Linus on WAN Show: Why is attempted murder less serious than actual murder?

[YellowJersey]

So I'm watching the WAN Show and Linus is talking about how the legal system requires damage to occur in order for liability to be imposed and he frames this in the context of the Newegg-exploding-powersupply fiasco.

 

 [Lawyer] Generally, proof of damage is required for a defendant to be held liable since civil law is based on the idea of compensating a plaintiff rather than punishing a defendant. Even if you got a dodgy power supply, you haven't lost anything until it pops. However, this is under negligence, which is generally harder to demonstrate. Instead, you can pursue an action under contract law. Under the Sale of Goods Act (every province has one, except maybe Quebec), there is an implied term that goods are of "merchantable quality," and a power supply that pops like these would likely not meet that standard as these power supplies seem like they are not fit to be sold (ie, not of merchantable quality). This would allow the customer (plaintiff) to sue for breach of contract, potentially even if the customer's power supply hasn't actually popped yet or otherwise caused any damage because the goods contracted for were not delivered.

 Generally, such claims are dealt with on a compensatory basis, but since there's reason to suspect that Newegg is selling these things knowing of the danger they pose, then punitive damages (damages intended to punish the defendant) could also be on the table if Newegg were found liable.

 

 There's also possibility of fraud (basically defined as knowingly lying to obtain something), which is a crime; so there may potentially be criminal charges.

 

 Also also, there are various safety regulations that could also have been breached here. [/Lawyer]

 

 Out of curiosity (and since I couldn't remember), I looked up attempted murder in the Canadian Criminal Code, Section 239  https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-239.html and it says imprisonment for life as the max punishment, which is the same for first and second degree murder under Section 235  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-235.html


 

[Wictorian]

On 8/17/2021 at 7:12 AM, YellowJersey said:

which is the same for first and second degree murder

So is it less serious or not?

 

If it is, it can be because if a person has committed murder they are more dangerous than one who just tried doing it, generally. 

[tikker]

Which WAN show is this about?

 

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself here, or did they say so in during the show?

Quote

Why is attempted murder less serious than actual murder?

On 8/17/2021 at 6:12 AM, YellowJersey said:

Out of curiosity (and since I couldn't remember), I looked up attempted murder in the Canadian Criminal Code, Section 239  https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-239.html and it says imprisonment for life as the max punishment, which is the same for first and second degree murder under Section 235  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-235.html

First link doesn't work btw.

 

On the murder aspect: I can see attempted murder being slightly less bad than actually murdering someone.

 

I also don't see how you go from the PSU fiasco to (attempted) murder. I doubt they are selling these units with the intention of killing their customers, so to me this seems involuntary manslaughter at best should someone meet their end at the hand of one.

[Rauten]

17 minutes ago, tikker said:

I also don't see how you go from the PSU fiasco to (attempted) murder. I doubt they are selling these units with the intention of killing their customers, so to me this seems involuntary manslaughter at best should someone meet their end at the hand of one.

Before I proceed, please be aware I'm neither American nor a lawyer, but I've seen too many seasons of Law And Order to resist...

 

While it is true that they're not being sold with a murderous intent, they 100% are being sold while knowing they are dangerous and could very well cause death. I'm thinking "Ford Pinto"... and I just decided to check trial cases for that clusterf**k and I'm on a Wikipedia binge now, goddamnit.
Ford was punished for "Corporate malice", which apparently is a thing in US law? Which yeah, not intent to murder, but "you knew this could fail and kill people and sold it anyway, you piece of human waste". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

 

I don't think this is attempted murder, but it definitely should be more than involuntary manslaughter; in my eyes, inv. manslaughter would be a pure accident, something with absolutely no malice or ill intent.
This had the intent of selling a clearly defective product that could easily start a fire for monetary gain, and consequences for the people paying be damned.

[Guest willies leg]

I wish Linus would just talk tech.

 

I know Luke tries to get him back on the track but it really doesn't work that well.

 

If you want to see the future of a tech person talking politics and policies forever, check out Leo Laporte. He went from millions of viewers to hundreds in just a few years. Such a shame.

 

[tikker]

36 minutes ago, Rauten said:

Before I proceed, please be aware I'm neither American nor a lawyer, but I've seen too many seasons of Law And Order to resist...

