Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Yaelle
From the article, you're likely right about his civil liability:

Liability is acquired, however, if you were acting negligently when you caused the harm.

For example, imagine that you were driving down a neighborhood road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. You’re in a bit of a hurry, however, so you’re driving at a solid 35 miles per hour. There’s no reason for you to think, and you don’t think that you’re creating any exceptional risk by driving a bit over the speed limit—heck, plenty of the people in the neighborhood do so all the time. Suddenly, however, a child dashes out into the street, and that 10 miles per hour over the limit is what prevents you from stopping before your vehicle hits and kills the child.

Here you were not acting in a normal and non-negligent manner. We all have a generalized legal duty to not cause unjustified harm to others. Your intentional disregard of the stated speed limit violated that legal duty, even though you did not know you were creating an exceptional risk of death.

As for criminal liability...probably not:

Criminal liability requires recklessness.

Recklessness occurs when you not only violate a legal duty to not cause harm, but you explicitly know you are doing so, and you intentionally disregard that risk.

You know (as we all know, so it is “common knowledge” in legal terms) that driving while intoxicated creates a risk to others of death or serious bodily injury. When you become voluntarily intoxicated and operate a motor vehicle you are aware of the risk you are creating, and you are choosing to disregard that risk.

Should a death result, your recklessness makes that not an accident or even mere negligence, but a crime—involuntary manslaughter.

73 posted on 10/22/2021 10:00:26 PM PDT by DoodleBob (Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s^2 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleBob
Criminal liability requires recklessness. Recklessness occurs when you not only violate a legal duty to not cause harm, but you explicitly know you are doing so, and you intentionally disregard that risk.
You know (as we all know, so it is “common knowledge” in legal terms) that driving while intoxicated creates a risk to others of death or serious bodily injury. When you become voluntarily intoxicated and operate a motor vehicle you are aware of the risk you are creating, and you are choosing to disregard that risk.
Should a death result, your recklessness makes that not an accident or even mere negligence, but a crime—involuntary manslaughter.


A good analysis. It all depends on the laws in NM and the prosecutor's inclination to charge Baldwin. I would also add that simply pointing an empty firearm at someone is usually assault. Somehow I doubt Baldwin will be charged with even disorderly conduct.
100 posted on 10/23/2021 6:19:43 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson