The Adventures of MDawg II

I'm more like, will I win or bust in 50-2,000 hands.
********************************************************
This Underground Poker Game Cost Celebrities MILLIONS - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHmxV3DD_J8

I've said this before, but in any table game where the house edge is extremely small, whether playing with or without any edge there are going to be periods where variance luck whatever you want to call it will move in your direction or against it. In a streaky game like Baccarat especially, there may be runs, predictable patterns, points where the chips are simply flying in your direction and then periods where you can't seem to win a hand, defying the near 50-50 aspects of the game.

What I have found too, is that there is a manageable amount that may be won relatively easily relative to bankroll and average bet, and then there are sums that are much more difficult to achieve in a session relative to these figures. If you keep pushing to get more and more you might end up losing it all in one of those periods when variance is not your friend.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen people up ten twenty grand relative to say, a twenty or thirty or fifty K bankroll, only to spill to a total loss because they keep trying to win double or triple their bankrolls and then chase with huge bets when they start going downhill. If you keep trying to hit a home run there will be a lot of strikeouts.

Worse than trying to hit a home run, is trying to win an ever increasing sum with a smaller bankroll and the same maximum bet. That sort of chasing of mounting losses, from what I have observed, leads to greater and greater chance of blowouts.

Quote: MDawg

I can't tell you how many times I have seen people up ten twenty grand relative to say, a twenty or thirty or fifty K bankroll, only to spill to a total loss because they keep trying to win double or triple their bankrolls and then chase with huge bets when they start going downhill. If you keep trying to hit a home run there will be a lot of strikeouts.

Reminds me of people that continue buying TSLA and BTC right before they crash instead of cashing out at super-bubble prices.

The way to win is to play. Or, choose not to play at all, and watch the others win.

Somewhat like saying that vintage Daytonas are too expensive, and watching their prices rise steadily over the years, instead of biting the bullet and paying for one (or more) at some point.

Precisely! 100% . A good player armed with the awareness to recognize these inherrent charscteristics along with experience and a good offense and defense enables one to exploit these vulnerabilities overcoming the perceived house edge long term.
,
I believe that you have played enough hands of baccarat to have survived and beaten at minimum 3 Standard Deviations ,10K hands per SD , which I believe the Wizard has stated would qualify to win the Brick and Mortar version of the Betting System Challenge.

This is why I believe the term EV ( + or -) is misdefined in context to the bettor. While I'm not clear on the exact definition of the term, to use it to say," a -EV game cannot be beaten long term ," without including the elements of the bet itself ie.,( If or not , when, where, and how much ) to bet is incorrect.

If one were to try to equate these two statements as in , All -EV games = unbeatable long term , without defining the elements of the bet, it is merely an expression and not an equation. The elements of the bets here are unknown but recognized and defined by the Wizard as "something more".

In this particular discussion regarding specifically Baccarat I believe you are 100% proof that empirical data and experience "TRUMPS" EV.

My money is on MDawg.

Thank you.

It really is the case that some players just get blown out trip after trip, and a very small minority walk away winners regularly. I have not observed anyone who "loses the exact house edge" over time. I almost never see, for example, someone who simply flat bets the Bank at Baccarat, which would be one way to mostly ensure losing just the house edge over time. If you jump your bet around at Bacc and vary it greatly you might win a ton or you might get blown out, you won't see as much "house edge" grind down.

I can see how the house edge might affect the upside - for example commission on Bank Baccarat bets, if a player is winning heavily on Bank bets the commission could add up to thousands, even ten thousand dollars after not so long, but those are bets the player is winning. And then by the end of the session, if that player has reached a certain goal yes maybe that goal could be achieved sooner or maybe even the drag of the commission might prevent him from ever reaching that goal before a blowout occurs and the players loses it all. But after the player has lost every chip in front of him what difference did it make that he had to pay commission on Bank bets? When that final case bet is lost it will simply be for less chips than if he had had the commission in front of him to toss onto that final case bet.

The way I look at it, unless the sums saved from house edge wear would contribute to a net win, versus a net blowout, they don't make much difference: the player either walks with his goal or he does not, and for blowout situations, which happen more often than you would think for some of these players, the house edge doesn't make any difference at all.