 

While it is true that they're not being sold with a murderous intent, they 100% are being sold while knowing they are dangerous and could very well cause death. I'm thinking "Ford Pinto"... and I just decided to check trial cases for that clusterf**k and I'm on a Wikipedia binge now, goddamnit.
Ford was punished for "Corporate malice", which apparently is a thing in US law? Which yeah, not intent to murder, but "you knew this could fail and kill people and sold it anyway, you piece of human waste". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

 

I don't think this is attempted murder, but it definitely should be more than involuntary manslaughter; in my eyes, inv. manslaughter would be a pure accident, something with absolutely no malice or ill intent.
This had the intent of selling a clearly defective product that could easily start a fire for monetary gain, and consequences for the people paying be damned.

Yeah so it's involuntary manslaughter through negligence (knowlingly selling a dangerously defective product). All the murder or voluntary variants have the connotation that you do intend on ending their lives. It seems Canadian Law would consider this criminal negligence.

[Wictorian]

4 hours ago, Rauten said:

Before I proceed, please be aware I'm neither American nor a lawyer, but I've seen too many seasons of Law And Order to resist...

 

While it is true that they're not being sold with a murderous intent, they 100% are being sold while knowing they are dangerous and could very well cause death. I'm thinking "Ford Pinto"... and I just decided to check trial cases for that clusterf**k and I'm on a Wikipedia binge now, goddamnit.
Ford was punished for "Corporate malice", which apparently is a thing in US law? Which yeah, not intent to murder, but "you knew this could fail and kill people and sold it anyway, you piece of human waste". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

 

I don't think this is attempted murder, but it definitely should be more than involuntary manslaughter; in my eyes, inv. manslaughter would be a pure accident, something with absolutely no malice or ill intent.
This had the intent of selling a clearly defective product that could easily start a fire for monetary gain, and consequences for the people paying be damned.

What about cigars? I doubt this statittically causes more deaths than cigars.

[Wictorian]

4 hours ago, willies leg said:

I wish Linus would just talk tech.

 

I know Luke tries to get him back on the track but it really doesn't work that well.

 

If you want to see the future of a tech person talking politics and policies forever, check out Leo Laporte. He went from millions of viewers to hundreds in just a few years. Such a shame.

 

It is interesting if they know what they are talking about. Listening to a person who knows nothing about tech talk tech is ridiculous too.

[Guest willies leg]

6 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

It is interesting if they know what they are talking about. Listening to a person who knows nothing about tech talk tech is ridiculous too.

 

Yeah, like Kim Komando, she gets about as many views as Leo Laporte does.

 

Of course that would be a heck of a show, Leo talking politics and Kim talking tech on the same show. Might get almost 10 views on that one.

[Middcore]

4 hours ago, willies leg said:

I wish Linus would just talk tech.

 

"Donny, you're out of your element!"

 

 

4 hours ago, willies leg said:

If you want to see the future of a tech person talking politics and policies forever, check out Leo Laporte. He went from millions of viewers to hundreds in just a few years. Such a shame.

 

 

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a very long time. 

 

Went and found Laporte's YouTube channel and even his oldest videos (8 years ago) have only a few thousand views. I have no idea what he talks about regarding politics, I only vaguely remember him from TechTV, but his lack of footprint on YouTube seems like it probably has more to do with all his content just being a recording of his radio show? 

[Guest willies leg]

3 hours ago, Middcore said:

 

"Donny, you're out of your element!"

 

 

 

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a very long time. 

 

Went and found Laporte's YouTube channel and even his oldest videos (8 years ago) have only a few thousand views. I have no idea what he talks about regarding politics, I only vaguely remember him from TechTV, but his lack of footprint on YouTube seems like it probably has more to do with all his content just being a recording of his radio show? 

 

Nope. All politics all the time. This week in tech is unwatchable.

 

Years ago with the screensavers...yeah, that was great stuff!

 

 

[Middcore]

14 minutes ago, willies leg said:

 

Nope. All politics all the time. This week in tech is unwatchable.

 

Years ago with the screensavers...yeah, that was great stuff!

 

 

 

The oldest TWiT videos have basically the same number of views as the most recent ones (again, in the thousands, under 10k) so it just doesn't seem to me like the guy ever had a substantial YouTube audience. 

