you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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