If a player is determined to either win big or lose all every session, which trust me there are a lot of players like that out there, the house edge doesn't make much difference. When it comes to trying to win proportionate to your bankroll / max bet an extremely large sum, the statistical improbability of achieving that goal before a blowout, comes into play much more so than a tiny house edge. The mentality that such players utilize is that even if they are ahead a good sum, as soon as some or all of those winnings are lost they start tossing down massive bets in a quick effort to get right back to where they were ahead, disregarding that the time might not be right for those huge bets. And then if they lose any of those bets and end up in the negative, these players go on tilt and start throwing down huge every hand trying to get back up, and this - chasing - usually results in the blowouts.

Early in a session, a player who was up a couple thousand and is now down a couple thousand might not care, and will continue to play steadily to try to get ahead again. But the same player - if undisciplined - who was ahead twenty thousand and is now suddenly flat even might lose it and start trowing down ten or twenty thousand or even higher hands to try to get back to where he was, immediately. Lose one of those bets, which might be at table max, and now the player must win two table max bets in order to get back ahead, and so on. The more table max units below the goal the less chance of achieving that goal.

For example Charles Barkley - he used to say that he'd play to either "win or lose a million" every session - and judging by his steady losses, he'd lose most every time.

“It got out of hand, but I quit for two years. I remember talking to my friends who said Gambling is not your problem, you’re just an idiot. We’ve sat on a table with you, and you were up 300, 400, 500, 600 thousand dollars, and they said let’s quit. I developed this thing where I have to win a million dollars.

Let’s not try to break the casino because you can’t break the casino. Since I developed that mentality, Gambling is a lot more fun to me, to be honest.” -Charles Barkley

Are you the guy who walks away when he's ahead or the one who always plays until every chip is gone? There are definitely both types of players out there (and some in between too).

Since it's in the past, and security concerns are lessened since that trip is over, here are some of the WINNING chips accumulated during some sessions.

I didn't even need credit any longer as I had accumulated enough winnings at that point to just play with my own.

This was at the peak of that particular run. I actually took a spill right after that, and then cashed out - still way ahead. Yes, there were sessions, as reported, where I lost big.

Quote: MDawg

Going on a trip, returning from a trip, with pretty polly pulled from the casinos of Vegas, Oh what a feeling!

link to original post

Win or lose though, and even win big as I did, it's just a lot of stress, and now home and relaxed, it makes even a winner wonder, is it worth it?

Quote: MDawg

Looking back on sessions yes sometimes it comes down to one or two huge bets that end up equaling the total win (or loss) for that session, however for whatever reason these bets don't seem to come in the beginning, at all. They don't necessarily come at the end either, although sometimes they do.

Whether it's blackjack or baccarat people don't like to just lay it all out there first hand....
link to original post

And that's where it gets stressful. You look back and think, did I really just end up winning fifty grand that session because of one bet? that if I had lost might have moved me in exactly the opposite direction? and there's where you start reevaluating the value of casino play. All's well that ends well but, it could perhaps have gone the other way too.

That’s a tad under a half mil there. It’s a house. Or a bunch of luxury cars. Or the big suite on an around the world cruise. I hope it didn’t just make the bank account $30,500,000 instead of $30,000,000. Surprise your wife with those red bottom shoes. Worked for me!

Yes I made the win "real" by using some of it to buy some tangible goods! mostly for her.

There are a couple of casino restaurants I would recommend. We ate at both a number of times for both dine in and take out during the last Vegas trip.

Both are in the Palms.

Tim Ho Wan is great for dim sum and noodle based dishes. Prices are reasonable especially for a Vegas casino restaurant.


And then Mabel's BBQ...great chicken, brisket, sides, again, pretty low prices for a Vegas casino restaurant. Mabel's provides a variety of sauces too to go with their food.



You may park in the west lot area of Palms and enter the casino to go to either restaurant without having to walk very far at all.

Not wanting your humble narrator to get too humble chumble mumble on you, but MDawg's having some reclining thoughts on Vegas, since now almost a week removed from the ring of fire.