[Rauten]

11 hours ago, Wictorian said:

What about cigars? I doubt this statittically causes more deaths than cigars.

But with cigars, you know full well that what you're buying can harm or even kill you in the long run; and the authorities are also fully aware, but its sale is still allowed (because fuck people's health, give them their cancer sticks, but that's a very different discussion)

 

These PSUs are products that are actually malfunctioning, and Gigabyte is very much aware of it by now (even if they weren't at the start) and still refuse to pull the product or issue a recall. Again, a "Ford Pinto" situation - they know full well they're selling a defective, hazardous product but just don't give two shits about it as long as they keep getting money for it.

[Guest willies leg]

13 hours ago, Middcore said:

 

The oldest TWiT videos have basically the same number of views as the most recent ones (again, in the thousands, under 10k) so it just doesn't seem to me like the guy ever had a substantial YouTube audience. 

 

He existed way before YouTube. He self-hosted his "netcasts" for years (not wanting to call them podcasts for some reason).

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/technology/27podcast.html

 

In any event, it's too bad Linus keeps pushing his opinion on us, whether he wants to or is told to do that. We tune in to him for tech news, not to be lectured about crap. Agree or disagree with his political views, that's not the point. Point is he is a tech guy, needs to stay focused on tech unless he wants to go the way of Leo Laporte.

 

[YellowJersey]

7 hours ago, willies leg said:

 

He existed way before YouTube. He self-hosted his "netcasts" for years (not wanting to call them podcasts for some reason).

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/technology/27podcast.html

 

In any event, it's too bad Linus keeps pushing his opinion on us, whether he wants to or is told to do that. We tune in to him for tech news, not to be lectured about crap. Agree or disagree with his political views, that's not the point. Point is he is a tech guy, needs to stay focused on tech unless he wants to go the way of Leo Laporte.

 

I disagree. Many aspects of tech are closely bound to politics. Look at the US trade war with China, tech used for mass surveillance, privacy concerns, illegal activity, law suits (Epic vs Apple), GDPR, the situation between China and Taiwan. It's also a pod cast; things are naturally going to go from one thread to the next as the hosts think of things they want to talk about within the context of tech. The legality of the PSU stuff is very much relevant. If you get so annoyed about Linus giving his opinions on things, then maybe you've misunderstood what a podcast is?

[Middcore]

I guess I'm not sure how I see Linus making a flippant remark about why it's considered less serious to try to kill somebody if you're incompetent at it qualifies as talking "politics." is there something else he said I missed/don't remember? 

[YellowJersey]

On 9/8/2021 at 8:37 AM, tikker said:

Which WAN show is this about?

 

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself here, or did they say so in during the show?

First link doesn't work btw.

 

On the murder aspect: I can see attempted murder being slightly less bad than actually murdering someone.

 

I also don't see how you go from the PSU fiasco to (attempted) murder. I doubt they are selling these units with the intention of killing their customers, so to me this seems involuntary manslaughter at best should someone meet their end at the hand of one.

Also @Middcore (Sorry, I suck at using the multiquote thing)

 It was this one when they were talking about PSUs blowing up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFC2t5I_hLA   (at 37:20)  Linus asked the question of "Why is attempted murder less serious than murder?"  He asked this in the context of "why is knowingly doing something that will likely cause damage (like selling a PSU you know or should know is defective) treated as somehow lesser than actually just going out and causing that damage?" He correctly mentions that the law is based on the idea of proof of loss. You can't sue someone for something until loss has actually occurred. So, therefore, the law deems that doing something that hasn't yet caused damage (even if it's just a matter of time) as less serious than something that has caused damage. Hence the analogy to attempted murder being less serious than actual murder. (Why is the penalty less just because you suck at murder? He was pointing this out in the context of newegg and gigabyte selling these seemingly defective power supplies.

 

 My original post was pointing out that, at least under the Canadian Criminal Code, the max penalty of life imprisonment is the same for first degree, second degree, and attempted murder, but generally Linus is correct in that the law treats something that has not yet caused harm as less serious as something that has caused harm. ("Just because you suck at murder doesn't mean you're not a complete asshole") Then I went on to mention that even if harm hasn't been caused yet, there are some legal avenues that can be pursued.

 So it wasn't just Linus talking about attempted murder; it was an analogy to the newegg/gigabyte PSU thing.

