to end. If you believe you're right despite what the law says, go right on believing it without having to compel us to feel the same way.

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by Chordata

One of us is a practicing lawyer with multiple bar admissions (including the subject state, Georgia)...one of us is married to a paralegal at a law firm. I'll side with the former.

You're only talking about the affirmative defense of abandonment. It's an affirmative defense, nothing else. In your example, homeboy would be charged with attempted murder and he'd lose if he raised the abandonment defense.

Do some legal research then let's chat. The fact that you're so intent on defending Shane's actions is sickening.

EDIT: Did some research for you. I invite everyone to review these cases and the subject statute, and I'm sure you'll all agree that what Shane did is "attempt". There's even a Georgia case on all fours (the last case cited below). Grumpz couldn't possibly change his position after all this time and this many posts in light of this legal authority (as opposed to "Grumpz and Grumpz's Wife on the Law") could he? I guess we'll see...

147 Ga.App. 351
Ga. Code Ann., § 16-4-5
702 S.E.2d 183
41 S.E.2d 274

Anywho, like I said more than once, this conversation needs to end. If you believe you're right despite what the law says, go right on believing it without having to compel us to feel the same way.

Sorry, I have to kinda side with Grumpz, but slightly different thought.

For one, the DA office doesn’t know this was an murder for hire. The DA office at most could only charge this person with breaking and entering, and whatever gun charge for that state, carrying a firearm while in the commission of a felony. Also, they can charge some type of misdemeanor for the assault for hitting the guy.

The perpetrator can claim he was there to steal, he was surprised by the occupant coming home early, felt cornered and hit the subject to get away.

If the complaining witness never saw a gun, then he cannot claim any type of armed robbery or attempt murder. The hitman never brandished a weapon, or ordered the victim to do anything.

If you were going to defend this guy, you might need a little bit more practice.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by HAMP

The perpetrator can claim he was there to steal, he was surprised by the occupant coming home early, felt cornered and hit the subject to get away.

...

If you were going to defend this guy, you might need a little bit more practice.

I'm done with the conversation Hamp. If you or anyone else want to continue this endless debate with me or have any posts directed to me on this lame issue, please PM me. I refuse to sink to the level and litter this thread with it any longer.

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by Chordata

I'm done with the conversation Hamp. If you or anyone else want to continue this endless debate with me or have any posts directed to me on this lame issue, please PM me. I refuse to sink to the level and litter this thread with it any longer.

The show does not start back until Sunday, I do not see the harm in talking about whatever in the thread until then.

This off thread subject can piss someone who is interested in staying on subject. I fully understand, I don't want to click on a 'Receiver' thread to read about 'Cartoons'.

It's either why click the thread if you know the show is not playing now, or let it fade until the show starts.

[Chordata]

Fair enough. In that case, you clearly haven't read the cases or statute I cited above. Had you done so, you'd realize your example is specifically addressed and precludes the defense of abandonment. Running away to avoid detection or giving up through frustration of purpose does not equal abandonment in the eyes of the law.

As to your "yeah but the DA's office doesn't know" comment - I thought we were all assuming those were the facts. If we're playing the "what does law enforcement know" game then, yeah, they'd have to do their job to find out there was (1) a plot, (2) an intention to murder. They do it all the time and, for the most part, they do a good job. I'd wager that Mr. Breaking-and-Entering would give up his partner pretty quickly, and the partner would confess that they were going to kill Mr. Homeowner. There's your specific intent and step toward that end which = attempt.

As to your last comment, I'm content with my practice and so are my clients.

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

Yes, indeed, because you couldn't be more wrong, and good luck in getting that to stick.

In any case, and talking about "attempted rape", because this is what the subject is.

An undertaking to do an act that entails more than mere preparation but does not result in the successful completion of the act.

In Criminal Law, an attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime. The elements of attempt vary, although generally, there must be an intent to commit the crime, an Overt Act beyond mere preparation, and an apparent ability to complete the crime.

