The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Bad Alias:
I looked at the first and second sentences. When it said citation needed, I thought boy howdy, only with profanity.
Mira:
--- Quote ---Cassius was not in the process of doing anything. He had been defeated. Mouse had him under control.
--- End quote ---
Harry wasn't in the best of shape, I believe he passed out moments later.. One could argue his state of mind wasn't the best... And absolutely, Mouse and Butters should both be convicted as well.. So if Butters and Mouse hadn't come on the scene, you would of called Cassius actions self defense? It was premeditated on Harry's part?
Um, it was was Cassius with the help of Grevane who ambushed and got Harry down in the first place so Cassius could slowly take him apart in hopes of gaining a coin, thinking he had the coin of Lasciel on him, his intent was to kill Harry slowly if he didn't get one... So perhaps that makes me a bad juror, not convicting Harry according to you is how the law reads. But on this evidence? Convicting would be bad justice...
Bad Alias:
Cassius was no longer trying to kill Harry because he couldn't. Harry then decided to kill Cassius. Then Harry killed Cassius. Whether or not that's premeditation doesn't really matter. It is intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Harry meant for Cassius to die. That meets the "malice aforethought" standard.
He passed out after being hit by a death curse. If he hadn't killed Cassius, he wouldn't have been hit by the death curse. Harry's state of mind probably wasn't the best, but that's not a justification; it's a mitigation. Under Illinois law, it might be enough to bump it down to second degree murder, but I don't think so. Butters should not be convicted because he acted in defense of others because Harry was in danger of grievous bodily harm or death when Butters acted. When Harry acted, he wasn't in danger of imminent grievous bodily injury or death.
Premeditated murder isn't always punished severely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche. My point isn't that Harry is a bad person or even wrong for killing Cassius. My point is that Harry has harmed people to the extent that he committed murder under mortal law.
kbrizzle:
I find it hard to believe that any jury would convict someone of even 2nd degree murder in the Cassius situation...
Let’s go through the events here - the ‘victim’ (Cassius) had just spent the last few minutes cutting the ‘murderer’s’ chest open & was just about to kill him when he was interrupted by a 3rd party (Butters). The victim then breaks the 3rd party’s nose & tries to kill him with the same knife. The murderer’s dog is able to intervene & kill the ‘victim’ while protecting its master.
There is no way to prove that Cassius wouldn’t have been able to get back to up & finish what he’d started - perhaps he would’ve been able to get the drop on Mouse (unlikely) or perhaps he would re-attempt this at a later date, given that’s exactly what Cassius was doing here (after the events of DM).
We only know that Harry gave the order to Mouse to kill Cassius because he expressly tells us so, why would he do this in a hypothetical court of law where he is being ‘accused’ of murder? Before Mouse managed to get his mouth around Cassius’ throat, Cassius was winning the fights against both Harry & Butters... Cassius was in better shape than either of them at that point & was planning on killing both if not for Mouse, who as a dog would be legally & morally venerated for protecting its owner, even if such an attack was fatal to the ‘victim’...
All of Harry’s ‘murders’ would probably count as justifiable homicides (especially if he could get a Sidhe lawyer) - including that of Corpsetaker in DB. Like Harry tells Sarissa in CD, the only 2 people he’s killed in cold blood were Susan & Lloyd Slate. Given that Susan’s body likely vanished after the Ramps were exterminated as a species, I doubt any mortal authority would be able to prove anything there (no body, almost impossible to prove the crime) & Lloyd Slate was murdered in the NN - well out of any mortal police’s jurisdiction & in full compliance/ being forced to do it by the ruler of that nation (Mab).
So I really don’t agree with the assessments of Harry being a ‘murderer’ according to American law. The legal definition of murder is just that, a legal definition - extenuating circumstances are always considered in such cases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM ---Let’s go through the events here - the ‘victim’ (Cassius) had just spent the last few minutes cutting the ‘murderer’s’ chest open & was just about to kill him when he was interrupted by a 3rd party (Butters). The victim then breaks the 3rd party’s nose & tries to kill him with the same knife. The murderer’s dog is able to intervene & kill the ‘victim’ while protecting its master.