Another successful trip, but started to get to me. One of the pit bosses commented, jokingly, on a day when I was winning handily no less, "We have to find you another hobby." And, that's what all this comes down to, a hobby. It is fun being in Vegas, and pulling chips from the tables on a full comp ride is definitely exhilarating at times (exhausting at others) but anything that expends that much energy and inevitably leads to ups and downs both monetarily and emotionally is taxing!

So, where we at, MDawg-wise? Is he going to hang up his spurs victorious and take another hiatus, or head right back into the ring? Spend living time in Vegas without playing? Spend living time at the main home without Vegas?

Time will tell, but now, content to just relax and enjoy yet another day without any high limit action at the tables.

Know thyself! (And nothing in excess.) is the way it should be?

If I don't get to Vegas in the next 24 months, I'll never get there. #LakeMeadMegadrought

I would assume you would want to check in at your law office to see how your current case load looks.

LOL
tuttigym

Quote: darkoz

I would assume you would want to check in at your law office to see how your current case load looks.
link to original post

Not all attorneys practice law, and for those that do, most are not litigators (ie attorneys that have "cases"), but rather do transactional work.

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

I would assume you would want to check in at your law office to see how your current case load looks.
link to original post

Not all attorneys practice law, and for those that do, most are not litigators (ie attorneys that have "cases"), but rather do transactional work.
link to original post

Interesting.

But MDawg has given critique of my court cases as if he practices litigation.

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

I would assume you would want to check in at your law office to see how your current case load looks.
link to original post

Not all attorneys practice law, and for those that do, most are not litigators (ie attorneys that have "cases"), but rather do transactional work.
link to original post

Right, and much of my work is remote these days, the courts still allow remote appearances for most everything.

Quote: darkoz

The naivete that MDawg displays about casino employees corruption possibilities may explain why he has a California law practice with not enough clients such that he can be in Las Vegas most of the year.
link to original post

It's okay to challenge MDawg's writings on that topic. However, let's not bring the real world into this by counting his clients. Consider this a warning.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

The naivete that MDawg displays about casino employees corruption possibilities may explain why he has a California law practice with not enough clients such that he can be in Las Vegas most of the year.
link to original post

It's okay to challenge MDawg's writings on that topic. However, let's not bring the real world into this by counting his clients. Consider this a warning.
link to original post

Hold on! I already got suspended for that comment!!!

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

The naivete that MDawg displays about casino employees corruption possibilities may explain why he has a California law practice with not enough clients such that he can be in Las Vegas most of the year.
link to original post

It's okay to challenge MDawg's writings on that topic. However, let's not bring the real world into this by counting his clients. Consider this a warning.
link to original post

Hold on! I already got suspended for that comment!!!
link to original post

That's a separate offense, and even assuming arguendo it isn't, the Constitution's prohibition of Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to this forum.

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Wizard

Quote: darkoz

The naivete that MDawg displays about casino employees corruption possibilities may explain why he has a California law practice with not enough clients such that he can be in Las Vegas most of the year.
link to original post

It's okay to challenge MDawg's writings on that topic. However, let's not bring the real world into this by counting his clients. Consider this a warning.
link to original post

Hold on! I already got suspended for that comment!!!
link to original post

That's a separate offense, and even assuming arguendo it isn't, the Constitution's prohibition of Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to this forum.
link to original post

I don't see how it's a separate offense when it's the very same one from June 22nd that Wizard is quoting.

Double jeopardy has never been discussed here but even double jeopardy isn't defined that way. Double jeopardy is getting tried twice for the same crime after you have been found innocent!

It is not being found guilty, serving your time and then being tried and sentenced again to repeat your time twice!

Quote: darkoz

Double jeopardy is getting tried twice for the same crime after you have been found innocent!

It is not being found guilty, serving your time and then being tried and sentenced again to repeat your time twice!
link to original post

OMG! You are 100% completely wrong and your comment reflects a profound ignorance of the law!!!

The prohibition against Double Jeopardy prevents an individual from being PROSECUTED twice for the same crime - regardless of the outcome of the first trial.

Someone who has been found guilty, served their time and then was tried and sentenced again to repeat their time twice has been subject to Double Jeopardy.

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

Double jeopardy is getting tried twice for the same crime after you have been found innocent!

It is not being found guilty, serving your time and then being tried and sentenced again to repeat your time twice!
link to original post

OMG! You are 100% completely wrong and your comment reflects a profound ignorance of the law!!!

