|
tazzygirl -> RE: USMC joins #OWS after OPD takes a headshot at Marine... (10/28/2011 9:09:17 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Breaking the law is intent.
No, it's really not. If it were, there'd be no difference betrween charges like murder -- where the killer intended the victim to die, and manslaughter -- where the killer did something willful, but did not expect death to be a result.
If the law states you cannot shoot into a crowd.... but you do.. who is at fault?
Let me explain why I say "intent".
The test of intention
The policy issue for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. But, is the test of culpability based on purely a subjective measure of what is in a person's mind, or does a court measure the degree of fault by using objective tools?
For example, suppose that A, a jealous wife, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. Wishing only to drive B away from the neighbourhood, she goes to B's house one night, pours petrol on and sets fire to the front door. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to her that B might be physically in danger and there was no conscious plan in her mind to injure B when the fire began. But when A's behaviour is analysed, B's death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she would not have started the fire. Or, if verbally warning B to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before starting the fire. As it was, she waited until night when it was more likely that B would be at home and there would be fewer people around to raise the alarm.
On a purely subjective basis, A intended to render B's house uninhabitable, so a reasonably substantial fire was required. The reasonable person would have foreseen a probability that people would be exposed to the risk of injury. Anyone in the house, neighbours, people passing by, and members of the fire service would all be in danger. The court therefore assesses the degree of probability that B or any other person might be in the house at that time of the night. The more certain the reasonable person would have been, the more justifiable it is to impute sufficient desire to convert what would otherwise only have been recklessness into intention to constitute the offence of murder. But if the degree of probability is lower, the court will find only recklessness proved. Some states used to have a rule that if a death occurred during the commission of a felony, sufficient mens rea for murder would automatically be imputed (see felony murder). For the most part, this rule has been abolished and direct evidence of the required mental components is required. Thus, the courts of most states use a hybrid test of intention, combining both subjective and objective elements, for each offence changed.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. But this has always been the definition I was taught as far as talking about intent. Its based upon what a reasonably prudent person would consider the possible outcomes.
Shooting weapons into a crowd, with weapons they were not supposed to be using due to a policy developed years ago based upon an almost identical situation, to me, is intent.
|
|
|
|
