Are there different degrees of murder?
Yes, there are varying degrees of murder, and different states define these degrees differently.

First-degree murder is the most serious form of murder. In most states, it is categorized as "deliberate" - that is, the defendant made a clear-headed decision to kill the victim; "premeditated" - the defendant actually thought about the killing before it occurred (the period for this can be very brief); and "with malice"- doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse. So if someone decides to kill a business rival who is attempting a corporate takeover, gets a gun, waits for the victim in a deserted parking garage, and shoots him, that killing would have all the elements of first-degree murder. If, on the other hand, the competitors get in a fight when the rival announces his intentions to take over the other man's business, and the second man picks up something and hits the rival with it, causing his death, that is not likely to be first-degree murder. The killer did not plan or make a decision to kill in advance.

Some states consider killings committed in specific way to be first-degree murder. Although these vary by state, they can include killing by poison, by lying in wait, and by torture. States may also presume malice if the killing is done with a deadly weapon.

Second-degree murder is killing another with malice - doing a harmful act without just cause or legal excuse - but without premeditation or deliberation. In other words, this means intentionally killing someone without planning to do so in advance. So, if a person becomes angry, walks over to a desk where he keeps a legal weapon for defense, takes out the gun and shoots the other, that may be second-degree murder. There was no plan or advance decision to kill, but the act of taking out the gun and shooting was intentional.

Felony murder is a killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony. Even a death that is an accident, will be considered felony murder by most states if it happens while a felony is being committed. For example, if someone becomes frightened and falls down a flight of stairs during a robbery, that would be felony murder in some states, even though the death was accidental and the robber did not mean to cause the death. If 3 people are involved in robbing a bank and one of them shoots a guard, against the wishes of the others, all 3 would be guilty of felony murder, since they willingly participated in the felony.

If the killing happens during certain felonies, determined by the state, it will be considered first-degree felony murder. The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.

		_strat_ wrote:
		This might be a good time for a question... What is this thing with degrees in murders? Ive heard it lots of times, but just what is that all about?      Head banger wrote: The Conservative government is introducing legislation to repeal the so-called `faint hope' clause from the Criminal Code.  If passed into law, the legislation would mean that anyone convicted of first- or second-degree murder would no longer be able to apply for early parole.

Okay My dear Friend HB... here is what I found..  it was also noted 3 canadians died on that flight,

Alleged motive

Gulf of Sidra—Libya's "territorial waters"

Libya has never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. In a letter to the United Nations it "accepted responsibility for the actions of its officials".^[43]

The motive that is generally attributed to Libya can be traced back to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra, the whole of which Libya claimed as its territorial waters. First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra,^[44] followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986.^[45] The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the 5 April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230.^[46]

CIA's alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin provided U.S. president Ronald Reagan with the justification for USAF warplanes to launch Operation El Dorado Canyon on 15 April 1986 from British bases^[47][48]—the first U.S. military strikes from Britain since World War II—against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. Among dozens of Libyan military and civilian casualties, the air strikes killed Hanna Gaddafi, a baby girl Gaddafi said he adopted. To avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan.^[49]

     Compensation from Libya

On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family. The Libyan offer was that:

• 40% of the money would be released when United Nations sanctions, suspended in 1999, were cancelled;
• another 40% when U.S. trade sanctions were lifted; and
• the final 20% when the U.S. State Department removed Libya from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.

Jim Kreindler of New York law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, which orchestrated the settlement, said:

"These are uncharted waters. It is the first time that any of the states designated as sponsors of terrorism have offered compensation to families of terror victims."

The U.S. State Department maintained that it was not directly involved. "Some families want cash, others say it is blood money," said a State Department official.

Compensation for the families of the PA103 victims was among the steps set by the UN for lifting its sanctions against Libya. Other requirements included a formal denunciation of terrorism--which Libya said it had already made--and "accepting responsibility for the actions of its officials".^[50][51]

On 15 August 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to the Lockerbie bombing.^[52] The Libyan government then proceeded to pay compensation to each family of US$8 million (from which legal fees of about US$2.5 million were deducted) and, as a result, the UN cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and U.S. trade sanctions were lifted. A further US$2 million would have gone to each family had the U.S. State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen by the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining US$540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier US$2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid.^[53] The United States announced resumption of full diplomatic relations with Libya after deciding to remove it from its list of countries that support terrorism on 15 May 2006.^[54]

Libya's acceptance of responsibility very probably amounted to a business deal aimed at having the sanctions overturned, rather than an admission of guilt. On 24 February 2004, Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem stated in a BBC Radio 4 interview that his country had paid the compensation as the "price for peace" and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Asked if Libya did not accept guilt, he said, "I agree with that." He also said there was no evidence to link Libya with the April 1984 shooting of police officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London. Gaddafi later retracted Ghanem's comments, under pressure from Washington and London.^[55]

A civil action against Libya continues on behalf of Pan Am, which went bankrupt partly as a result of the attack. The airline is seeking $4.5 billion for the loss of the aircraft and the effect on the airline's business.^[56]

In the wake of the SCCRC's June 2007 decision, there have been suggestions that, if Megrahi's second appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, Libya could seek to recover the $2.16 billion compensation paid to the relatives.^[57] Interviewed by French newspaper Le Figaro on 7 December 2007, Saif al-Gaddafi said that the seven Libyans convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 and the UTA Flight 772 bombings "are innocent". When asked if Libya would therefore seek reimbursement of the compensation paid to the families of the victims ($2.33 billion in total), Saif al-Gaddafi replied: "I don't know".^[58]

