Legal Matters - Revision history

JasonK at 07:48, 8 January 2006

2006-01-08T07:48:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 8 January 2006
Line 72:		Line 72:

	==FAA Regulations==		==FAA Regulations==
	~~[[Image:FAA-Letter.gif\|frame]]~~
	Strictly speaking, there are no [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl FAA regulations] that apply to Survivors with the ability to fly. This is because all of the definitions [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=79d8b0163257ddfb862decdb2fa8a82f&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfrv1_02.tpl (Title 14:1.1)] of aircraft cover only constructed objects and, even then, of a weight heavier than any human being.		Strictly speaking, there are no [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl FAA regulations] that apply to Survivors with the ability to fly. This is because all of the definitions [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=79d8b0163257ddfb862decdb2fa8a82f&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfrv1_02.tpl (Title 14:1.1)] of aircraft cover only constructed objects and, even then, of a weight heavier than any human being.

	More broadly, certain FAA regulations can be interpreted as applying to the Survivors. Most notably, these are:		More broadly, certain FAA regulations can be interpreted as applying to the Survivors. Most notably, these are:
	* [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=aa2c1591c256d4f3674509bdf98167ab&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.14&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.14.1.9.6Title '''Title 14:99.11], ADIZ flight plan requirements''' <br> This rule specifies that an aircraft has to file a pre-departure flight plan with local Air Traffic Control, giving such information as type of aircraft, pilot's name and address, proposed flight path and time, etc.		* [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=aa2c1591c256d4f3674509bdf98167ab&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.14&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.14.1.9.6Title '''Title 14:99.11], ADIZ flight plan requirements''' <br> This rule specifies that an aircraft has to file a pre-departure flight plan with local Air Traffic Control, giving such information as type of aircraft, pilot's name and address, proposed flight path and time, etc.
	* [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5e139e6c909c484acb4f9e831205b188&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.2.6&idno=14 '''Title 14:71.31-71], Class A-E Airspace Areas''' <br> These rules specify that aircraft travelling in Class A or B airspace (above a major airport or between an 18,000 and 60,000 foot altitude) must maintain radio contact with local Air Traffic Control. This is the rule cited by FAA Administrator Marion Blakely in her letter to [[Brian Jaffe]]~~, at right~~.		* [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5e139e6c909c484acb4f9e831205b188&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.2.6&idno=14 '''Title 14:71.31-71], Class A-E Airspace Areas''' <br> These rules specify that aircraft travelling in Class A or B airspace (above a major airport or between an 18,000 and 60,000 foot altitude) must maintain radio contact with local Air Traffic Control. This is the rule cited by FAA Administrator Marion Blakely in her [[FAA Letter\|letter to Brian Jaffe]].
	* [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5e139e6c909c484acb4f9e831205b188&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14 '''Title 14:61.1-431], Certification for Pilots''' <br> As above, Survivors do not count as aircraft under the current rules and cannot register as such since there is no way to measure their air-worthiness. The FAA could, however, decide that, as they are people, they do count as aircraft operators and could require them to pass standard piloting tests in order to legally exert their powers.		* [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5e139e6c909c484acb4f9e831205b188&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14 '''Title 14:61.1-431], Certification for Pilots''' <br> As above, Survivors do not count as aircraft under the current rules and cannot register as such since there is no way to measure their air-worthiness. The FAA could, however, decide that, as they are people, they do count as aircraft operators and could require them to pass standard piloting tests in order to legally exert their powers.
	** The FAA could, instead, determine that as no Survivor qualifies as aircraft, no Survivor is allowed to use their power to fly, legally grounding all Survivors.		** The FAA could, instead, determine that as no Survivor qualifies as aircraft, no Survivor is allowed to use their power to fly, legally grounding all Survivors.