[Middcore]

@YellowJersey I understand all of that perfectly. What I don't understand is what part of it triggers discontent from some about Linus talking "politics." 

[Wictorian]

5 minutes ago, Middcore said:

@YellowJersey I understand all of that perfectly. What I don't understand is what part of it triggers discontent from some about Linus talking "politics." 

I don't really get why people don't want [other people] to talk about politics. 

[Middcore]

16 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

I don't really get why people don't want [other people] to talk about politics. 

 

I can understand it. Some people treat hobbies as an escape from vexing real world stuff like that. My old day job was heavily connected to politics so God knows I did. I just don't see what here is political. 

[Wictorian]

1 hour ago, Middcore said:

 

I can understand it. Some people treat hobbies as an escape from vexing real world stuff like that. My old day job was heavily connected to politics so God knows I did. I just don't see what here is political. 

Yeah people claim everything is political that is a bigger issue actually. 

[tikker]

13 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

Also @Middcore (Sorry, I suck at using the multiquote thing)

 It was this one when they were talking about PSUs blowing up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFC2t5I_hLA (at 37:20)  Linus asked the question of "Why is attempted murder less serious than murder?"  He asked this in the context of "why is knowingly doing something that will likely cause damage (like selling a PSU you know or should know is defective) treated as somehow lesser than actually just going out and causing that damage?" He correctly mentions that the law is based on the idea of proof of loss. You can't sue someone for something until loss has actually occurred. So, therefore, the law deems that doing something that hasn't yet caused damage (even if it's just a matter of time) as less serious than something that has caused damage. Hence the analogy to attempted murder being less serious than actual murder. (Why is the penalty less just because you suck at murder? He was pointing this out in the context of newegg and gigabyte selling these seemingly defective power supplies.

 

 My original post was pointing out that, at least under the Canadian Criminal Code, the max penalty of life imprisonment is the same for first degree, second degree, and attempted murder, but generally Linus is correct in that the law treats something that has not yet caused harm as less serious as something that has caused harm. ("Just because you suck at murder doesn't mean you're not a complete asshole") Then I went on to mention that even if harm hasn't been caused yet, there are some legal avenues that can be pursued.

 So it wasn't just Linus talking about attempted murder; it was an analogy to the newegg/gigabyte PSU thing.

I get all that, but perhaps I'm then missing the point a bit. Was this just to point out that under Canadian law attempted murder is as bad as murder?

 

I think it's fair for the law to treat something that hasn't caused harm yet as (somewhat) lesser than after it has caused harm. You would still have time to rectify the issue. In this case, if they'd now recall all units and revise it they might still be sued for negligence, but have some saving grace for acting on it. If they wait until a unit blows up a street, then they have actively denied the issue (well they're already doing that from what I gathered) and are liable for harm as well as negligence.

[Wictorian]

9 hours ago, tikker said:

I get all that, but perhaps I'm then missing the point a bit. Was this just to point out that under Canadian law attempted murder is as bad as murder?

 

I think it's fair for the law to treat something that hasn't caused harm yet as (somewhat) lesser than after it has caused harm. You would still have time to rectify the issue. In this case, if they'd now recall all units and revise it they might still be sued for negligence, but have some saving grace for acting on it. If they wait until a unit blows up a street, then they have actively denied the issue (well they're already doing that from what I gathered) and are liable for harm as well as negligence.

But what is the point? Reduce harm? Then a murderer and a person who has attempted murder are equally dangerous.

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Wictorian said:

But what is the point? Reduce harm? Then a murderer and a person who has attempted murder are equally dangerous.

It's technicalities right. In the end the law is based on and weighted by our (mostly) collective subjective views of right and wrong. I'm sure that in a court case even attempted murder can be punished to the same extent as actual murder if the circumstances lead to it. It turns back to our system being evidence based. You might say they are equally dangerous, which may be true, but in the end one attempted and failed and the other actually ended someone's life. You cannot be charged for something you didn't do. If you attempted to murder someone, but didn't succeed you cannot be charged with murder, because you didn't commit that crime.

 

For all intents and purposes I would probably consider attempted murder and murder to the same severity, but I could see why one might be treated as ever so slightly less. Plus it creates some sort of ladder. Charging the death penalty for calling someone a dick wouldn't be a useful system.