Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Female cop grabs side arm instead of Taser...

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.

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."

She ignored the obvious risk of not knowing the difference between a taser and a pistol

Again, if your assertion is that, at the moment she pulled the trigger, she knew the difference between her Glock and her Taser, then what you're arguing is not criminal negligence, but plain old first degree murder.

I have consistently argued her negligence, so how do you make this giant leap?

I have consistently argued her negligence, so how do you make this giant leap?

Because TRH and PaulBarnard are contrarians.

They don’t actually know anything and they don’t have any real experience with the subjects they argue. They just do it to do it.

That’s why it’s all circular and stupid.

Thanks again for the enlightening commentary.

Let me clue you in Sparky. I am not arguing anything here. I am asking for a value judgement from the members by asking if jail is the right response to human fallibility. Is jail the right thing for a motorist rear ends and kills a bicyclist in broad daylight.

Well, how many bicyclists and pedestrians should we let him kill before we send him to jail? In Your opinion.

Thanks again for the enlightening commentary.

Let me clue you in Sparky. I am not arguing anything here. I am asking for a value judgement from the members by asking if jail is the right response to human fallibility. Is jail the right thing for a motorist rear ends and kills a bicyclist in broad daylight.

Well, how many bicyclists and pedestrians should we let him kill before we send him to jail? In Your opinion.

Yes I think prosecutors should have the ability to charge people that accidentally kill other people.

Is that clear enough for you?

Absent any aggravating factors, I believe revoking a license is the right course of action for a first time offender. As it stands, the norm is that a motorist who is at fault in a crash that kills a cyclist rarely ever suffers any punishment. Most often, not even a ticket.

Absent any aggravating factors, I believe revoking a license is the right course of action for a first time offender. As it stands, the norm is that a motorist who is at fault in a crash that kills a cyclist rarely ever suffers any punishment. Most often, not even a ticket.

Absent any aggravating factors, I believe revoking a license is the right course of action for a first time offender. As it stands, the norm is that a motorist who is at fault in a crash that kills a cyclist rarely ever suffers any punishment. Most often, not even a ticket.

I'd be real cautious about passing that judgement.

Unless you've put cuffs on struggling subjects a few dozen times in your life.

Another case in point. A few years ago. my son in law was driving down a residential street, obeying every traffic law.

Am eight or nine year old boy PUSHING a bicycle darted out from between two cars in the middle of the block and crossed in front of the car. My son in law struck the bike as the kid dropped it in front of his car, but managed to miss the kid.

Son in Law paid a ticket AND brought a new bike to court for the judge to inspect before handing it over to the kid.

Well, how many bicyclists and pedestrians should we let him kill before we send him to jail? In Your opinion.