Whats the dif between 3rd degree and 1st degree Aggravated Assault?
Posted June 27 2007 - 09:26 AM
Anyhow, boss wakes up hearing his kid screaming at someone outfront. Goes out to see his son going aggro on the back of one of the guys legs with a Luisville Slugger, jumps the other and takes him down, in the struggle kid (18) pulls a switchblade and cut him pretty good a few times on the arm, but eventually the bat won out.
We see in the paper they're charged with 3rd degree burglary and 3rd degree aggravated assault. What gives??
Boss wont talk, but I think he had is own little version of Abu Grahab going in the driveway until the cops showed. I asked him what someones nuts scrunching under your shoe sound like and he just smiled
Posted June 27 2007 - 09:45 AM
First degree criminal assault is charged when great bodily harm is inflicted or if the assault with deadly force is committed against a peace officer.
Second Degree Assault
Second degree assault is charged if a dangerous weapon is used as part of the offense. If a persons uses a dangerous weapon AND inflicts substantial bodily harm the potential penalties are increased.
Third Degree Assault
Third degree assault is charged when a person assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm or assaults a minor. Moreover, it is also a felony for anyone to assault a child under the age of four years old.
In some states, third degree still holds a felony charge, in others, it is considered a "gross" misdemeanor, but its still a misdemeanor.
Probably all they could prove or get a plea to.
I want to die from a good old fashioned case of living.
Posted June 27 2007 - 09:46 AM
Wishin' I was Fishin'
Posted June 27 2007 - 10:03 AM
Guess thats why my dad and grandfather always told me that if I shoot someone, make sure you kill them...
Posted June 27 2007 - 11:35 AM
For example: Let's say two guys get into a argument. One guy makes it physical by grabbing a knife and with full intent to injure, throws it at the other guy - and misses. He's charged accordingly.
Okay. Another two guys get into a argument. One guy makes it physical by grabbing a knife and with full intent to injure, throws it at the other guy and inflicts serious injury. Also charged.
Now for the part I don't get. Why is it that in the second example, the guy who threw the knife will very likely get charged with a more serious offense - because he intended to injure - and he did. The guy in the first example is likely charged with a lesser offense - even though his intent was to injure, but didn't.
Isn't this like rewarding the first guy because he can't throw straight and imposing a stronger penalty on one who can - even though in both cases the intent was to injure? Makes no sense.
Posted June 27 2007 - 12:32 PM
shoot folks down here!
Posted June 27 2007 - 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by Lunch Money Surf
Just move to Florida. With the castle doctrine, we're allowed to
shoot folks down here!
For theft of property? I don't think so. Somebody is stealing your car - just call the cops and be a good witness.
Castle Doctrine protections in Florida (=no duty to retreat + immunity from civil litigation) only apply when you LAWFULLY use deadly force. That means when you use deadly force ONLY WHEN you or an innocent third party are subjected to immediate and otherwise unavoidable grave bodily harm and/or death.
I don't know the details of this skirmish, but if the Boss' kid is getting charged it's because he escalated the situation by confronting the perps. Big no-no! No property is worth your life, unless the theft of that property presents a danger to innocents.
Posted June 27 2007 - 01:05 PM
Posted June 27 2007 - 01:11 PM
I can't remember all the exact details, but I think the gist of it was a guy was having his outdoor storage shed broken into (and not the first time), and the perp was shot and killed while in the process of stealing a 4 wheeler.
Racial overtones as the property owner was white, the robber was black.
Robbers dad was also a preacher, lots of outrage from the flock, other sympathizers in their community. Also lots of sympathizers with the property owner who shot the guy, as I believe he was in a whole heap of trouble.
Anybody know or remember what was the outcome of this?
Posted June 27 2007 - 02:19 PM
The burglary is third because they were breaking into the car.
And I would imagine that they were only charged with 3rd degree agg because the dipsht kid was whaling on him with a bat. I am sure it was fun, but the kid sounds like a runner up for the darwin awards, the perp could have had a gun (always assume)... If he couldn't get it done in one or two swings with a bat, he's got no business going up against someone tweeking. second and third largely depends on the harm done as well as the intent.
The guy sounds like he'll be in a mess if they can tie some of the other breakins to him.
Posted June 27 2007 - 02:40 PM
Posted June 27 2007 - 02:44 PM
Need help eating them?
I need your world famous quiche recipe. I'm told it faaaaaaaabulous.