Generally, attempts are punishable by imprisonment, with sentence lengths that vary in time, depending upon the severity of the offense attempted.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

check, check and check.
Let's leave it at that, this has already portrayed a number of people (Cook in particular) in enough bad light already imo.

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by Chordata

Fair enough. In that case, you clearly haven't read the cases or statute I cited above. Had you done so, you'd realize your example is specifically addressed and precludes the defense of abandonment. Running away to avoid detection or giving up through frustration of purpose does not equal abandonment in the eyes of the law.

As to your "yeah but the DA's office doesn't know" comment - I thought we were all assuming those were the facts. If we're playing the "what does law enforcement know" game then, yeah, they'd have to do their job to find out there was (1) a plot, (2) an intention to murder. They do it all the time and, for the most part, they do a good job. I'd wager that Mr. Breaking-and-Entering would give up his partner pretty quickly, and the partner would confess that they were going to kill Mr. Homeowner. There's your specific intent and step toward that end which = attempt.

As to your last comment, I'm content with my practice and so are my clients.

Honestly, I haven't read those, because I would get confused. I'm the dumbass in this household and my wife is the paralegal, and she is at work right now.

I agree, if everything before what I typed was the facts, then the guy is goner. Done deal!!

It wouldn't be too smart for the hitman to give up his partner(tho a similar thing is going on right now here in Michigan), He get far less time for B&E then attempt murder. Well, I think I may have to rethink that last statement.

I was kiddin about the more practice, I do slip up sometimes with the corny jokes.


Side note about here in Michigan, the hitman turned himself in… lol

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by HAMP

Side note about here in Michigan, the hitman turned himself in… lol

I read that -- crazy situation getting even crazier.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by HAMP

Sorry, I have to kinda side with Grumpz, but slightly different thought.

For one, the DA office doesn’t know this was an murder for hire. The DA office at most could only charge this person with breaking and entering, and whatever gun charge for that state, carrying a firearm while in the commission of a felony. Also, they can charge some type of misdemeanor for the assault for hitting the guy.

The perpetrator can claim he was there to steal, he was surprised by the occupant coming home early, felt cornered and hit the subject to get away.

If the complaining witness never saw a gun, then he cannot claim any type of armed robbery or attempt murder. The hitman never brandished a weapon, or ordered the victim to do anything.

If you were going to defend this guy, you might need a little bit more practice.

You are arguing with a lawyer about how the law works, Hamp. Unless you are a lawyer as well, you are really just asking to be schooled. That would be like me telling a physicist his explanation of a barycenter was wrong. I aint qualified.

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

You are arguing with a lawyer about how the law works, Hamp. Unless you are a lawyer as well, you are really just asking to be schooled. That would be like me telling a physicist his explanation of a barycenter was wrong. I aint qualified.

It looks like you missed a couple of post after that one.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by HAMP

It looks like you missed a couple of post after that one.

Yes. I type SLOWLY.

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yes. I type SLOWLY.

hahahahah... Sure you do


I swear I am so looking forward to sunday episode, and I also know I'm going to be pissed. It's only going to be 45min of airtime, with maybe 15min of good stuff, the other 30min is going to be some bull.

[Lacit170]

Originally Posted by HAMP

hahahahah... Sure you do


I swear I am so looking forward to sunday episode, and I also know I'm going to be pissed. It's only going to be 45min of airtime, with maybe 15min of good stuff, the other 30min is going to be some bull.

Welcome to television

[SquidPuppet]

I have decided to continue with my anti-Shane hatred .

I will continue to until the writers kill him off.

All in fun guys.

OK, some Shane defenders have have said that he believed Rick was dead in the hospital. Some say this is why he told Lori that Rick was dead.

After revisiting episode TS-19 where the flashback to the hospital scene occurs, I now say BUNK.