The prohibition against Double Jeopardy prevents an individual from being PROSECUTED twice for the same crime - regardless of the outcome of the first trial.
link to original post

Fixed a bit for you with caps:

“ The prohibition against Double Jeopardy prevents an individual from being PROSECUTED twice for the same crime BY THE SAME SOVEREIGNTY- regardless of the outcome of the first trial WITH VARIOUS EXCEPTIONS LIKE DISCHARGE BY NECESSITY (LIKE A HUNG JURY).”

Double jeopardy does not apply to robbing the same bank twice or stealing the same car twice or assaulting the same person twice.

Quote: darkoz

Hold on! I already got suspended for that comment!!!
link to original post

Quote: darkoz

I would assume you would want to check in at your law office to see how your current case load looks.
link to original post

You're right. The post I meant to warn you about can be found here and is quoted above, which is similar in nature. The complainant drew my attention to the June 22 post to illustrate past offenses for the same thing, which we do sometimes consider. I then got confused with the timeline, which is on me.

I would like to remind the forum that feuding is also suspension worthy and both parties can serve time for it.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Double jeopardy does not apply to robbing the same bank twice or stealing the same car twice or assaulting the same person twice.
link to original post

Agree. Those are distinct crimes.

I've always wondered if the situation in the movie Double Jeopardy is plausible.


Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22fy9OTaxo

In that movie, the heroine is set up for a murder she didn't commit. The body was not found. She was convicted and served her time. When she got out, she felt she had cart blanche to murder the man who she was blamed for killing, because she already served her time for murder of said person and she can't be punished twice for the same crime. Would she be right?

Quote: UP84

Quote: darkoz

Double jeopardy is getting tried twice for the same crime after you have been found innocent!

It is not being found guilty, serving your time and then being tried and sentenced again to repeat your time twice!
link to original post

OMG! You are 100% completely wrong and your comment reflects a profound ignorance of the law!!!

The prohibition against Double Jeopardy prevents an individual from being PROSECUTED twice for the same crime - regardless of the outcome of the first trial.

Someone who has been found guilty, served their time and then was tried and sentenced again to repeat their time twice has been subject to Double Jeopardy.
link to original post

I actually am agreeing with you. You interpreted what I wrote wrong or I wrote it in a confusing manner.

What I was saying is that double jeopardy is when someone is prosecuted twice for the same crime because the first prosecution failed to get a conviction. I said "found innocent" but I understand it's for any reason (aside from hung juries, etc).

I then was trying to say that people don't get prosecuted and convicted and forced to serve again for the same crime because they already served for that crime. However if that also is defined as double jeopardy then I stand corrected on the terminology even though I understood the concept.

EDIT: I am also finding your saying I have a "profound ignorance of the law" to be insulting. I am not an attorney so I am certain to get some stuff wrong but to say I have a profound ignorance is hurtful. I have actually seen lawyers who had more ignorance of the law than I do and have had to explain to them how the law works. (Sad but true). So mistakes of law, yes, profound ignorance of the law, you are mistaken.

Quote: Wizard

I've always wondered if the situation in the movie Double Jeopardy is plausible.

Direct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u22fy9OTaxo

In that movie, the heroine is set up for a murder she didn't commit. The body was not found. She was convicted and served her time. When she got out, she felt she had cart blanche to murder the man who she was blamed for killing, because she already served her time for murder of said person and she can't be punished twice for the same crime. Would she be right?
link to original post

I don't think so, this would be a separate crime unless she can go back in time and do it on the same date and time as the first one.

Quote: Wizard

I've always wondered if the situation in the movie Double Jeopardy is plausible. In that movie, the heroine is set up for a murder she didn't commit. The body was not found. She was convicted and served her time. When she got out, she felt she had cart blanche to murder the man who she was blamed for killing, because she already served her time for murder of said person and she can't be punished twice for the same crime. Would she be right?

Interesting question, and while I don't KNOW the answer, I'll take a stab at reasoning it out.

No, not unless she has a time machine.

Criminal cases always refer to the date of the crime; she was convicted for killing him on a particular date.

Killing him after her release from prison at a later date would be a new offense as it occurred "on or about" a different date than the first charge.

