PLST 230 Discussion + Replies
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PLST 230
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by Truck_Girl90
Discussion Post 1
Sam and Mark are both upset over the ditch that Sam built that. The ditch was now diverting rain water into Mark’s property. Because of that Mark told Sam to stop or he will pay with his life. Mark and Sam then were in Sam’s garage. Mark got angry again because of the ditch to the point where he cut Sam’s leg with an axe. He then panicked and ran home. Sam could not reach a phone because the cut to his leg was fatal. Due to this, Mark has been charged with first degree murder. He didn’t intend on killing Sam and only wanted to scare him
using the dull flat side of the axe. The prompt says that what Mark did was first degree murder. In our textbook, first degree murder is defined as
killing another person with malice an premeditation, cruelty or done during the commission of a major felony. (
Daniel E. Hall, First-and Second-Degree Murder, in Criminal Law and Procedure (7th Edition ed. 2015))
Because of what the definition of what first degree murder says, the crime is actually second degree murder. Second degree murder is murder without premeditation. (
Daniel E. Hall, First-and Second-Degree Murder, in Criminal Law and Procedure (7th Edition ed. 2015))
Mark did not want to murder Sam, so it can not be premeditated. It also can not be considered done during the act of a major felony, because it was done during an argument. Looking at this from a Christian worldview, I do not think my answer would change. There are multiple verses
in the bible that say that you should not murder. But for this I'm going to use the most famous verse. In Exodus 20:13 it says, “you shall not murder” Exodus 20:13 (NIV). Because of that, I wouldn’t change my answer for the crime that was committed. No matter what worldview you look at it at, murder is murder.
Daniel E. Hall, First-and Second-Degree Murder, in Criminal Law and Procedure (7th Edition ed. 2015).
Bible gateway passage: Exodus 20 - new international version, Bible Gateway, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20
Replies to Post 1
Hi Meagan!
I enjoyed your post. You brought up things I did not even think about when I did mine. Assault with a deadly weapon did not even cross my mind when I wrote my post. Now that I look back at what the prompt posted, I
can definitely see how it can work. Another one you used is aggravated assault. When I was looking over Chapter 4, I completely over looked that because I was more focused on the murder fact of the prompt. The criminal threat is also a good point. Mark did say Sam will pay “with his life” and it is fair to say that it is a threat. I also like what you said about a Christian worldview. I know that we are supposed to forgive everyone, like it says in Ephesians 4:31-32, “get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Ephesians 4:31-32 (NIV). But with murder, it will be hard and may take time with some people. Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 4:31-32 - New International Version, Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+4%3A31-32&version=NIV.
Hi Jennifer!
I enjoyed your post this week! I liked how you took the time to define some terms that you used. I did not think to look further into the question like you did. When I was reading the prompt, I looked back to what premeditated meant so I could get it right when I went to answer the question in the prompt. When I looked at the definition of premeditated and then the prompt, that’s when I decided it was not premeditated. I answered the question and said that I did not believe it to be first-degree murder and said that second degree murder is murder without premeditation. (Daniel E. Hall, First-and Second-Degree Murder, in Criminal Law and Procedure (7th Edition ed. 2015)). It seems like that is what you are getting at here. Or possible manslaughter, as it could be that as well. Overall, your post is very well thought out and worded. Daniel E. Hall, First-and Second-Degree Murder, in Criminal Law and Procedure (7th Edition ed. 2015
Discussion Post 2
The officers got a warrant to search the second story of a house at 315 Anderson Street, which is a yellow and red house in Lynchburg, Virginia. Upon arrival and entrance of the second story, the officers saw that the second story was divided into two apartments, “A" and “B”. The officers searched both apartments, without verifying which apartment, “A" or “B", should be searched. Because of that the evidence, the marijuana, should be suppressed. The reason it should be suppressed is because the search was illegal. As I stated before, the warrant did not say which apartment. Had the warrant said apartment “A”, “B", or both the evidence, the marijuana, should not be suppressed. In the case we reviewed before answering this discussion post, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 US. 79 (1987), the Maryland Court of Appeals held that “just as the discovery of contraband cannot validate a warrant invalid when issued, so it is equally clear that the discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad does no retroactively invalidate the warrant.” While the officers did their job, they should have thoroughly looked at the warrant two make sure if said which apartment they should search weather it be “A", “B", or both. Because of their failure to do that, they entered both apartments
when they should have only searched one. That is the same with the case in this scenario. Looking at this from a biblical view, the officers should have been honest to the judge that issued the warrant that, after they noticed the two apartments, that they did not know which apartment they needed to search. In the bible there is a lot of verses about being honest and honestly in general. The one that pops out to me is Proverbs 10:9, Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out. (NIV) Based on that, my answer would not change. I still believe that the officers were wrong. Maryland v. Garrison 480 U.S. 79 (1987)
Proverbs 10:9 (NIV)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help