Shane is there with Rick who is in a coma. All hell breaks loose. Walkers are roaming the halls and soldiers are killing damn near everyone in sight. Very dangerous. The power goes out. Shane checks Ricks heartbeat but we viewers are told nothing. Shane goes into the hallway. Walkers are at one end and soldiers are executing people at the other end. Shane closes Ricks door and before he bails he blocks the door with a bed. Why did Shane do that if he thought Rick was dead? Answer, he didnt. Shane knew Rick was still alive and wanted to protect Rick until he could come back later, when it was safer, to rescue him. Shane needed to escape "Right now" because the situation was too dangerous to survive.

The only problem with that is, Shane never went back to rescue Rick. He knowingly left Rick to die of starvation and dehydration, or to be eaten by the walkers, or killed by the soldiers. After a few hours, or a day or two, Shane probably said to himself "Meh, he's probably dead by now anyway, so why bother going back? Plus, I can get me some Lori tail. Win win for me."

Shane must die!

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[Show spoiler]I have decided to continue with my anti-Shane hatred .

I will continue to until the writers kill him off.

All in fun guys.

OK, some Shane defenders have have said that he believed Rick was dead in the hospital. Some say this is why he told Lori that Rick was dead.

After revisiting episode TS-19 where the flashback to the hospital scene occurs, I now say BUNK.

Shane is there with Rick who is in a coma. All hell breaks loose. Walkers are roaming the halls and soldiers are killing damn near everyone in sight. Very dangerous. The power goes out. Shane checks Ricks heartbeat but we viewers are told nothing. Shane goes into the hallway. Walkers are at one end and soldiers are executing people at the other end. Shane closes Ricks door and before he bails he blocks the door with a bed. Why did Shane do that if he thought Rick was dead? Answer, he didnt. Shane knew Rick was still alive and wanted to protect Rick until he could come back later, when it was safer, to rescue him. Shane needed to escape "Right now" because the situation was too dangerous to survive.

The only problem with that is, Shane never went back to rescue Rick. He knowingly left Rick to die of starvation and dehydration, or to be eaten by the walkers, or killed by the soldiers. After a few hours, or a day or two, Shane probably said to himself "Meh, he's probably dead by now anyway, so why bother going back? Plus, I can get me some Lori tail. Win win for me."

Shane must die!

I know what I have typed in the past, but don't get it wrong, I am a Shane hater too, I just like his survival skills. He got some damn good aim too. He is great with teaching kids how to shoot..

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by Chordata

One of us is a practicing lawyer with multiple bar admissions (including the subject state, Georgia)...one of us is married to a paralegal at a law firm. I'll side with the former.

You're only talking about the affirmative defense of abandonment. It's an affirmative defense, nothing else. In your example, homeboy would be charged with attempted murder and he'd lose if he raised the abandonment defense.

Do some legal research then let's chat. The fact that you're so intent on defending Shane's actions is sickening.

EDIT: Did some research for you. I invite everyone to review these cases and the subject statute, and I'm sure you'll all agree that what Shane did is "attempt". There's even a Georgia case on all fours (the last case cited below). Grumpz couldn't possibly change his position after all this time and this many posts in light of this legal authority (as opposed to "Grumpz and Grumpz's Wife on the Law") could he? I guess we'll see...

147 Ga.App. 351
Ga. Code Ann., § 16-4-5
702 S.E.2d 183
41 S.E.2d 274

Anywho, like I said more than once, this conversation needs to end. If you believe you're right despite what the law says, go right on believing it without having to compel us to feel the same way.

As I said, my wife works at a Canadian law firm, I've been running this by her, and she's been discussing it at work. US cases make no difference to my stance, as we all know Canadian laws are different than US laws.

But I would like to thank you for pointing out that in the US, anyone who breaks into a home can be charged with attempted murder. I guess every home invasion ends with someone in prison for that same crime, and car jacking as well?

