|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
Perfect example of negligent homicide. Definitely an accident and unintentional
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver? What has "feel" got to do with it?
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882 |
Perfect example of negligent homicide. Definitely an accident and unintentional
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver? Agree or disagree doesn't change the law
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,444
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,444 |
Perfect example of negligent homicide. Definitely an accident and unintentional
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver? Agree or disagree doesn't change the law Thanks for that captain obvious. Do you believe sending that driver to jail was the right thing to do?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 |
You are dumb as a brick. You accidentally miss seeing a stop sign and kill someone, you have committed negligent homicide
There are certain things the law presumes, as a matter of public policy, that folks are always obliged to take note of. Stops signs, red lights, etc. (unless obstructed by overgrown bushes, etc..). You accept that as a condition of your drivers license. That's not comparable to a mistake of fact defense scenario. Your honor, when my client clobbered his wife over the head with a Louisville Slugger, he thought it was a Nerf product. MISTAKE OF FACT! What is a red herring Alex? Sure it is.
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,444
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,444 |
Perfect example of negligent homicide. Definitely an accident and unintentional
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver? What has "feel" got to do with it? I want to know if on a human level he believes jail is the right thing for that diver. It's a curiosity, that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882 |
Therefore, the "mistake of favt" defense will be of no relevance when a 26 year police office doesn't know the difference between a taser and a pistol , this is a clear case of negligent homicide hence the charge of 2nd degree manslaughter
Okay, so you're asserting that she actually knew it was a Glock, not a Taser, and that she secretly intended to murder the arrestee, and just added the comments about him being about to be Tasered in order to plant exculpatory evidence into the record. That's a sound theory, but you'd need some evidence for it. Your theory that she did in fact know the difference, at the time of the shooting, between her Glock and her Taser, of course, totally negates your negligent homicide theory. You realize that, right? If she actually knew the difference at that moment, then yours is just a plain old first degree murder theory, not a negligent homicide theory. My assertion is that after 26 years of on the job training she was negligent. Any reasonable person with 26 years should know the location of their taser and their pistol on their belt. To not know is negligent
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837 |
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver?
What I "feel" is irrelevant. We are discussing LAW here, not "feelings". Now, had the driver an IQ somewhere above 90, and the means to hire a lawyer, instead of depending on God and a public defender in a poor rural county to defend him, he probably would have never seen the inside of the jail cell. But no one ever pretended to believe the world was not affected of a two tier justice system.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882 |
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver?
What I "feel" is irrelevant. We are discussing LAW here, not "feelings". Now, had the driver an IQ somewhere above 90, and the means to hire a lawyer, instead of depending on God and a public defender in a poor rural county to defend him, he probably would have never seen the inside of the jail cell. But no one ever pretended to believe the world was not affected of a two tier justice system. Nailed it
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
I want to know if on a human level he believes jail is the right thing for that diver. It's a curiosity, that's all.
Apparently a jury of his peers thought so, and most likely the relatives of the dead would too. If they were my relatives I would have been keen on capital punishment as well.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460 |
My assertion is that after 26 years of on the job training she was negligent. Any reasonable person with 26 years should know the location of their taser and their pistol on their belt. To not know is negligent
Not in the criminal sense. In the tortious sense, yes. The reason it's not negligent in the criminal sense (as in negligent homicide) is that there was zero mens rea in evidence. All the evidence points to a momentary confusion in the midst of an exigent circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837 |
Feelings are for liberals!
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,444
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,444 |
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver?
What I "feel" is irrelevant. We are discussing LAW here, not "feelings". Now, had the driver an IQ somewhere above 90, and the means to hire a lawyer, instead of depending on God and a public defender in a poor rural county to defend him, he probably would have never seen the inside of the jail cell. But no one ever pretended to believe the world was not affected of a two tier justice system. I am discussing beliefs as well.I entered into this conversation asking "Should this cop be jailed for what seems pretty obviously an accident?" I well know the law allows it, but is it the right thing to do?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837 |
My assertion is that after 26 years of on the job training she was negligent. Any reasonable person with 26 years should know the location of their taser and their pistol on their belt. To not know is negligent
Not in the criminal sense. In the tortious sense, yes. The reason it's not negligent in the criminal sense (as in negligent homicide) is that there was zero mens rea in evidence. All the evidence points to a momentary confusion in the midst of an exigent circumstance. Where is the Mens Rea in the case of the driver of the station wagon?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882 |
My assertion is that after 26 years of on the job training she was negligent. Any reasonable person with 26 years should know the location of their taser and their pistol on their belt. To not know is negligent
Not in the criminal sense. In the tortious sense, yes. The reason it's not negligent in the criminal sense (as in negligent homicide) is that there was zero mens rea in evidence. All the evidence points to a momentary confusion in the midst of an exigent circumstance. In the criminal sense it is also and I'll make a prediction and that is "mistake of fact" will not be used by her lawyer at the trial
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882 |
My assertion is that after 26 years of on the job training she was negligent. Any reasonable person with 26 years should know the location of their taser and their pistol on their belt. To not know is negligent
Not in the criminal sense. In the tortious sense, yes. The reason it's not negligent in the criminal sense (as in negligent homicide) is that there was zero mens rea in evidence. All the evidence points to a momentary confusion in the midst of an exigent circumstance. Where is the Mens Rea in the case of the driver of the station wagon? "The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of mens rea: purpose (same as intent), knowledge, recklessness and negligence." Notice the word "NEGLIGENCE "
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,837 |
Do you feel like jail is the right place for that driver?
What I "feel" is irrelevant. We are discussing LAW here, not "feelings". Now, had the driver an IQ somewhere above 90, and the means to hire a lawyer, instead of depending on God and a public defender in a poor rural county to defend him, he probably would have never seen the inside of the jail cell. But no one ever pretended to believe the world was not affected of a two tier justice system. I am discussing beliefs as well.I entered into this conversation asking "Should this cop be jailed for what seems pretty obviously an accident?" I well know the law allows it, but is it the right thing to do? It is if it saves just one child! Better put, if her incarceration forces just one cop who is no more suited to the job than is this inept female, to reconsider his/her career choice, and gets him/her off the street, then yes, it is the right thing to do. Can you spell...run on sentence?
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460 |
Where is the Mens Rea in the case of the driver of the station wagon?
People are wrongly jailed and imprisoned all the time. This is why trial court verdicts are not used in legal arguments. They don't set legal precedent. For that, we use the highest appellate decisions for each case only.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,882 |
Where is the Mens Rea in the case of the driver of the station wagon?
People are wrongly jailed and imprisoned all the time. This is why trial court verdicts are not used in legal arguments. They don't set legal precedent. For that, we use the highest appellate decisions for each case only. The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of mens rea: purpose (same as intent), knowledge, recklessness and negligence.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460 |
In the criminal sense it is also and I'll make a prediction and that is "mistake of fact" will not be used by her lawyer at the trial
So you don't believe the defense will claim that she mistook her Glock for her Taser? You could be right. There is no obligation on the part of the defense to make any defensive claim whatsoever. I think you're wrong, though. At some point it will be part of the defense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,460 |
"The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of mens rea: purpose (same as intent), knowledge, recklessness and negligence."
Notice the word "NEGLIGENCE "
Sure, but it has a different definition when used in the criminal context, such as when it's an element in criminal negligence. It pretty much amounts to recklessness. "Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances."
|
|
|
|
|
618 members (007FJ, 10gaugeman, 1234, 12344mag, 163bc, 1beaver_shooter, 67 invisible),
2,254
guests, and
1,144
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,734
Posts18,457,547
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