--- End quote ---
As you admit, that's not what happened. If Mouse had immediately killed Cassius when Mouse got his jaws on Cassius's neck, that would be different because 1) Harry was not involved, 2) it was done to stop an imminent threat, and 3) there was no deliberation.
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM ---[1.] There is no way to prove that Cassius wouldn’t have been able to get back to up & finish what he’d started - perhaps he would’ve been able to get the drop on Mouse (unlikely) or [2.] perhaps he would re-attempt this at a later date, given that’s exactly what Cassius was doing here (after the events of DM).
--- End quote ---
1. That's not the standard. Self defense requires not that the prosecutor prove there was no imminent threat, but for Harry to prove that there was one. I disagree with this ancient burden because "unlawful" is an element, so I believe the state has the burden of proving it, but judges for hundreds of years disagree. 2. Self defense requires there to be an imminent threat. Once the immediacy of the threat stops, the legal defense of self defense ceases to apply. Re-attempting at a later date is insufficient.
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM ---We only know that Harry gave the order to Mouse to kill Cassius because he expressly tells us so, why would he do this in a hypothetical court of law where he is being ‘accused’ of murder?
--- End quote ---
We don't need a jury to determine the facts so that we can conduct a legal analysis because we have the facts. The jury's only job is to determine the disputed facts of a case. Cf. jury nullification, sentencing. I've previously stated Harry could lie his way out of this one if he was charged.
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM ---[1.] All of Harry’s ‘murders’ would probably count as justifiable homicides ([2.] especially if he could get a Sidhe lawyer) - [3.] including that of Corpsetaker in DB. [4.] Like Harry tells Sarissa in CD, the only 2 people he’s killed in cold blood were Susan & Lloyd Slate. [5.] Given that Susan’s body likely vanished after the Ramps were exterminated as a species, I doubt any mortal authority would be able to prove anything there (no body, almost impossible to prove the crime) & [6.] Lloyd Slate was murdered in the NN - well out of any mortal police’s jurisdiction & in full compliance/ being forced to do it by the ruler of that nation (Mab).
--- End quote ---
1. If they are justifiable homicides, then they aren't murders. 2. If he gets away with murder, it doesn't mean he didn't commit murder. 3. I'd say that's self-defense/defense of others, but it would depend on the judge. 4. In Proven Guilty, Harry states "I murdered them. I've never killed, man...not like that. Cold." 5. Lea buries Susan's body, and it's arguable whether or not she is a human being at the time. Also, I don't know anything about homicide in civil law countries, much less Mexico specifically. 6. As I've previously stated, that depends entirely upon the U.S. governments determination of whether or not Winter is a "nation." The U.S. has extra-territorial jurisdiction.
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM ---[1.] So I really don’t agree with the assessments of Harry being a ‘murderer’ according to American law. [2.] The legal definition of murder is just that, a legal definition - extenuating circumstances are always considered in such cases.
--- End quote ---
1. His actions meet all the elements of the crime and don't meet any defense, so Harry is a murderer according to American law. 2. When we're talking about whether or not a crime occurred, it's the legal definitions that matter. When we're talking about whether or not to charge someone, pardon them, or sentencing, extenuating circumstances are sometimes considered.
People have been convicted on much less than what we have on Harry. That is, in clearer cases of self defense. In Texas, a father was brought before a grand jury when he killed a man he found raping his daughter. (Paywall) https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-killing-of-man-molesting-his-daughter-5.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=274F1345C58C43E4518B5C9748AEE0AA&gwt=pay (paywall). I have no idea why he was brought before a grand jury, but sometimes prosecutors are really just out to get someone.
I wouldn't be surprised if more people are wrongly convicted of murder because a court didn't find self defense/defense of others when it should have than when the authorities just convicted the "wrong guy."
--- Quote from: kbrizzle on June 12, 2019, 07:44:10 PM ---https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
--- End quote ---
That article's description of self defense is wrong. It's grossly under inclusive. The self defense page is better. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States). It's "Retreat" section is technically wrong on a few counts. The majority of U.S. jurisdictions had adopted the majority rule of no duty to retreat well before "Stand Your Ground" laws ever showed up. The first adoption of the majority rule was by a court in New York, and not a legislature. I think it was in the Colonial period, but don't recall. It was definitely before anyone you've ever known was born.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version