Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


You went after a statement that he was using as an example because it he mentioned guns, despite nobody else doing so, or treating it any different than just another example. There was nobody harping about gun laws, or violence or what have you. He could have just as easily have said, knives, or bows, or literally anything else, and it would not have mattered. But, apparently, because he mentioned guns, it mattered.

Because it was done so here intentionally.

I mean, if we want to start calling cars "deadly weapons" I assume you're all comfortable if we start cracking down on the Car Violence problem in the US, too.

How do you know someone takes gun politics too personally? When the sheer offhanded mention of guns sends them into a defensive frenzy

Um, Cars ARE considered deadly weapons when used in such a way.

Seriously? Guns are the go-to weapon in almost all conversations. He wanted a weapon for the example, alright then, gun. He said nothing that could even be construed as polarizing. What, are we now not allowed to even mention guns?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, Cars ARE considered deadly weapons when used in such a way.

Which way is that?

Getting stung by a wasp and swerving into another lane?

Or maybe dozing at the wheel and swerving into another lane?

Or spilling a drink on your lap and swerving into another lane?

You can claim he did it on purpose all you want here.

The prosecution is going to have to prove it if they go to trial. Otherwise, like I said earlier, their best hope is a plea.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Deliberately knocking a motorcyclist off their bike at high speeds has a very high risk off killing that motorcyclist. Ergo I think it should have been an attempted homicide charge.

While it would definitely qualify, there would be a higher burden of proof on such a charge. And failure to convict means the accused walks free. Its a common tactic to go after a "lesser" charge that you can guarantee will stick so you get a conviction instead of going after a riskier one. Usually you only go for a higher charge if you also have a bunch of others ones you know you can pin on them, that way you as the prosecutor minimize your risk of failing to convict.

Murder, as I recall, requires some intent. Without intent, its manslaughter. And I don't think there is such a thing as Attempted Manslaughter(or thats what Aggravated Assault covers/is)

Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon is a pretty harsh conviction as it is, and very easy to prove in this instance as opposed to Attempted Homocide which would be much harder. And as you can't be tried twice for the same crime, they can't just accuse the driver of both.

Attempted Mansluaghter is a thing
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/603.html

So it is. But you still have the intent part there to prove, which could be difficult in this scenario.

That's... an interesting charge. As manslaughter is without meaning to do it, how do you attempt something you aren't meaning to do?

You can have manslaughter without intent, you have have to have done something incredibly reckless.


There was a case here last year, where a motorcyclist was doing 90 in a 50 zone, and a car crossed the lane at a cross roads and killed him. The judge basically said that the bike driver was an idiot. But it didn't make the car driver any less liable, he would not have crashed if it weren't for the car driver doing what he did.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That's... an interesting charge. As manslaughter is without meaning to do it, how do you attempt something you aren't meaning to do?

I'm guessing it has to do with premeditation somehow. I mentioned earlier in the thread "depraved indifference". That could certainly allow a manslaughter charge without specific intent to murder.

It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.

IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.

^ I'm not sure on US law, but murder needs intent to cause harm ( you don't need to intend to kill someone to actually be guilty of murder, you just need to have intention to cause GBH).

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.

IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.

I don't think losing control of your vehicle qualifies as "attempting" manslaughter.

Essentially, the decision whether to charge someone with murder or manslaughter comes down to the state of mind of the accused. For someone to be tried for murder, they must have acted with malice and committed the act knowing it could result in death.
http://sabalawyers.com.au/whats-difference-murder-manslaughter/

Attempted means the act was incomplete, meaning nobody died. Regular dictionary definitions don't always apply in law.

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.

IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.

I don't think losing control of your vehicle qualifies as "attempting" manslaughter.

I wasn't trying to imply it was. That was more to illustrate the difference between murder and manslaughter, and till now I was 100% sure it was always about intent. If you kill someone with intent, its murder. Without, its manslaughter. but apparently Attempted Manslaughter is a thing and now I'm really confused.

You can't attempt manslaughter, because if you attempt deliberately to kill someone and fail, you have by definition committed attempted murder.

Here in the UK, the car driver would most likely be charged with the offence of causing injury by dangerous driving. I don't think there could be much defence against it in this case.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets play nice chillins or you'll get the hose...

