The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - I feel bad for this couple, however

Parents Say Drunk Hit & Run Killed Their Unborn Baby

Posted: Jul 18, 2012 7:34 PM EDT
Updated: Jul 18, 2012 8:38 PM EDT

Mary Jean Frances

LAFAYETTE, Tenn- A woman, more than 8 months pregnant said she lost her unborn baby because of a drunk driver who sped off after rear-ending her. It happened at a Macon County pharmacy drive through.

That was last Wednesday. On Sunday, Beverly Brown had to bury the baby she's been waiting to meet. She delivered him as a still birth last week just hours after being rear-ended by a woman who police so was extremely intoxicated, and investigators say it wasn't her first time drunk behind the wheel.

"I am still waiting to wake up from my dream from my nightmare it's what it is...she took one of my babies" said Beverly Brown.

Brown said her world changed when 34-year-old Mary Jean Frances got behind the wheel intoxicated, without a license, and headed towards the Fred's pharmacy drive thru in Lafayette. pharmacy drive through.

First police said Frances drove into a pole. She never stopped, and continued into the back of Brown's jeep, which was sitting in park. About 15 minutes later Brown felt her baby kick but she never thought it would be the last time.

"They said they could hear a faint heart beat but it was mine," she recalled after she was rushed to the hospital Wednesday night.

24 hours later Brown held her son for the first time without hearing him cry or looking into his eyes. He was born as a stillbirth.

"I just told him how much I loved him, and how sorry I was that this happened to him," she said.

But Jacob's father, Ryan Jones, said the only person who should be sorry is Frances.

The accident marks her third DUI charge and sixth time driving without a revoked license.
"I think she should very much be accountable for it," said Jones.

"We are treating this as a vehicle homicide, but we don't want to make any speculations until we get the preliminary results back," said Chief Ray Amalfitano.

Lafayette police are waiting for the autopsy report before they proceed with any vehicular homicide charges.

In the meantime, Brown is cherishing the months of memories she had before the crash.

"He would puts foot right above my belly button and press up and I would tickle his foot and he would start kicking me and stuff," she recalled.

And the mere moments she shared with Jacob after it.

"I just wanted to hear him cry," she said.

Only the final autopsy report will determine if Jacob's death was because of the accident or because of some unknown health problem. But just 6 days before this happened, the parents went to a doctor's appointment and their doctor said the baby looked perfectly healthy and that even if he was born early, he'd survive. Frances is behind bars in Smith county for a probation violation. The autopsy report should be ready in a few weeks.

Its a matter of intent. They intended to have the child, therefore, vehicular homicide.

I don't have a problem with that.

Dr. Pendergraft was instrumental in finding latetermabortion.net LLC so patients could help to end advanced late term pregnancies that are causing maternal life and health (physical or mental) complications or fetal indications for termination of pregnancies.

If intent of the parent makes the difference, why don't we extend that to born children? We don't allow parents to terminate them at will?

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter of the child is wanted or not. If late-term abortion is legal, then the termination of a pregnancy is not regarded as murder. Period.

The prospective parents are bereaved, and taking whatever actions they possibly can to see that the driver pays dearly for their loss. They are going overboard, trying to have the book thrown at the driver, but the bereaved do that. That's why we have judges to mediate these matters.

The judge, however, knows better. Or at least, the judge should, being a student of the law. The judge is fully aware that late-term abortion is legal, and that vehicular homicide is not the appropriate charge.

The judge is not the bereaved, the police, or the prosecution. The judge, acting in his or her official capacity, is empowered to weigh in based on what the law is. This is why judicial rulings set legal precedent for further cases. The intent here, by some party, is to set or reinforce a legal precedent that the termination of a pregnancy is murder, so as to outlaw abortion. Which is fine, outlawing abortion is a perfectly noble goal for someone to have, and that's a separate issue for a separate thread. As Rorinthas has pointed out, that simply is not what Tennessee law states. A vehicular homicide charge is inconsistent with the legal status of late-term abortions.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

Wouldn't this apply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Quote:

b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

`(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1),
and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.

`(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).

`(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).

Maybe it would depend on the definition of Federal Crime? I mean, if it's any violent felony, I could definitely see murder falling into one of the 60 slots.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter of the child is wanted or not. If late-term abortion is legal, then the termination of a pregnancy is not regarded as murder. Period.

[...]

The judge, however, knows better. Or at least, the judge should, being a student of the law. The judge is fully aware that late-term abortion is legal, and that vehicular homicide is not the appropriate charge.

