Malvo sniper - laughs about killings.

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
OK dont get me started....

................................................................
Many of the reports have portrayed Malvo, 18, as claiming credit for several of the shootings and laughing about them.

Boyle testified that Malvo was amused that a shot whizzed close to one target?s head and was laughing as he described the shot that killed Linda Franklin, an analyst for the FBI, outside a hardware store Oct. 14. Malvo is charged with capital murder in Franklin?s death.

?I asked where he shot her,? Boyle testified. ?He laughed and pointed at his head.?

Malvo also chortled about a shot that missed its mark, a boy, saying it was so close that ?it might have even parted his hair,? Boyle said. And he laughed about the shooting of a man who was mowing grass because, afterward, ?the lawn mower just kept going down the street.?

...............................................

Does anyone else smell fried green tomatoes ?

I can just hear loophole coming in here and saying ....yeh but you cannot prove that he did it. He could be innocent you know.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

In the Peterson case discussion you made a legal error.
You stated :

* in order to prosecute for murder, it will be necessary to show that the woman died at the hand of another........../loopholes

This is not correct loophole. Its not required. Look it up.

You messed that one up somehow with your legal jargon.


King of Dogs
 
Last edited:

loophole

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 14, 1999
4,413
149
63
nc
scott, i challenge you to post up a credible legal reference that contradicts what i said.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
loophole said:
scott, i challenge you to post up a credible legal reference that contradicts what i said.

you said it. You put up your legal reference counselor.

It is not correct in the state of california.


King of Dogs
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
I hate when I have to work at things. Lets start with this.
........................................

PROBABLE CAUSE

Ultimately, police merely need ''probable cause'' to arrest a suspect for committing a murder.

In layman's terms, that means they have evidence that shows their suspect probably committed the crime.

Prosecutors, who take over the case after an arrest, must meet a much higher standard of proof before they can proceed.

The American Bar Association requires prosecutors to believe they can convince a jury ''beyond a reasonable doubt'' that the defendant committed the murder.

If they lack such certainty, prosecutors are ethically prohibited from pursuing the case.

.............................................

He is in jail and charged with murder so how can you even support your mis-statement as fact ?


King of Dogs
 

loophole

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 14, 1999
4,413
149
63
nc
how's this?



CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199




187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.



188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.



189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any
item defined in Section 11417.
To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.



189.5. (a) Upon a trial for murder, the commission of the homicide
by the defendant being proved, the burden of proving circumstances of
mitigation, or that justify or excuse it, devolves upon the
defendant, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution tends to
show that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that
the defendant was justifiable or excusable.
(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to or affect any
proceeding under Section 190.3 or 190.4.




190. (a) Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be
punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without
the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a
term of 25 years to life. The penalty to be applied shall be
determined as provided in Sections 190.1, 190.2, 190.3, 190.4, and
190.5.
Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), every person
guilty of murder in the second degree shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), every person guilty of
murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison for a term of 25 years to life if the victim was a peace
officer, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 830.1, subdivision
(a), (b), or (c) of Section 830.2, subdivision (a) of Section
830.33, or Section 830.5, who was killed while engaged in the
performance of his or her duties, and the defendant knew, or
reasonably should have known, that the victim was a peace officer
engaged in the performance of his or her duties.
(c) Every person guilty of murder in the second degree shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of life
without the possibility of parole if the victim was a peace officer,
as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 830.1, subdivision (a), (b),
or (c) of Section 830.2, subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, or
Section 830.5, who was killed while engaged in the performance of his
or her duties, and the defendant knew, or reasonably should have
known, that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, and any of the following facts has been
charged and found true:
(1) The defendant specifically intended to kill the peace officer.

(2) The defendant specifically intended to inflict great bodily
injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, on a peace officer.
(3) The defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon in
the commission of the offense, in violation of subdivision (b) of
Section 12022.
(4) The defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of
the offense, in violation of Section 12022.5.
(d) Every person guilty of murder in the second degree shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 20 years
to life if the killing was perpetrated by means of shooting a firearm
from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the
vehicle with the intent to inflict great bodily injury.
(e) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of
Title 1 of Part 3 shall not apply to reduce any minimum term of a
sentence imposed pursuant to this section. A person sentenced
pursuant to this section shall not be released on parole prior to
serving the minimum term of confinement prescribed by this section.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
what a bunch of gobbley gook loophole. Why put in all that stuff that is not pertinent to the issue at hand.