She likely would however be entitled to a substantial settlement or jury verdict for the earlier wrongful conviction (not that it will help her if she faces Old Sparky or a firing squad).

Double jeopardy derives from the 5th Amendment: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." And UnJon/UP84 are right, the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being put twice in jeopardy.

The case that applied the 5th Amendment to the states via the due process cause of the 14th Amendment, was Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). In that case, a defendant was acquitted in state court of larceny but convicted of burglary, then appealed, and in a new state trial found guilty of both. Double jeopardy was found to have attached as to the larceny conviction, and the larceny conviction was overturned.

In any case, if say a person is convicted of something or other, put on say probation, and then keeps somehow screwing up without even sustaining any new convictions, he could be punished multiple times for his first conviction, by being re-incarcerated, and that would not be double jeopardy.

As far as that movie, with Ashley Judd, yes I think if she were convicted and served time for homicide she could not be retried for the same offense, but I'd think that her motivation would be to get pardoned once it was disclosed that she was innocent.

Not knowing what jurisdiction this movie was in, let's just use the MPC for this La La Land exercise:
The MPC defines homicide as
MODEL PENAL CODE (Official Draft, 1962)
(1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2) Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. § 210.2.

If she were convicted of homicide against a certain person, I don't see how she could be convicted of homicide against that same person again. Even if say, in the first instance she were convicted of a lesser degree of homicide, still, the double jeopardy clause has been found to apply to lesser included offenses too. The only issue I suppose is whether it's the same "offense," and arguments could be made on both sides, but offense for purposes of the 5th Amendment means "substantially the same crime," and I'd think homicide against a specific person would be substantially the same crime.

I think you have to get past the fact that the "offenses" happened at different times, because in the first instance, there was no offense at all, no homicide at all, only in the second instance. So really there was only one homicide and if we accept her conviction as valid, then double jeopardy would attach. At least, that is the argument I would make as her attorney, assuming she were even charged for the actual homicide, and it wasn't just self defense.

My two cents about the Ashley Judd film (without having first watched it) is that she absolutely could be tried again.

The double jeopardy would not apply because the original crime conviction would be vacated as the person was not murdered. Wrongful conviction!

However if she was found guilty of his actual murder she would be given credit for the time served wrongfully.

If she gets a longer sentence then she would still go back to prison.

Certainly the double jeopardy clause in this situation would be found in violation of the victims constitutional rights. I.E. he doesn't lose his right to life and liberty because a woman thinks double jeopardy protects her.

If double jeopardy could be used in this manner someone convicted of arson in an apartment fire, upon proof he didn't do it, could now argue he has the right to burn down the same building. Ridiculous.

It's suspiciously the same argument people make that they have the constitutional right to freedom of speech so they can go yell fire in a crowded movie theater. We already know constitutional rights are not guaranteed when other people's rights are also at risk.

The arson offenses you describe are clearly two separate offenses. It is quite possible to burn down a building twice, either because it is rebuilt, or wasn't burned down all the way the first time.

With Homicide
MODEL PENAL CODE (Official Draft, 1962)
(1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2) Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. § 210.2
you're dead, man! You can't die more than once.

“One can die but once. Dim died before he was born.” ― Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange.

But yes sure if the first Ashley Judd conviction were vacated then she could be tried for the actual homicide that occurred later. The reason for that reversal of the first conviction would be because there was no actual homicide the first time. But even if vacated, as you allude she would get credit for time served. But anyway the way I understand the movie is that when she actually killed Nick it was self defense, which is a perfect defense to criminal homicide.

The Model Penal Code defines self-defense in § 3.04(1) as “justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.”

Let's just think in simple terms. O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his wife and Ron Goldman. No matter what other evidence is brought to light, O.J. cannot be retried for those homicides.

Quote: MDawg

The arson offenses you describe are clearly two separate offenses. It is quite possible to burn down a building twice, either because it is rebuilt, or wasn't burned down all the way the first time.

With Homicide
MODEL PENAL CODE (Official Draft, 1962)
(1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2) Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. § 210.2
you're dead, man! You can't die more than once.

“One can die but once. Dim died before he was born.” ― Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange.

