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.
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.