Following discussions in London in May 2008, US and Libyan officials agreed to start negotiations to resolve all outstanding bilateral compensation claims, including those relating to UTA Flight 772, the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing and Pan Am Flight 103.^[59] On 14 August 2008, a U.S.-Libya compensation deal was signed in Tripoli by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Libya's Foreign Ministry head of America affairs, Ahmed al-Fatroui. The agreement covers 26 lawsuits filed by American citizens against Libya, and three by Libyan citizens in respect of the U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in April 1986 which killed at least 40 people and injured 220.^[60] In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the

1. Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20% of the sum agreed in 2003;
2. American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing;
3. American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing; and,
4. Libyan victims of the 1986 US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.

As a result, President Bush has signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. ^[61] U.S. State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, called the move a "laudable milestone ... clearing the way for a continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership."^[62]

In an interview shown in BBC Two's The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie^[63] on 31 August 2008, Saif al-Gaddafi said that Libya had admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing simply to get trade sanctions removed. He went on to describe the families of the Lockerbie victims as very greedy: "They were asking for more money and more money and more money".^[64]

[edit] Contingency fees for lawyers

On 5 December 2003, Jim Kreindler revealed that his Park Avenue law firm would receive an initial contingency fee of around US$1 million from each of the 128 American families Kreindler represents. The firm's fees could exceed US$300 million eventually. Kreindler argued that the fees were justified, since "Over the past seven years we have had a dedicated team working tirelessly on this and we deserve the contingency fee we have worked so hard for, and I think we have provided the relatives with value for money."^{[citation needed]}

Another top legal firm in the U.S., Speiser Krause, which represented 60 relatives, of whom half were UK families, concluded contingency deals securing them fees of between 28 and 35% of individual settlements. Frank Granito of Speiser Krause noted that "the rewards in the U.S. are more substantial than anywhere else in the world but nobody has questioned the fee whilst the work has been going on, it is only now as we approach a resolution when the criticism comes your way."^{[citation needed]}

In March 2009, it was announced that U.S. lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, received fees of $2 million for the work it did from 2006 through 2008 helping the PA103 relatives obtain payment by Libya of the final $2 million compensation (out of a total of $10 million) that was due to each family.^[65]

  

		Head banger wrote:
		your right actualy, I forgot about that,  that one wasnt canadian anyway.  guess the law wouldnt have mattered.  would have to involve canada, take off or plot here.   lybia agreed to pay, hum.  wonder if they will.  why would they?      ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions..   IDK?? But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago..  Over Scotland.      Head banger wrote: so... new topic the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism.  ok, fair enough.  they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations.  WTF?  so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up???  what are the odds of colection???

I thought Lybia was sued allready, and had to pay a restitution to the familes.. it was in the millions..   IDK??

But I did see a program on the tele regard that flight/situation. about 3 days ago..  Over Scotland.

		Head banger wrote:
		so... new topic the canadian govt has passed a law which alows it to identify countries as sponsors of terrorism.  ok, fair enough.  they also alow victims of terrorism to sue these nations.  WTF?  so I could say sue lybia if my brother was one killed on the plane they blew up???  what are the odds of colection???

Well, I can buy cigarettes or not. If I buy them, I pay the tax as a part of the price. And what do you mean with "keeping up with the cost"?

As for the thing with minors and cars and smoking... Every age limit is by itself discriminatory. That example just goes to show that, and it shows an example of a really stupid law.

		Head banger wrote:
		if you dont pay those taxes, the costs go down and they dont need those taxes.  dunno about there, but here they dont keep up to the cost.  mind you there is a lag, but not much can be done about the lag time. here is a good one for you, its against the law to smoke with a minor in the car.  so a 19 year old is driving with 2 17 year old friends.  19 year old sparks up a cig, gets pulled over.  while he is getting a ticket, the 17 year olds both get out of the car and light a smoke.  ticket still stands, but they can legaly smoke.      _strat_ wrote: Now this is new. I was refering to the tax we pay as a part of the price of cigarettes. Paying separately seems just outrageous. And the "per household" logic is just perverse. So, a family of five with just one smoker would pay the same as 2 or 3 smokers living together? And nicotine patches... Never been a fan of those, but if they really want to reduce smoking, they should make them easily accesible. Then again, its the fundamental hypocrisy of the state (every state). On one hand, they accept laws to limit smoking, raise age limits and prices to limit acces to tobbacco. On the other hand, they realise full well that if we all suddenly quit, they lose an important source of tax income.      guidogodoy wrote: Interesting convo as I just the other day got a letter from my insurance company saying that they would now slap all "tobacco users" with a $50 PER MONTH (per household) surcharge.  Wow. As strat said, they are already hit BIG TIME in taxes. I was thinking to myself....so smokers should move in with other smokers although I am not sure that simply "moving in" constitutes a "household" in the eyes of the insurance companies. They are planning to now cover patches, gum and such as perscription. Hmmm...interesting. Create either a group poor smokers or, most likely, a larger group of nicotine patch addicts! I wonder how Big Brother is going to catch them all? Edited at: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:43:07 PM