I also find it interesting that a victims own account of what happened, with the witness saying he punched me in the face, has no bearing on the situation.

All quite interesting.

I also don't defend Shane, he was wrong. But It's clear to me that what he did is a lot different than beating the crap out of Laurie, only to have her escape after Shane being kicked in the balls, or someone saving her.

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I have decided to continue with my anti-Shane hatred .

I will continue to until the writers kill him off.

All in fun guys.

OK, some Shane defenders have have said that he believed Rick was dead in the hospital. Some say this is why he told Lori that Rick was dead.

After revisiting episode TS-19 where the flashback to the hospital scene occurs, I now say BUNK.

Shane is there with Rick who is in a coma. All hell breaks loose. Walkers are roaming the halls and soldiers are killing damn near everyone in sight. Very dangerous. The power goes out. Shane checks Ricks heartbeat but we viewers are told nothing. Shane goes into the hallway. Walkers are at one end and soldiers are executing people at the other end. Shane closes Ricks door and before he bails he blocks the door with a bed. Why did Shane do that if he thought Rick was dead? Answer, he didnt. Shane knew Rick was still alive and wanted to protect Rick until he could come back later, when it was safer, to rescue him. Shane needed to escape "Right now" because the situation was too dangerous to survive.

The only problem with that is, Shane never went back to rescue Rick. He knowingly left Rick to die of starvation and dehydration, or to be eaten by the walkers, or killed by the soldiers. After a few hours, or a day or two, Shane probably said to himself "Meh, he's probably dead by now anyway, so why bother going back? Plus, I can get me some Lori tail. Win win for me."

Shane must die!

Again, we disagree and you conveniently left out a few important tidbits. First, Shane tried lifting Ricks's body but saw everything he was hooked up to and put Rick down as he realized he would need this equipment to keep Rick alive. THEN the power went out which caused Shane to listen to Ricks heart, start to cry, then hold his hands over Ricks eyes, similar to when people close the eyes of someone who's died in their arms, on television. Shane at that point, though Rick had died, as the equipment was no longer functioning. At that point, Shane put the bed in front of the door in attempt to save Ricks body from being eaten and turned. It was out of respect.

[HAMP]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

As I said, my wife works at a Canadian law firm, I've been running this by her, and she's been discussing it at work. US cases make no difference to my stance, as we all know Canadian laws are different than US laws.

But I would like to thank you for pointing out that in the US, anyone who breaks into a home can be charged with attempted murder. I guess every home invasion ends with someone in prison for that same crime, and car jacking as well?

I also find it interesting that a victims own account of what happened, with the witness saying he punched me in the face, has no bearing on the situation.

All quite interesting.

I also don't defend Shane, he was wrong. But It's clear to me that what he did is a lot different than beating the crap out of Laurie, only to have her escape after Shane being kicked in the balls, or someone saving her.

As with different countries, the law will be interpreted differently. As me and Chordata come to a conclusion, it depends if they knew it was planned or not if this guy was going to murder.

This little tid bit maybe a difference between our two countries. Just because the Hitman accepted the job, that’s ground for charging him with premeditated murder, he didn’t even have to show up at the house. So, not matter if he changed his mind two minutes before the person came home, it’s still premeditated here.

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by HAMP

As with different countries, the law will be interpreted differently. As me and Chordata come to a conclusion, it depends if they knew it was planned or not if this guy was going to murder.

This little tid bit maybe a difference between our two countries. Just because the Hitman accepted the job, that’s ground for charging him with premeditated murder, he didn’t even have to show up at the house. So, not matter if he changed his mind two minutes before the person came home, it’s still premeditated here.

Haven't nor will I disagree with potential charges.

However, what happens to the prosecutions case when the victim takes the stand as says, he punched me in the face and left. Neither of us heard any sirens, there was no struggle, and I didn't yell out for help. He could of killed me 10 times in 10 different ways, but chose to punch me and walk out.