January 6 (Page 6/15)
ray b JAN 15, 11:10 PM
https://www.repository.law....cle=1585&context=ilj


that one sites the # but the first link said '' federal law recognizes the felony murder rule''
I guess the links are seldom read to the end if opened at all ?

''Felony-murder offenses, of all
types, are not mere regulatory offenses. Federal courts do not need to go as
far back as common law to interpret these new "if death results" statutes.
Federal criminal law already defines felony murder in such a way that the
death and "malice aforethought" for the death are elements of the offense.
Thus, new extensions of the felony-murder rule statutes are not "new to
general law," but merely "adopt[] into federal statutory law a concept of
crime already so well defined"67 in federal statutory law''

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 01-15-2022).]

Fats JAN 16, 12:06 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

...




I know you don't care, or don't know how to care. But you realize that when you start name calling, it's because you have already lost the argument don't you?

You do it constantly, like it's some kind of "gotcha". But all we are seeing is a lot of childish whining.

Nicknames can be fun, but you just try to make everything you don't like sound vulgar in a 9 year old boy kind of way. (really, it's like reading a sixth graders blog.)

I'm not trying to be mean man, but I'm starting to find it offensive.
randye JAN 16, 02:29 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

https://www.repository.law....cle=1585&context=ilj


that one sites the # but the first link said '' federal law recognizes the felony murder rule''
I guess the links are seldom read to the end if opened at all ?





It's obvious now that you don't have clue what you're babbling about.

You're just blindly searching random articles and pasting them without you having any idea whatsoever what they are actually discussing.

In this case you pasted an almost 30 year old paper written by a law school student that doesn't discuss anything even close to the "felony murder rule" as codified by individual state statutes and what you keep squawking about.

At this point you are just beclowning yourself more and more.

Since I'm a generous guy though, lets make this simple for you.

All you have to do is provide the exact federal statute that lays out a "felony murder rule" as you have described it.

Out of my generosity, I'll also help get you started on your doomed Quixotic quest by providing you with an easy place to start relentlessly and frantically searching:

https://www.law.cornell.edu...18/part-I/chapter-51


I'll wait.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-16-2022).]

randye JAN 16, 02:33 AM
..

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-16-2022).]

rinselberg JAN 16, 03:53 AM
...
williegoat JAN 16, 08:26 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:

..




quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

...



It .. ... what it .. ...!
LitebulbwithaFiero JAN 16, 10:17 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

https://www.repository.law....cle=1585&context=ilj


that one sites the # but the first link said '' federal law recognizes the felony murder rule''
I guess the links are seldom read to the end if opened at all ?

''Felony-murder offenses, of all
types, are not mere regulatory offenses. Federal courts do not need to go as
far back as common law to interpret these new "if death results" statutes.
Federal criminal law already defines felony murder in such a way that the
death and "malice aforethought" for the death are elements of the offense.
Thus, new extensions of the felony-murder rule statutes are not "new to
general law," but merely "adopt[] into federal statutory law a concept of
crime already so well defined"67 in federal statutory law''





So are you arguing all the Capitol Police officers present should be charged for her death and not just the one shot her?
ray b JAN 16, 11:12 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


It's obvious now that you don't have clue what you're babbling about.

You're just blindly searching random articles and pasting them without you having any idea whatsoever what they are actually discussing.

In this case you pasted an almost 30 year old paper written by a law school student that doesn't discuss anything even close to the "felony murder rule" as codified by individual state statutes and what you keep squawking about.

At this point you are just beclowning yourself more and more.

Since I'm a generous guy though, lets make this simple for you.

All you have to do is provide the exact federal statute that lays out a "felony murder rule" as you have described it.

Out of my generosity, I'll also help get you started on your doomed Quixotic quest by providing you with an easy place to start relentlessly and frantically searching:

https://www.law.cornell.edu...18/part-I/chapter-51


I'll wait.




in your link
in the basic murder law
quote '' or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.''

so if a burglary results in a death even the perpetrator's their crime makes all the involved guilty of first degree murder

again do you ever read the links or just post BS over and over

next want to question the burglary laws ?

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Lambo nut JAN 16, 11:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by Fats:


I know you don't care, or don't know how to care. But you realize that when you start name calling, it's because you have already lost the argument don't you?

You do it constantly, like it's some kind of "gotcha". But all we are seeing is a lot of childish whining.

Nicknames can be fun, but you just try to make everything you don't like sound vulgar in a 9 year old boy kind of way. (really, it's like reading a sixth graders blog.)

I'm not trying to be mean man, but I'm starting to find it offensive.




I find the forum so much easier to read and that it makes much more sense if you just flat pass over any post made by a rinse or a ray b which I literally do. Could not tell you what either one has said in the last two years plus. I just skip them.
ray b JAN 16, 11:29 AM
fats

I react to untruth when people claim like some do repeatedly that the 1-6-21 was tourists looking around
and not a revolt/putsch/rebellion and not a direct threat to our system of government

yes I get upset and react

sorry if you see that as something you do not like
one way to avoid that happening is try to verify before posting things that just ain't true
support you claim with links hopefully not to nut sites but actual facts and data

and try to be a little bit less of a blind follower of the current talking point by at least check if it is true
before posting it here

but if you try to claim a thing did not happen that I saw happen
we will have a problem