Don't try and confuse the issue so early in the legal debate.

Just admit your wrong. I won't fault you for it.

I must warn you that I have involved Eddie Haskell and Chief Justice Rehnquist as advisors. I told you that Haskell had some clout.

Your argument don't prove squat counselor. Try again and stick to the issue.

good luck


King of Dogs
 
Last edited:

loophole

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 14, 1999
4,413
149
63
nc
i'm sorry scott, i really didn't realize that you have no understanding whatsoever of the concept to which i refer, although i should have. if california's murder statute doesn't clear it up for you, let me start with crayons and construction paper.


the concept is that, in order to prove a murder, evidence must be introduced (usually in the form of testimony of the medical examiner or coroner) that the victim's death was proximatedly caused by the act of another. do you get it? it's the state's burden of proof to show that the person died as a result of chain of causation initiated by the defendant.


in laci peterson's case, do you know what the cause of death was? was she dead before she hit the water, or did she drown? if she drown, what evidence is there that the drowning was caused by another, and not accidental?

btw, i'm still waiting for the reference you said you looked up that proved i was wrong. by its continued absence i will assume that statement was just more of your ignorant b/s. your title of madjack's village idiot is still secure.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
loophole said:

the concept is that, in order to prove a murder, evidence must be introduced (usually in the form of testimony of the medical examiner or coroner) that the victim's death was proximatedly caused by the act of another. do you get it? it's the state's burden of proof to show that the person died as a result of chain of causation initiated by the defendant.


in laci peterson's case, do you know what the cause of death was? was she dead before she hit the water, or did she drown? if she drown, what evidence is there that the drowning was caused by another, and not accidental?


............................


I was not looking for concepts loophole.

I was looking for law that backs up your statement.

Once again you fail to provide any proof of your statement.

Your argument is without merit.

The police know how Laci died and they will prove it in a court of law.

Why do you stoop to name calling in a serious discussion ?

I would appreciate it if you would admit your wrong though.

Thanking you in advance.


King of Dogs
 
Last edited:

loophole

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 14, 1999
4,413
149
63
nc
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.


Thomas Paine (1737?1809), Anglo-American political theorist, writer. Common Sense (1778).
 

DR STRANGELOVE

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 13, 2003
27,355
51
0
Toronto, Canada
loophole said:
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.


Thomas Paine (1737?1809), Anglo-American political theorist, writer. Common Sense (1778).

one of the best all time quotes
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
TORONTO-VIGILANTE said:


as an elementary and former high school teacher, i must take offense to that statement.....;)
.........................................................


he sure did TORONTO.

And loopholes called me a idiot and I was just trying to get a admission of wrongness out of him.


:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

King of Dogs
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
loophole said:
and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt,

Thomas Paine (1737?1809), Anglo-American political theorist, writer. Common Sense (1778).

.............................................


if you are putting Malvo and Scott Peterson in the realm of humanity I must admit that I hold them both in contempt.

I have a problem with killers of people out mowing their lawn and Malvo laughs and thinks its funny when the mower continues on its own. He laughs again when he misses a childs head by inchs with a bullet. And again when he killed the agent at Home Depot.
Yeh get a lawyer Mr Malvo. Your going to need it. Oh you want to defend yourself Mr Malvo and act as your own attorney ?

OK let me get this on tape and you can tell us all about it. Did I mention to you that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law?

I have a problem with the Thomas Paine quote and with you referring to me as a villiage idiot. Where does this hostility come from towards me ? I have never done anything but defended myself to you. Maybe a anger management course would be a nice reprieve for you.

There are alot of people in this world that just don't get it.
I just can't figure out why you keep showing up on their side all the time .

Hope that helps.


KinG OF DoGs
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
loopholes

Here is a quote that I think you will relate to.

....................................................................
Once we realize that imperfect understanding is the human condition there is no shame in being wrong, only in failing to correct our mistakes./......George Soros


King of Dogs
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top