JasonK at 07:07, 8 January 2006

2006-01-08T07:07:08Z

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 *** Split Custody: The parents each get Sole Custody of one child.  The other parent almost always has visitation rights to their non-custodial child.
 *** Joint Custody: The parents share legal decision-making rights for the children and the children spend an equal time with each parent.  A number of different arrangements within this schema is possible.  A very unlikely custody result; usually only happens during amicable divorces where the parents can agree on custody terms prior to court interference.
 ----
 [[The AMERICAN GODS]]

68.193.165.25 at 05:25, 23 December 2005

2005-12-23T05:25:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, 23 December 2005
Line 57:		Line 57:
	** Julie has two possibilities for Contesting the Divorce:		** Julie has two possibilities for Contesting the Divorce:
	*** The Seperation/Desertion wasn't willful (i.e. she didn't plan to leave, she had no choice). If Daniel applies for divorce on grounds that ''he'' is the one doing the abandonning, Julie can't contest in this way.		*** The Seperation/Desertion wasn't willful (i.e. she didn't plan to leave, she had no choice). If Daniel applies for divorce on grounds that ''he'' is the one doing the abandonning, Julie can't contest in this way.
	*** If she had sex with him since the Survivors woke up, there's no grounds for Seperation/Desertion.		*** If she had sex with him since the Survivors woke up, there's no grounds for Julie's Seperation/Desertion. Again, if Daniel's abandoning, Julie can't contest this way.
	* Custody can go either way:		* Custody can go either way:
	** No preference is given to a parent based on gender.		** No preference is given to a parent based on gender.
	** Daniel is a better provider, as he works a nicely-paid, full-time job. By contrast Julie is unemployed.		** Daniel is a better provider, as he works a nicely-paid, full-time job. By contrast Julie is unemployed. (Does Julie have job skills? Can she get a job quickly?)
	** Conversely, Daniel's work requires that he spend a lot of time out-of-country and can't, therefore, reliably and consistently care for the children. Julie can.		** Conversely, Daniel's work requires that he spend a lot of time out-of-country and can't, therefore, reliably and consistently care for the children. Julie can.
			** The Court favors the primary caregiver. That's pretty obviously Julie.
			** The Court will consider Daniel's abuse of Julie, but only if it has been previously documented in police reports.
			** The parent doing the abandoning is at a disadvantage for custody.
			** Three types of custody:
			*** Sole Custody: One parent gets custody of both children, who live only with her, and can make all legal decisions for them. The other parent almost always has visitation rights.
			*** Split Custody: The parents each get Sole Custody of one child. The other parent almost always has visitation rights to their non-custodial child.
			*** Joint Custody: The parents share legal decision-making rights for the children and the children spend an equal time with each parent. A number of different arrangements within this schema is possible. A very unlikely custody result; usually only happens during amicable divorces where the parents can agree on custody terms prior to court interference.

	----		----
	[[The AMERICAN GODS]]		[[The AMERICAN GODS]]

67.171.37.61 at 10:32, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T10:32:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 9 December 2005
Line 41:		Line 41:


			==Virginia State Divorce Law==
			* Divorce-Related Websites
			** [http://www.divorcenet.com/states/virginia/va_div Divorce.net - Virginia Law]
			** [http://www.divorcenet.com/states/virginia/va_divorce Divorce.net - Virginia Law, Summary]
			** [http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/VA/divorce/divexpln.htm Divorce Law Info]
			** [http://www.vsb.org/publications/brochure/divorce.html VSB - Divorce in Virginia]
			** Custody Articles
			*** [http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/VA/custody/custody.htm At Divorce Law Info]
			*** [http://www.divorcenet.com/states/virginia/criteria_for_deciding_a_virginia_custody_case At Divorce.net]