39-15-201. Criminal abortion and attempt to procure criminal miscarriage -- Penalties -- Lawful abortions and attempts to procure miscarriage -- Requirements.
[...]
(b) (1) Every person who performs an abortion commits the crime of criminal abortion, unless such abortion is performed in compliance with the requirements of subsection (c). Criminal abortion is a Class C felony.
[definitions ...]
(c) No person is guilty of a criminal abortion or an attempt to procure criminal miscarriage when an abortion or an attempt to procure a miscarriage is performed under the following circumstances:
[early term abortion stuff here ...]
(3) During viability of the fetus, if the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is performed with the pregnant woman's consent and by the pregnant woman's attending physician, who is licensed or certified under title 63, chapter 6 or 9; and, if all the circumstances and provisions required for a lawful abortion or lawful attempt to procure a miscarriage during the period set out in subdivision (c)(2) are adhered to; and if, prior to the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage the physician has certified in writing to the hospital in which the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is to be performed, that in the physician's best medical judgment, after proper examination, review of history, and such consultation as may be required by either the rules and regulations of the board for licensing health care facilities promulgated pursuant to � 68-11-209, or the administration of the hospital involved, or both, the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, and shall have filed a copy of the certificate with the district attorney general of the judicial district in which the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is to be performed.

Seems like murder and car accidents are not traditionally considered Federal Crimes though.

Maybe it would depend on the definition of Federal Crime? I mean, if it's any violent felony, I could definitely see murder falling into one of the 60 slots.

Hopwin wrote:

Seems like murder and car accidents are not traditionally considered Federal Crimes though.

Murder is a federal crime, but they are unlikely to take jurisdiction unless you murder an agent of the federal government or commit murder in a location with no state jurisdiction (ex. Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, a national park, Indian reservation, etc.)

The basic federal murder law is 18 USC 1111 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/ ... _1111.html). However, this section only applies in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/ ... ion_7.html), essentially federal property, federal waters, certain vessels and aircraft, and a few other situations.

As an addendum, someone with three DUIs is a menace to society and should be treated appropriately. However, when wielding the hammer, the court should be using the laws as they exist, not reinterpreting them to pile on additional punitive measures.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:	I feel bad for this couple, however
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/19059 ... nborn-baby Quote: Parents Say Drunk Hit & Run Killed Their Unborn Baby Posted: Jul 18, 2012 7:34 PM EDT Updated: Jul 18, 2012 8:38 PM EDT Mary Jean Frances LAFAYETTE, Tenn- A woman, more than 8 months pregnant said she lost her unborn baby because of a drunk driver who sped off after rear-ending her. It happened at a Macon County pharmacy drive through. That was last Wednesday. On Sunday, Beverly Brown had to bury the baby she's been waiting to meet. She delivered him as a still birth last week just hours after being rear-ended by a woman who police so was extremely intoxicated, and investigators say it wasn't her first time drunk behind the wheel. "I am still waiting to wake up from my dream from my nightmare it's what it is...she took one of my babies" said Beverly Brown. Brown said her world changed when 34-year-old Mary Jean Frances got behind the wheel intoxicated, without a license, and headed towards the Fred's pharmacy drive thru in Lafayette. pharmacy drive through. First police said Frances drove into a pole. She never stopped, and continued into the back of Brown's jeep, which was sitting in park. About 15 minutes later Brown felt her baby kick but she never thought it would be the last time. "They said they could hear a faint heart beat but it was mine," she recalled after she was rushed to the hospital Wednesday night. 24 hours later Brown held her son for the first time without hearing him cry or looking into his eyes. He was born as a stillbirth. "I just told him how much I loved him, and how sorry I was that this happened to him," she said. But Jacob's father, Ryan Jones, said the only person who should be sorry is Frances. The accident marks her third DUI charge and sixth time driving without a revoked license. "I think she should very much be accountable for it," said Jones. "We are treating this as a vehicle homicide, but we don't want to make any speculations until we get the preliminary results back," said Chief Ray Amalfitano. Lafayette police are waiting for the autopsy report before they proceed with any vehicular homicide charges. In the meantime, Brown is cherishing the months of memories she had before the crash. "He would puts foot right above my belly button and press up and I would tickle his foot and he would start kicking me and stuff," she recalled. And the mere moments she shared with Jacob after it. "I just wanted to hear him cry," she said. Only the final autopsy report will determine if Jacob's death was because of the accident or because of some unknown health problem. But just 6 days before this happened, the parents went to a doctor's appointment and their doctor said the baby looked perfectly healthy and that even if he was born early, he'd survive. Frances is behind bars in Smith county for a probation violation. The autopsy report should be ready in a few weeks. The legal hypocrisy bothers me, considering late term abortions are legal in TN. lets put aside the fact this woman should be put under the jail for continuing to drive drunk after her license should be put away. Either something is a life to be protected by the law or its not. Either she killed an innocent baby or she practiced medicine without a license and consent from the "patient". So merely consent is supposed to turn it from a horrible breach into an acceptable necessity? What if her lawyer tried to argue that vehicular homicide is the wrong charge on these grounds?