But yes sure if the first Ashley Judd conviction were vacated then she could be tried for the actual homicide that occurred later. The reason for that reversal of the first conviction would be because there was no actual homicide the first time. But even if vacated, as you allude she would get credit for time served. But anyway the way I understand the movie is that when she actually killed Nick it was self defense, which is a perfect defense to criminal homicide.

The Model Penal Code defines self-defense in § 3.04(1) as “justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.”
link to original post

Okay I watched the three minutes long trailer and read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia. It's a bit more complicated.

Forget self defense. The movie showed her pre-planning to murder him from prison. (Let's not argue about whether that could be proven at trial. She is shown planning it with another inmate so maybe the inmate snitches.). The point is it's not self defense.

The woman is paroled for good behavior after six years so as you yourself pointed out, she can be sent back to prison for violation of parole. Which in fact she does just by traveling out of state (with plans to murder her husband.)

The husband claims he isn't her husband(he has a different name and identity). That she just believes he is her husband. She hasn't been released from prison because the murder wasn't committed but was paroled (with plans to murder him believing she can't be tried again for double jeopardy)

Hence she is being chased as a parole fugitive by Tommy Lee Jones (no, I am not confusing this with the Harrison Ford film). There is a scene where Tommy Lee meets the husband who claims she is mistaking him for her murdered husband.

It turns out to be her husband after all (and with DNA, medical history, a child involved which seems to be the motive and God knows how many people wouldn't recognize a guy after a lifetime alive this whole plot in 1999 seems ridiculous to me).

BUT that said, suspension of disbelief, if the government is truly believing that he ISN'T the husband (even if he secretly was) then OBVIOUSLY she could be tried for his murder a second time precisely because the law would not recognize the double jeopardy!!! She would be convicted of murdering a different man, not to mention sent back for the original murder for parole violation!

Perhaps she might get off as criminally insane (having delusions that a murdered man is still alive) but double jeopardy wouldn't count.

That said Wikipedia says the whole double jeopardy argument is ridiculous.

You'd have to watch the movie to know that it was self defense. She was planning to kill her husband but that's not the way it went down.

As far as the rest, there are arguments on both sides, as I noted. It's not a typical situation because generally when someone is killed, he's dead! doesn't somehow reappear at a later date. So any arguments offered as to the applicability of double jeopardy are as theoretical as the situation itself.

Quote: MDawg

You'd have to watch the movie to know that it was self defense. She was planning to kill her husband but that's not the way it went down.

As far as the rest, there are arguments on both sides, as I noted. It's not a typical situation because generally when someone is killed, he's dead! doesn't somehow reappear at a later date. So any arguments offered as to the applicability of double jeopardy are as theoretical as the situation itself.
link to original post

I know from the plot synopsis the husband tries to kill her but that's after she tracks him down to kill him.

I.E. he has as much right to claim self defense as she does. Here is testimony from prison witnesses she intended to hunt down husband and kill him (shows premeditation)

Here is her skipping parole and tracking his whereabouts (shows intent and effectuation of purpose).

She believes the man did her wrong (regardless of truth, shows motive).

A woman (convicted murderer no less) hunts me down and tries to kill me and you think she gets to claim self defense?

Really?

But I do agree that the film is so hypothetical and fantastic that everything we conclude is a who knows situation.

The film scores a 27% on rotten tomatoes I believe.

You are spending days and hundreds of words arguing over something without knowing exactly what is going on. Watch the movie.

As well, having been in the movie business you know the way plots work. When there is a killing by the hero/heroine no matter what type of movie always somehow the killing ends up being justified to the audience, and Double Jeopardy is no exception to that rule. As well when someone gets killed at the end of a Hollywood movie he always had it coming somehow. And those two reasons are why they weaved the self defense into the plot of this movie.

As far as the theoretical arguments, yes, it's a movie. But there are arguments on both sides that make sense out of a make believe situation.

It is an interesting hypothetical. But in the movie the two “murders” take place in different states so double jeopardy is not implicated. The second state can prosecute her for the murder that happened for the first time in its jurisdiction at the end of the movie.

I agree that's one way to look at it. Which may well be right. But another way is that it was a homicide of a person, and a person may die only once, so if the first conviction is valid, there cannot be a second prosecution.