I hosed the dog a couple of times, but never the other way around.

I had a pitbull that would play chase the water, then he would take the hose from you and run with the hose in his mouth. Every few months the wife tries to wash Rusty with the hose. He leads her on a merry chase around the yard.

 cincydooley wrote:
The prosecution is going to have to prove it if they go to trial.

Not really, they just have to convince a jury. The guy getting out the car and saying "I don't care" might look bad.

It's interesting that the video cuts out at that point. I assume there was more to the conversation, and the camera kept rolling. I wonder if he cut it there for legal reasons, or because that's all he wanted us to see.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.

IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.

I don't think losing control of your vehicle qualifies as "attempting" manslaughter.

I wasn't trying to imply it was. That was more to illustrate the difference between murder and manslaughter, and till now I was 100% sure it was always about intent. If you kill someone with intent, its murder. Without, its manslaughter. but apparently Attempted Manslaughter is a thing and now I'm really confused.

They left out a key word. There is both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The attempted manslaughter charge is attempted voluntary manslaughter. Basically you lose your mind briefly due to intense provocation that would cause anyone to fly off the handle, and try to kill them at that moment. If you don't do the job, attempted voluntary manslaughter. If you succeed, voluntary manslaughter. But you have to have intended to kill the person to get that. If you weren't trying to kill them, no attempted voluntary manslaughter.

A dangerous act that could result in death, does not equate to attempted murder if the person wasn't trying to kill someone.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
A dangerous act that could result in death, does not equate to attempted murder if the person wasn't trying to kill someone.

I think that a jury can find reasonable doubt of an attempt to kill so that means aggravated battery is what he'll likely be convicted of.

I think that a jury can find reasonable doubt of an attempt to kill so that means aggravated battery is what he'll likely be convicted of.

Not likely, that is exactly what he has been charged with as I posted above, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. I also can't understand why people are still talking about attempted murder? I posted above that in Texas attempted murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon are both class 2 felonies punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and up to a $10000 fine. IT IS LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT! Aggravated assault is easier to prove because you don't have to prove intent and like I already stated IT IS THE EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT as attempted murder. So why do we care that he didn't get attempted murder charges? I think the prosecutor made the perfect call, easier to prove and the same sentence. This is from an avid rider, April to November in Wisconsin, the only time I don't ride is when it is pouring rain when I am going to leave\e the house !

Pah, only fair weather bikers don't ride in the rain.

Ice on the other hand.....

I didn't say I don't ride when it's raining, just not if it is already raining when I an walking out the door. Getting wet during a ride is one thing, starting out your day wet as soon as you get on the bike not a lot of fun for the day . When ever some one asks me about getting a bike I always tell them if you are going to leave it at home because it might rain, or be cold, or be to hot, or it's frog mating season and they might be on the highway, don't get a bike. You need to ride all the time, in all conditions so you are comfortable on the bike and things are second nature. If you are a weekend warrior and you are thinking about how to clutch, when to break, where the instructor said to look when you are turning, you are not paying attention to everything trying to kill you, and I mean everything!

I thought Murder required premeditation, rather than intent?
Might attempted Manslaughter be something like a drunken brawl that turns into a knife fight and someone gets stabbed? If the victim dies, it's manslaughter due to lack of premeditation; if they survive it's attempted manslaughter?

Premeditation is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Premeditation is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder.

Ah, it might be a difference between UK/US then. Whenever I had it explained to me it was always Premeditation = Murder, Fit of Rage/Accident = Manslaughter

Yeah. Here in the US manslaughter is typical used as a crime lower than our 3rd Degree Murder (unpremeditated murder) and sometimes a sort of misdemeanor murder. The most common use of the term I think is for road accidents that result in death (Vehicular Manslaughter).

 Goliath wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Premeditation is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder.

Ah, it might be a difference between UK/US then. Whenever I had it explained to me it was always Premeditation = Murder, Fit of Rage/Accident = Manslaughter

It really depends on the laws of the State or territory the death takes place in. Although the laws are similar between States (for the most part) there are nuances, exceptions, and special circumstances that may be encoded in one State but not another.

In the UK, premeditation is not required to bring a charge of murder.

See the full definitions for murder and manslaughter here.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#voluntary