Author:	Corolinth [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:
The bereaved typically do not behave in a rational and logical manner. I don't know what the judge's excuse would be, should the charge stand.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:
well yeah. I emphasized the quote from the cop though, where they are handling it as a homicide. I didn't say, ask or even care if the couple are for late term abortion on demand or not.

Author:	Müs [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:46 am ]
Post subject:
Its a matter of intent. They intended to have the child, therefore, vehicular homicide. I don't have a problem with that.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:33 am ]
Post subject:	I feel bad for this couple, however
If intent of the parent makes the difference, why don't we extend that to born children? We don't allow parents to terminate them at will?

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

I feel bad for this couple, however https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8857	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Müs [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:44 am ]
Post subject:
Didn't say it wasn't arbitrary. I'd be ok with abortions up to oh... the 20th or 30th trimester

Author:	Rorinthas [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:47 am ]
Post subject:	I feel bad for this couple, however
At least you're consistent then. However supreme parental authority isn't the legal ground for abortion.

Author:	LadyKate [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Müs wrote: Its a matter of intent. They intended to have the child, therefore, vehicular homicide. I don't have a problem with that. http://nashville.backpage.com/GeneralCommunity/late-termthird-trimester-abortion-clinic-nashville-tennessee-tennessee-late-term-abortion-clinic/4639149 Quote: Dr. Pendergraft was instrumental in finding latetermabortion.net LLC so patients could help to end advanced late term pregnancies that are causing maternal life and health (physical or mental) complications or fetal indications for termination of pregnancies. It looks like this would support the idea that the legal basis for declaring it vehiclular homicide is indeed because the baby was wanted...it would appear that late-term abortions are an option in TN if there are medical/psychological reasons.... Rorinthas wrote: If intent of the parent makes the difference, why don't we extend that to born children? We don't allow parents to terminate them at will? Because there are other options for already born children to immediately eliminate "maternal life and health complications"...a living child outside the womb can be dropped off at the hospital within minutes or placed in emergency foster care within a couple of hours.

Author:	LadyKate [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:35 am ]
Post subject:
Also, I would withold final judgement on the stillbirth based on the results of the autopsy. A baby's heart can stop beating at any time during pregnancy, for any reason....the timing seems like it would be a cut and dry case, but it's still possible that it was a coincidence. If the autopsy cannot reveal a definitive link between the crash and the stillbirth (i.e. noticeable trauma to the infant like bleeding on the brain, crushed bones/organs, blood clot, etc) then I don't think I would charge for vehicular manslaughter.

Author:	Corolinth [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:54 am ]
Post subject:
From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter of the child is wanted or not. If late-term abortion is legal, then the termination of a pregnancy is not regarded as murder. Period. The prospective parents are bereaved, and taking whatever actions they possibly can to see that the driver pays dearly for their loss. They are going overboard, trying to have the book thrown at the driver, but the bereaved do that. That's why we have judges to mediate these matters. The judge, however, knows better. Or at least, the judge should, being a student of the law. The judge is fully aware that late-term abortion is legal, and that vehicular homicide is not the appropriate charge. The judge is not the bereaved, the police, or the prosecution. The judge, acting in his or her official capacity, is empowered to weigh in based on what the law is. This is why judicial rulings set legal precedent for further cases. The intent here, by some party, is to set or reinforce a legal precedent that the termination of a pregnancy is murder, so as to outlaw abortion. Which is fine, outlawing abortion is a perfectly noble goal for someone to have, and that's a separate issue for a separate thread. As Rorinthas has pointed out, that simply is not what Tennessee law states. A vehicular homicide charge is inconsistent with the legal status of late-term abortions.