I actually think that trying to argue about time and place are misplaced arguments - the first conviction must be undone in order for there to be a second prosecution, and the best argument to undo the first conviction is simply that there was no homicide.

If there's one thing we know about law, it's that groups of lawyers take the same facts and argue them in different ways.

MDAWG, I don’t follow your point. Even if it was the same murder, happy to concede that for this argument, two states can prosecute the murder without implicating double jeopardy. See for example Heath v Alabama.

I recall a hypothetical case we studied in law school where someone shot a person who jumped from a tall building, intending to commit suicide. Is he guilty of murder if his shot killed the jumper?

What if there had been a safety net erected that would have saved him, unbeknownst to either party?

Quote: unJon

MDAWG, I don’t follow your point. Even if it was the same murder, happy to concede that for this argument, two states can prosecute the murder without implicating double jeopardy. See for example Heath v Alabama.
link to original post

I also don't understand his reasoning that the person can die only once so the conviction of a crime that didn't happen would still be valid.

There is a true story of a woman accused of poisoning her baby. She went to prison and then further investigation showed that the baby had an allergic reaction to prescribed medication which the hospital didn't recognize. THEIR misdiagnosis caused them to give treatment that caused the prescribed medication to react and turn into a poison.

It was a few years ago I saw the episode so maybe I have the details murky but the baby died due to misdiagnosis and wrong treatment.

So she got out. Now hypothetically, let's say she discovered her baby had actually survived. Does anyone believe she can now murder her baby and not have to worry about double jeopardy?

Come on.

Quote: MDawg

I recall a hypothetical case we studied in law school where someone shot a person who jumped from a tall building, intending to commit suicide. Is he guilty of murder if his shot killed the jumper?

What if there had been a safety net erected that would have saved him, unbeknownst to either party?
link to original post

Is that what they teach in law school? No wonder lawyers are so terrible.

Last I looked Euthanasia is illegal so helping a person committing suicide while they jump to die sounds like murder to me.

SMH!

EDIT:. This case just happened. Woman convicted of manslaughter just for texting someone to finish his suicide. So shooting someone while committing suicide is of course a murder.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/23/michelle-carter-woman-boyfriend-suicide-texting-case-released-jail/4551852002/

Quote: unJon

MDAWG, I don’t follow your point. Even if it was the same murder, happy to concede that for this argument, two states can prosecute the murder without implicating double jeopardy. See for example Heath v Alabama.
link to original post

That's an interesting case, and it is precedent, but I recall reading that it was unjustified.

I did a little search and found this
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6491&context=jclc
for example.

As your attorney I recommend that you watch the 2022 Elvis movie with Austin Butler and Tom Hanks (those two were the only multi dimensional characters in the movie). I already knew the entire story including all the Colonel Tom Parker details, but still worth watching. Pretty well done.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: unJon

MDAWG, I don’t follow your point. Even if it was the same murder, happy to concede that for this argument, two states can prosecute the murder without implicating double jeopardy. See for example Heath v Alabama.
link to original post

That's an interesting case, and it is precedent, but I recall reading that it was unjustified.

I did a little search and found this
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6491&context=jclc
for example.
link to original post

Thanks. Will check out when I get a chance. Feel like this issue comes up more often when a state and the Feds both prosecute someone for the same crime. Rodney King beating, etc.

Murder not often a federal crime though.

Quote: unJon

Quote: MDawg

Quote: unJon

MDAWG, I don’t follow your point. Even if it was the same murder, happy to concede that for this argument, two states can prosecute the murder without implicating double jeopardy. See for example Heath v Alabama.
link to original post

That's an interesting case, and it is precedent, but I recall reading that it was unjustified.

I did a little search and found this
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6491&context=jclc
for example.
link to original post

Thanks. Will check out when I get a chance. Feel like this issue comes up more often when a state and the Feds both prosecute someone for the same crime. Rodney King beating, etc.

Murder not often a federal crime though.
link to original post

Have now read the article. It is an interesting and in some ways persuasive critique of the dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy. That said, I think the dual sovereignty exception (whether two states, one state and the US, or a tribal nation and the US) is alive and well as settled law, and there is no realistic chance that the current SCOTUS composition would change that.