That’s not how vehicular manslaughter trials work. It’s like any other murder prosecution. He’d need to prove it was an accident. And mowing down someone with a car in front of witnesses in broad daylight?
To prove a car accident was not intentional in court, you would need to present evidence demonstrating that your actions at the time of the crash were not deliberate, including factors like: witness testimonies, police reports, vehicle damage analysis, your driving record, medical records, and expert testimony to explain the circumstances leading to the accident, highlighting any distractions, mechanical failures, or unexpected road conditions that could have contributed to the crash.
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
What context was this legal advice given in? This may be advice for a civil lawsuit too?
In any case it is of course true that it is good to be able to present evidence in one’s favor in criminal court, but that is to establish that there is reasonable doubt, not because the defendant has the burden of proof.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill. He had a manifesto, there are witnesses… He murdered a man.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill.
Intent must be proved, and depending on the circumstances, can be hard or easy. Using a gun carries with it an assumption of intent - unless you’re hunting or target shooting, your intent can be assumed to not be good. With a car, there are a lot more things you could reasonably be doing, ill intent can’t be assumed.
It’s as good an analogy as any other… It’s wrong to expect an analogy to fit the situation perfectly, because that would not be an analogy, it would be the thing you are talking about. The purpose of an analogy is to compare things that are not identical, but have some similarities.
It’s creating a false scenario where a different weapon was used, and then saying that the outcome would be different so that it fits a narrative with no understanding of how these things work- and then arguing against anyone that points out how flawed it is.
Which is perfectly reasonable considering where it was posted.
Where there is a victim of vehicular homicide, it wouldn’t be a civil suit. So again, it’s irrelevant.
OP compared the CEO’s murder outcome as potentially being different if he purposefully ran him over with a car. This isn’t about civil suits. It’s not about any other suits. It’s about this particular “what if” scenario where a different weapon was used.
It’s a bad argument and a was just attempting to illustrate that.
In this context, we’re talking an about Luigi murdering a CEO. You can’t change reality in order to make your analogy work.
He murdered a CEO. If it were with a gun, or a car- the outcome would be the same. Which is my point, and has been this entire time.
I’m staying within the wheelhouse of the topic. OP stated that it would be different if he used a car and I’m here to explain how it would not be different. A car in this car would be co suffered a weapon in a murder.
EDIT: Based on the ratio here, it’s easy to see that the people of FuckCars do not like the idea that 6:44 AM is not considered night time by factual standards.
The max penalty for 2nd degree vehicular manslaughter is only 7 years. In theory he could be prosecuted for 1st degree or even aggravated, but those require DUI or multiple fatalities.
Now look up what the maximum sentence would be for when someone purposefully murders someone with a car. Because Vehicular Homicide in the second degree- is where a death is caused “without an intention to do so” and where there is neither reckless driving, nor a DWI offense.
You’re manufacturing an argument while leaving out key facts.
Your boy WANTED the CEO dead. So, don’t use accidental death cases to compare it in bad faith
Vehicular homicide with intent carries the same penalties as with a gun.
Nope. In New York, the law for vehicular manslaugher/homicide only applies where DUI is involved. Perhaps you are thinking of regular homicide/manslaughter, but those require proving intent – which as previously stated is hard to do where an automobile is involved.
A vehicle is considered a “deadly weapon” according to New York law, especially if you use it to intentionally strike a pedestrian. As a result, you might face much more serious charges than assault if you try to hit someone with your car. Theoretically, you could be charged with attempted murder. You might also face charges of assault with a deadly weapon – especially if you strike and injure the intended target.
So again, if he had used a car, the charges would remain the same. It would be murder.
Stop moving the goalposts. Cars have nothing to do with this.
That’s not how vehicular manslaughter trials work. It’s like any other murder prosecution. He’d need to prove it was an accident. And mowing down someone with a car in front of witnesses in broad daylight?
Yeah…
Guilty.
no he doesn’t need to prove it, in a criminal trial in most countries, the prosecution has the burden of proof; in the US “beyond a reasonable doubt”
According to legal advice:
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
What context was this legal advice given in? This may be advice for a civil lawsuit too?
