The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Mira:
--- Quote ---a. Murder is the [1.] unlawful killing of [2.] another [3.] human being [4.] with malice aforethought, expressed or implied. 1. Harry killed Cassius. 2. Cassius is not Harry. 3. Cassius is a human being. 4. Harry meant the action that killed Cassius. I'm aware this isn't a full explication of my case, but figured it was best to leave it simple and see which points you don't agree with instead of typing up a couple of weeks of law school classes for no reason.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---b. The innocence or guilt of the person killed is irrelevant.
--- End quote ---
I disagree, so would a jury in many cases...
A technically maybe, but Mouse killed Cassius, not Harry... On Harry's orders perhaps, but Harry was on his back,bleeding, about to pass out, Cassius was in the process of killing him rather painfully and slowly, would have too, when Butters and Mouse came in to save the day. And it was Butters who sicced Mouse on Cassius.. You might call that murder, but it sounds more like self defense or at the very least justified homicide..Nor was it premeditated. Don't know about law school but if I was sitting on a jury, that is how I'd see it.
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: Mira on June 11, 2019, 07:19:55 PM ---I disagree, so would a jury in many cases...
A technically maybe, but Mouse killed Cassius, not Harry... On Harry's orders perhaps, but Harry was on his back,bleeding, about to pass out, Cassius was in the process of killing him rather painfully and slowly, would have too, when Butters and Mouse came in to save the day. And it was Butters who sicced Mouse on Cassius.. You might call that murder, but it sounds more like self defense or at the very least justified homicide..Nor was it premeditated. Don't know about law school but if I was sitting on a jury, that is how I'd see it.
--- End quote ---
If we were to give Mouse personhood, Harry and Mouse would be an accomplices, co-conspirators, or some other theory of joint liability, otherwise Mouse is a tool of Harry, so that doesn't matter either way.
Cassius was not in the process of doing anything. He had been defeated. Mouse had him under control.
Harry told Mouse to kill him, and Mouse did, not Butters.
For self defense to be applicable, Harry would have to have an imminent reasonable apprehension that Cassius was capable of causing him grievous bodily harm or death. Since we can read Harry's thoughts, we know that not to be the case. Whether or not he could convince a jury of lies isn't really relevant as to whether or not he did it.
Justified homicide isn't a thing. It's not really even a legal term. For example, a killing committed in self-defense is a form of justified homicide. Another interesting one is capital punishment. This is where I thought the argument would be for Cassius's death, and Slate's if I had remembered that one. Harry is a Warden of the White Council at this point. He has lawful authority to execute this guy, and probably a duty to, according to the White Council. I'm sure the prosecutor's office in Chicago would disagree. Vehemently. This is the reason I said it is arguable that Harry is a murderer.
--- Quote ---Cassius froze in place in sudden terror, his eyes very wide. He stared at me.
For a second there was total silence.
"I gave you a chance," I told him, my voice quiet.
Quintus Cassius's liver-spotted face went pale with horrified comprehension. "Wait."
"Mouse," I said. "Kill him."
--- End quote ---
That is premeditation to the point that Cassius realized Harry intended to kill him. Malice aforethought, express or implied, is requisite mental state, not premeditation. I go into the different ways to show malice aforethought here: https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,53124.msg2319667.html#msg2319667.
Not only does the above show malice aforethought, it also shows that Harry was not in fear of imminent bodily harm from Cassius.
I'm pretty sure breaking into the Field Museum is a felony, so he would have committed felony murder as well. (Illinois has amended the common law definition of murder with statutes that rule out felony murder for Harry in this case. Illinois only recognizes felony murder when the felony is a "forcible felony." Breaking into the Field Museum is not a forcible felony. Harry would still be guilty of first degree murder under Illinois law anyway).
You would be a "bad" juror because you would have to ignore the law and jury instructions to reach a not guilty verdict. (Or you would be a "good" juror because you exercised "jury nullification." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification). In my experience, juries follow their jury instructions (simple statements of the law applied to the facts of the case). If you agree that Harry is subject to the law of Illinois and that the paragraph I quoted happened, then Harry is a murderer. Same with Slate. Maybe even if he was in Faerie at the time. It depends on whether or not a supernatural nation counts as a nation under federal law.
I think the question that determines if Harry is a murderer is whether or not he is subject to mortal law when acting on behalf of a supernatural nation.
morriswalters:
Extrajudicial killing might be more descriptive. Harry is essentially taking the law into his own hands. Which, since Jim wants him to be a hero, means he will never screw up and kill an innocent.
Bad Alias:
Extrajudicial killing basically means murder by the government (at least to me). I wouldn't apply it to any lawful killing. I'm also pretty sure the law in your link wouldn't apply to Harry in Chicago. Before it could, I'm pretty sure the White Council would have to be recognized as a foreign nation, and I'm not sure the law would apply even then.
Innocent or guilty doesn't matter to a legal analysis of whether or not Harry is a murderer. Most people murdered are not "innocent" under most conceptions of the term. Sometimes people use it to mean "not deserving of death." I find that a useless concept in acts of violence committed "on the street" or "in the field" because "deserve" usually has nothing to do with it.
And if one wants to argue that Harry isn't morally a murderer, I'd need an explanation of what that even means.
morriswalters:
Crappy link. It should have pointed to the definition at the top of the article. Corrected.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version