			* Daniel can file for Divorce From Bed and Board (''a mensa et thoro'' - similar to "Legal Seperation" in other states) or Divorce From the Bond of Matrimony (''a vinculo matrimonii'' - also called "a full divorce").
			** From Bed and Board: Daniel files on the grounds of Willful Desertion or Abandonment. The divorce isn't permanent (they can later cancel it), doesn't allow either Daniel or Julie to remarry and keeps joint property & insurance claims valid. It only legally establishes that they're living apart, custody of the children and for support (i.e. alimony & child support).
			*** Daniel could be the one to do the Deserting. He would have to move out of the house (though, in ''theory'' he could kick Julie out, instead), but he can then apply for Divorce From Bed and Board right away. After a year appart he could apply for the court to "merge" that decree into a Divorce From the Bond of Matrimony, if he wanted.
			** From the Bond of Matrimony: Daniel files on the grounds of Seperation. The divorce will be absolute, allowing Daniel & Julie to remarry and terminating all property and insurance claims each has on the other. Child custody and support are, of course, settled as well.
			** Julie has two possibilities for Contesting the Divorce:
			*** The Seperation/Desertion wasn't willful (i.e. she didn't plan to leave, she had no choice). If Daniel applies for divorce on grounds that ''he'' is the one doing the abandonning, Julie can't contest in this way.
			*** If she had sex with him since the Survivors woke up, there's no grounds for Seperation/Desertion.
			* Custody can go either way:
			** No preference is given to a parent based on gender.
			** Daniel is a better provider, as he works a nicely-paid, full-time job. By contrast Julie is unemployed.
			** Conversely, Daniel's work requires that he spend a lot of time out-of-country and can't, therefore, reliably and consistently care for the children. Julie can.

	----		----
	[[The AMERICAN GODS]]		[[The AMERICAN GODS]]

67.171.37.61 at 21:20, 17 September 2005

2005-09-17T21:20:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 17 September 2005
Line 7:		Line 7:

	The full text of the Patriot Act can be found [http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251&c=207 here]. That said, the intricacies of government legal jargon are not the easiest things to understand. See commentaries from [http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/ the slate.com] and [http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207 the aclu]. Also see [[ The Patriot Act For Dummies]].		The full text of the Patriot Act can be found [http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251&c=207 here]. That said, the intricacies of government legal jargon are not the easiest things to understand. See commentaries from [http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/ the slate.com] and [http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207 the aclu]. Also see [[ The Patriot Act For Dummies]].


	===Changes in Section 412===		===Changes in Section 412===
	The Patriot Act in the world of the American Gods game contains one key difference from the one in the real world. This difference appears in Section 412, '''MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.'''		The Patriot Act in the world of the American Gods game contains one key difference from the one in the real world. This difference appears in Section 412, '''MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.'''

	The Section ~~states that~~ the Attorney General may certify ~~someone~~ an alien to be ~~taken into custody as a suspected terrorist~~ if he has reasonable grounds to believe that ~~one of~~ the ~~following three things is true:~~		The Section discusses the rules under which the Attorney General may take suspected terrorists into custody. The differences appear in three paragraphs, quoted below (the differences appear in italics):
	* (A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or		* (1) CUSTODY - the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3) ''and any deceased bodies and organic materials involved in acts certified aliens engaged in to so certify them.''
	* (B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.		* (2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien ''or alien material'' until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien ''or alien material'' may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
	* (C) is declared deceased, upon declaration all organic material becomes materials in accordance with 213. Materials remain subject to 213 until the Attorney General determines that the material is no longer a threat as defined by section 412 and 213. If the alien material is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.		* (3) CERTIFICATION - The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien -
			** (A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
	[Authorizes the Attorney General authority to order a brief detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous.] Section 412, United States Code, is amended - alien material is further defined as deceased bodies and organic materials involved in acts of terrorism.		** (B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
			** ''(C) is declared deceased, upon declaration all organic material becomes materials in accordance with 213.''


	~~'''MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW~~
	~~SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-'''~~
	* (1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
	* (2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien or alien material until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien or alien material may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.


Line 35:		Line 29:

	[[State vs. Reagan - Additional Details]]		[[State vs. Reagan - Additional Details]]



	==Homicide and the Legal System==		==Homicide and the Legal System==

67.171.37.61 at 06:29, 15 September 2005

2005-09-15T06:29:25Z

Show changes

67.171.37.61: /* State vs. Reagan */

2005-09-14T23:04:59Z

State vs. Reagan

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 14 September 2005
Line 85:		Line 85:
	'''EXCERPTED''' from Maryland State court records: Docket number 1542.23, State of Maryland vs. [[Thomas Reagan]], arraignment, January 28th 2005.		'''EXCERPTED''' from Maryland State court records: Docket number 1542.23, State of Maryland vs. [[Thomas Reagan]], arraignment, January 28th 2005.