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Corolinth wrote: From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter of the child is wanted or not. If late-term abortion is legal, then the termination of a pregnancy is not regarded as murder. Period. The prospective parents are bereaved, and taking whatever actions they possibly can to see that the driver pays dearly for their loss. They are going overboard, trying to have the book thrown at the driver, but the bereaved do that. That's why we have judges to mediate these matters. The judge, however, knows better. Or at least, the judge should, being a student of the law. The judge is fully aware that late-term abortion is legal, and that vehicular homicide is not the appropriate charge. The judge is not the bereaved, the police, or the prosecution. The judge, acting in his or her official capacity, is empowered to weigh in based on what the law is. This is why judicial rulings set legal precedent for further cases. The intent here, by some party, is to set or reinforce a legal precedent that the termination of a pregnancy is murder, so as to outlaw abortion. Which is fine, outlawing abortion is a perfectly noble goal for someone to have, and that's a separate issue for a separate thread. As Rorinthas has pointed out, that simply is not what Tennessee law states. A vehicular homicide charge is inconsistent with the legal status of late-term abortions. As has been happening from time to time, what if a crazy person stabs an 8 month pregnant woman in an attempt to steal her unborn child and the mother survives but the child dies. Is the only crime committed assault?

Author:	LadyKate [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: I feel bad for this couple, however
Wouldn't this apply? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act Quote: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: I feel bad for this couple, however
LadyKate wrote: Wouldn't this apply? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act Quote: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). Good question, I don't know what crimes are listed under Quote: b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following: `(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title. `(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)). `(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283). Seems like murder and car accidents are not traditionally considered Federal Crimes though.

Author:	LadyKate [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:39 am ]
Post subject:
Maybe it would depend on the definition of Federal Crime? I mean, if it's any violent felony, I could definitely see murder falling into one of the 60 slots.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Absolutely correct that a pre existing condition does not mitigate guilt, Ara. It's referred to as the "eggshell skull rule", or "you take your victim as you find him rule".

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:55 am ]
Post subject:
Interesting case. If the child had an underlying heart problem, and the accident caused heart failure, where are we then? If I punch a guy in the chest and he dies because of an underlying medical reason, I'm still guilty of manslaughter am I not?

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
LadyKate wrote: Maybe it would depend on the definition of Federal Crime? I mean, if it's any violent felony, I could definitely see murder falling into one of the 60 slots. Typically for it to be a Federal crime it would have to cross state lines or be a violation of Federal law (like drugs). Murder is a state offense (unless it involves crossing state lines or drugs, etc). It gets blurry in other words

Author:	Corolinth [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:
As an addendum, someone with three DUIs is a menace to society and should be treated appropriately. However, when wielding the hammer, the court should be using the laws as they exist, not reinterpreting them to pile on additional punitive measures.

Author:	Stathol [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Corolinth wrote: From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter of the child is wanted or not. If late-term abortion is legal, then the termination of a pregnancy is not regarded as murder. Period. [...] The judge, however, knows better. Or at least, the judge should, being a student of the law. The judge is fully aware that late-term abortion is legal, and that vehicular homicide is not the appropriate charge. It is inaccurate (or at least incomplete) to say that Tennessee allows late term abortion. It does, but only under those narrow circumstances required of other state by federal judicial review: Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-201 wrote: 39-15-201. Criminal abortion and attempt to procure criminal miscarriage -- Penalties -- Lawful abortions and attempts to procure miscarriage -- Requirements. [...] (b) (1) Every person who performs an abortion commits the crime of criminal abortion, unless such abortion is performed in compliance with the requirements of subsection (c). Criminal abortion is a Class C felony. [definitions ...] (c) No person is guilty of a criminal abortion or an attempt to procure criminal miscarriage when an abortion or an attempt to procure a miscarriage is performed under the following circumstances: [early term abortion stuff here ...] (3) During viability of the fetus, if the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is performed with the pregnant woman's consent and by the pregnant woman's attending physician, who is licensed or certified under title 63, chapter 6 or 9; and, if all the circumstances and provisions required for a lawful abortion or lawful attempt to procure a miscarriage during the period set out in subdivision (c)(2) are adhered to; and if, prior to the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage the physician has certified in writing to the hospital in which the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is to be performed, that in the physician's best medical judgment, after proper examination, review of history, and such consultation as may be required by either the rules and regulations of the board for licensing health care facilities promulgated pursuant to � 68-11-209, or the administration of the hospital involved, or both, the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, and shall have filed a copy of the certificate with the district attorney general of the judicial district in which the abortion or attempt to procure a miscarriage is to be performed. That's the only allowance for late term abortion. Since none of these provisions had been fulfilled under the circumstances, we can say pretty confidently that it would not have been legal for her obtain an abortion in Tennessee at this stage in the pregnancy, even if she consented to it. It's not unreasonable for them to pursue vehicular manslaughter charges under the existing legal framework. The Roe v. Wade judgement didn't precisely affirm a fetal right to life, but it did affirm both a right to privacy and a compelling state interest in protecting "the potentiality of human life". It established a trimester approach to resolve the boundary. Planned Parenthood v. Casey only replaced the trimester approach of Roe v. Wade, but didn't fundamentally alter the reasoning of the prior judgement. As it currently stands, the court holds that there is a compelling state interest in protecting a viable fetus as long as such measures don't endanger the life of the mother.