In any case it is of course true that it is good to be able to present evidence in one’s favor in criminal court, but that is to establish that there is reasonable doubt, not because the defendant has the burden of proof.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill. He had a manifesto, there are witnesses… He murdered a man.
If it were a gun or a car. It’s irrelevant.
I’m not getting trapped up in semantics.
Intent must be proved, and depending on the circumstances, can be hard or easy. Using a gun carries with it an assumption of intent - unless you’re hunting or target shooting, your intent can be assumed to not be good. With a car, there are a lot more things you could reasonably be doing, ill intent can’t be assumed.
Which is why it’s a shitty analogy to begin with and in bad faith to compare the two.
It’s as good an analogy as any other… It’s wrong to expect an analogy to fit the situation perfectly, because that would not be an analogy, it would be the thing you are talking about. The purpose of an analogy is to compare things that are not identical, but have some similarities.
It’s creating a false scenario where a different weapon was used, and then saying that the outcome would be different so that it fits a narrative with no understanding of how these things work- and then arguing against anyone that points out how flawed it is.
Which is perfectly reasonable considering where it was posted.
that is literally what the law comes down to.
And I wasn’t talking about this or any other specific case, just attempting to make sure that people understood the general legal concepts.
Where there is a victim of vehicular homicide, it wouldn’t be a civil suit. So again, it’s irrelevant.
OP compared the CEO’s murder outcome as potentially being different if he purposefully ran him over with a car. This isn’t about civil suits. It’s not about any other suits. It’s about this particular “what if” scenario where a different weapon was used.
It’s a bad argument and a was just attempting to illustrate that.
Dude that’s now how any trial works. You cannot prove an accident is an accident. It’s the prosecutors job to prove that it wasn’t.
So…. No trial allows one to defend themselves against accusation?
Proving it was not intentional, and proving it was an accident, are two very different things.
In this context, we’re talking an about Luigi murdering a CEO. You can’t change reality in order to make your analogy work.
He murdered a CEO. If it were with a gun, or a car- the outcome would be the same. Which is my point, and has been this entire time.
I’m staying within the wheelhouse of the topic. OP stated that it would be different if he used a car and I’m here to explain how it would not be different. A car in this car would be co suffered a weapon in a murder.
It was night, no?
It was 6:44am, and the sun rose at 7:08 am, so yes.
No. It was approximately 6:44 AM
EDIT: Based on the ratio here, it’s easy to see that the people of FuckCars do not like the idea that 6:44 AM is not considered night time by factual standards.
Tell me what are the factual standards for nighttime and broad daylight, again?
Do you not know the difference between when someone says six in the morning and six in the evening?
But do you know anyone who calls the time before sunrise broad daylight? I would call that dusk, wouldn’t you? And is 2 am nighttime or morning?
6AM isn’t night
Sun rose on 7:08 am on Dec 9
The max penalty for 2nd degree vehicular manslaughter is only 7 years. In theory he could be prosecuted for 1st degree or even aggravated, but those require DUI or multiple fatalities.
Now look up what the maximum sentence would be for when someone purposefully murders someone with a car. Because Vehicular Homicide in the second degree- is where a death is caused “without an intention to do so” and where there is neither reckless driving, nor a DWI offense.
You’re manufacturing an argument while leaving out key facts.
Your boy WANTED the CEO dead. So, don’t use accidental death cases to compare it in bad faith
Vehicular homicide with intent carries the same penalties as with a gun.
Nope. In New York, the law for vehicular manslaugher/homicide only applies where DUI is involved. Perhaps you are thinking of regular homicide/manslaughter, but those require proving intent – which as previously stated is hard to do where an automobile is involved.
From a NY attorney’s site:
A vehicle is considered a “deadly weapon” according to New York law, especially if you use it to intentionally strike a pedestrian. As a result, you might face much more serious charges than assault if you try to hit someone with your car. Theoretically, you could be charged with attempted murder. You might also face charges of assault with a deadly weapon – especially if you strike and injure the intended target.
So again, if he had used a car, the charges would remain the same. It would be murder.
Stop moving the goalposts. Cars have nothing to do with this.
There’s that word again… One might think it’s important…
So… he accidentally shot an unarmed man in the back?
I think the point is that it’s a lot easier to “accidentally” hit someone with a car
Bingo.