	Barry Levine, Assistant State's Attorney, for the Prosecution:		Barry Levine[http://www.garrettcounty.org/st-attorney/, *], Assistant State's Attorney, for the Prosecution:

	"Your Honor, altough the State has charged Mr. Reagan under Maryland Criminal Code Title 6, subtitle 3, section 01a with 2,000 counts of malicious destriction of private property[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16439/16541/16542?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr6-301, ], under Title 7, subtitle 1, section 05b with 2,000 counts of motor vehicle theft[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16667/16695/16739?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr7-105, ] and under Title 9, subtitle 7, section 02a with 500 counts of injury to public property[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16d8f/17014/1702b?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr9-702, *], the State's sole reason for these charges was to bring Mr. Reagan before this court today so that we could assert that he has no right to a trial at all." <br> "Thomas Reagan is of the group known to the media and the world at large as The Survivors. It is the State's contention that these so-called Survivors are no longer human. I hold here a document, ''A Mutation in the Variable Repeat Region of the Gene'', by Lindsay Gleghorn, Rajkumar Ramesar and Gillian Wallis, 3 of the world's leading genetic specialists. The report is further signed and approved by 7 more. They arrived at the conclusions in this report after examining the Survivors' genetic tissue. Let me read a brief excerpt: <blockquote>The genetic makeup of these subjects, I say subjects because their DNA no longer even remotely resembles human DNA, is unlike anything I have ever seen. If I were given this DNA without knowledge of the source of it I would not even assume that they were human.</blockquote> "Would not even assume that they were human. If the world's leading doctors wouldn't identify them as human, how can this court? And if they are not human, how can we give them the same basic rights as humans? When a tiger kills a man, do we put it on trial? No. We put it down, to stop it from killing again." <br> "Your honor, there are tigers in our midst, and it would only hurt us to pretend that they are men."		"Your Honor, altough the State has charged Mr. Reagan under Maryland Criminal Code Title 6, subtitle 3, section 01a with 2,000 counts of malicious destriction of private property[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16439/16541/16542?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr6-301, ], under Title 7, subtitle 1, section 05b with 2,000 counts of motor vehicle theft[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16667/16695/16739?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr7-105, ] and under Title 9, subtitle 7, section 02a with 500 counts of injury to public property[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16d8f/17014/1702b?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr9-702, *], the State's sole reason for these charges was to bring Mr. Reagan before this court today so that we could assert that he has no right to a trial at all." <br> "Thomas Reagan is of the group known to the media and the world at large as The Survivors. It is the State's contention that these so-called Survivors are no longer human. I hold here a document, ''A Mutation in the Variable Repeat Region of the Gene'', by Lindsay Gleghorn, Rajkumar Ramesar and Gillian Wallis, 3 of the world's leading genetic specialists. The report is further signed and approved by 7 more. They arrived at the conclusions in this report after examining the Survivors' genetic tissue. Let me read a brief excerpt: <blockquote>The genetic makeup of these subjects, I say subjects because their DNA no longer even remotely resembles human DNA, is unlike anything I have ever seen. If I were given this DNA without knowledge of the source of it I would not even assume that they were human.</blockquote> "Would not even assume that they were human. If the world's leading doctors wouldn't identify them as human, how can this court? And if they are not human, how can we give them the same basic rights as humans? When a tiger kills a man, do we put it on trial? No. We put it down, to stop it from killing again." <br> "Your honor, there are tigers in our midst, and it would only hurt us to pretend that they are men."

	[[State vs. Reagan - Additional Details]]		[[State vs. Reagan - Additional Details]]