Author:	Stathol [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Hopwin wrote: Seems like murder and car accidents are not traditionally considered Federal Crimes though. Murder is a federal crime, but they are unlikely to take jurisdiction unless you murder an agent of the federal government or commit murder in a location with no state jurisdiction (ex. Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, a national park, Indian reservation, etc.) Edit: some Indian reservations. Many are now bound to State criminal law even though they aren't under the jurisdiction of any other state laws. It's confusing. LadyKate wrote: Maybe it would depend on the definition of Federal Crime? I mean, if it's any violent felony, I could definitely see murder falling into one of the 60 slots. I'm sure murder is one of them, but you can't "boot strap" this law with itself. The death of the fetus can only be considered murder if it occurred during the commission of some other crime which is already among those 60 violent felonies. In other words, if she had murdered the mother, this law would most likely apply (and she could be charged with 2 counts of murder instead of 1). As is, it might still apply if vehicular assault is among the qualifying crimes. I'd be a little surprised if it is, since both vehicular assault and manslaughter charges usually bear the distinction that the act were either unintentional or accidental and without malice. I suspect the purpose of this law is to penalize intentional violent acts only, but I can't say for sure without digging through all of those citations (no thanks). In any case, for this law to apply, both charges (the qualifying violent felony and the murder charges) would have to be brought by the federal government, and they most likely have no jurisdiction in this case to begin with.

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Stathol wrote: Hopwin wrote: Seems like murder and car accidents are not traditionally considered Federal Crimes though. Murder is a federal crime, but they are unlikely to take jurisdiction unless you murder an agent of the federal government or commit murder in a location with no state jurisdiction (ex. Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, a national park, Indian reservation, etc.) No: Quote: The basic federal murder law is 18 USC 1111 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/ ... _1111.html). However, this section only applies in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/ ... ion_7.html), essentially federal property, federal waters, certain vessels and aircraft, and a few other situations.

Author:	Stathol [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: I feel bad for this couple, however
Like your source says, 18 USC 1111 is just the "basic" catch-all federal murder provision. There are a lot of other ways that the federal government can take jurisdiction over a murder case that doesn't involve locality. Constitutionally, all that's needed is to justify the special jurisdiction by a particular power or duty of the federal government. For instance, the interstate commerce clause is used to justify a provision of 18 USC 844, in which you can face federal murder charges if you purchase explosives across state lines and then used them to kill someone. There are all sorts of other federal murder provisions outside of 18 USC 1111. This is what's known as "special jurisdiction". In other words, locality is irrelevant. Many of them aren't in Chapter 51, and some are not even part of Title 18: Murdering a federal employee in the course of their duties (18 USC 1114), murdering a foreign diplomat/person protected by federal treaty (18 USC 1116), murdering a federal prisoner (18 USC 1118), murdering a judge, juror, witness, informant, or plaintiff (18 USC 1503, 1512, 1513), murder as a hate crime (18 USC 241, 242, 245, 247), murder as part of a carjacking (18 USC 2119 -- also justified by interstate commerce clause), murder related to drug trafficking (18 USC 924), murder related to an "ongoing criminal enterprise" (21 USC 848), and on and on. By the way, these are just the federal murder charges that can result in the death penalty. There may well be others that only qualify as murder 2. For example, this case. The murder occurred on non-federal property, and the victim was not a federal employee. He still wound up facing federal murder charges, probably by some combination of 18 USC 924 and 21 USC 848 (murder relating to drug trafficking or criminal enterprise). So like I said, if you murder someone outside of federal property/territory, it's unlikely that federal law enforcement would take jurisdiction, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't. Likely none of the special jurisdictions apply to this case, but that was my whole point. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 can only be invoked if the defendant is being charged with certain federal crimes. The state can't invoke 18 USC 1841.

Author:	Hopwin [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:
No argument that the Federal government can't find a way to twist murder into a federal jurisdiction. But they have to prove to a judge that it does.

Author:	darksiege [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Corolinth wrote: As an addendum, someone with three DUIs is a menace to society and should be treated appropriately. However, when wielding the hammer, the court should be using the laws as they exist, not reinterpreting them to pile on additional punitive measures. You know... when someone continually gets in trouble for DUIs and DWIs... I am perfectly okay with swinging a hammer at them. Preferrably in a fashion which will prevent all driving for that person on a permanent basis. Otherwise I pretty much agree with what Coro said word for word in the quoted post.