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.
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.
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.
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.
He would obviously just lie and say it was an accident. I would match his story.
deleted by creator
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”
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Proving it was not intentional, and proving it was an accident, are two very different things.
deleted by creator
It was night, no?
It was 6:44am, and the sun rose at 7:08 am, so yes.
deleted by creator
Sun rose on 7:08 am on Dec 9
deleted by creator
Tell me what are the factual standards for nighttime and broad daylight, again?
deleted by creator
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
There’s that word again… One might think it’s important…
deleted by creator
I think the point is that it’s a lot easier to “accidentally” hit someone with a car