	==Homicide and the Legal System==		==Homicide and the Legal System==

67.171.37.61 at 22:29, 14 September 2005

2005-09-14T22:29:15Z

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ==State vs. Reagan==
-''''EXCERPT'''' Maryland State vs. [[Thomas Reagan]], January 28th 2005:  Report one Tom Reagan (Survivor #216) caused the disintigration of every vehicle within a 9 mile radius of the town of [http://www.oaklandmd.com/home.asp Oakland, MD]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_Maryland Oakland, MD wikipedia]
+'''EXCERPTED''' from Maryland State court records:  Docket number 1542.23, State of Maryland vs. [[Thomas Reagan]], arraignment, January 28th 2005.
-'' "Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I hold in my hand a very important document that is highly damaging to the "survivor's" case in this matter. I hold here a document signed by ten of the top leading geneticists in the world after genetic tissue was handed over to them from the "survivors" following their initial recovery. I would like to read a portion of this now for you all... ''
+Barry Levine, Assistant State's Attorney, for the Prosecution:
-From Dr. Peter Beighton:
+"Your Honor, altough the State has charged Mr. Reagan under Maryland Criminal Code Title 6, subtitle 3, section 01a with 2,000 counts of malicious destriction of private property[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16439/16541/16542?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr6-301, *], under Title 7, subtitle 1, section 05b with 2,000 counts of motor vehicle theft[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16667/16695/16739?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr7-105, *] and under Title 9, subtitle 7, section 02a with 500 counts of injury to public property[http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll/Infobase/153ca/16d8f/17014/1702b?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_cr9-702, *], the State's sole reason for these charges was to bring Mr. Reagan before this court today so that we could assert that he has no right to a trial at all."  <br>  "Thomas Reagan is of the group known to the media and the world at large as The Survivors.  It is the State's contention that these so-called Survivors are no longer human.  I hold here a document, ''A Mutation in the Variable Repeat Region of the Gene'', by Lindsay Gleghorn, Rajkumar Ramesar and Gillian Wallis, 3 of the world's leading genetic specialists.  The report is further signed and approved by 7 more.  They arrived at the conclusions in this report after examining the Survivors' genetic tissue.  Let me read a brief excerpt:  <blockquote>The genetic makeup of these subjects, I say subjects because their DNA no longer even remotely resembles human DNA, is unlike anything I have ever seen. If I were given this DNA without knowledge of the source of it I would not even assume that they were human.</blockquote>  "Would not even assume that they were human.  If the world's leading doctors wouldn't identify them as human, how can this court?  And if they are not human, how can we give them the same basic rights as humans?  When a tiger kills a man, do we put it on trial?  No.  We put it down, to stop it from killing again."  <br>  "Your honor, there are tigers in our midst, and it would only hurt us to pretend that they are men."
 [[State vs. Reagan - Additional Details]]

Demongg: /* Homicide and the Legal System */

2005-09-05T23:07:18Z

Homicide and the Legal System

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 ==Homicide and the Legal System==
 * [[Godlike charged with Murder]]:  Mandy Smith charged of Murder by the state of Georgia.
+* [[Homicide Defined]]:  notes for the crime.
 ''References''

Demongg: /* Homicide and the Legal System */

2005-09-05T23:03:51Z

Homicide and the Legal System

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:03, 5 September 2005
Line 117:		Line 117:

	==Homicide and the Legal System==		==Homicide and the Legal System==
			* [[Godlike charged with Murder]]: Mandy Smith charged of Murder by the state of Georgia.


	'''Homicide''' is the killing of another human being by one or more others. In contrast, suicide is the self killing of a human being. Legally homicide is classified as either justifiable (A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called justifiable homicide in some cases. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past would generally not be considered justifiable, although in some cases such a crime is classed as being justifiable due to the impossibility of finding a jury who would convict under the case's circumstances.) homicide which is not a crime, or the following crimes:		'''Homicide''' is the killing of another human being by one or more others. In contrast, suicide is the self killing of a human being. Legally homicide is classified as either justifiable (A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called justifiable homicide in some cases. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past would generally not be considered justifiable, although in some cases such a crime is classed as being justifiable due to the impossibility of finding a jury who would convict under the case's circumstances.) homicide which is not a crime, or the following crimes:
	* '''murder''': In law, murder is the crime of a human being causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In most countries it is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. A killing may not be legally classified as murder, but still morally considered by some as a murder. For example, critics claim that the death penalty morally counts as a murder.		* '''murder''': In law, murder is the crime of a human being causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In most countries it is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. A killing may not be legally classified as murder, but still morally considered by some as a murder. For example, critics claim that the death penalty morally counts as a murder.