you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (34 children)
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (32 children)

    He would obviously just lie and say it was an accident. I would match his story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (31 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    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"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (7 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Tell me what are the factual standards for nighttime and broad daylight, again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    especially if you use it to intentionally strike a pedestrian

    There's that word again... One might think it's important...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    This, plus gun-related accidents happen all the time, and they're called accidents. Nobody calls those murder. I sympathize with the intent here, but this meme doesn't make any sense

  • source
  • parent