To: PzLdr
OH - I'm aware of the law. It's the law that I don't agree with. I firmly believe that the definition of murder (and the possibility of capitol punishment) should be expanded.
21 posted on
02/22/2005 10:23:24 PM PST by
TheBattman
(Islam (and liberals)- the cult of Satan)
To: TheBattman
When I was a law student ('75) I worked on one of the first NY cases where we indicted a drunk driver for Man 2 when he killed a pedestrian crossing the street in NYC. To get above Crim. Neg., we argued that drunk driving, coupled with high speed, and running a series of red lights (aggravating factors), made the defendant's conduct RECKLESS, not negligent. The mere fact that the drunk INTENDS to drive does not constitute intent to kill, and may not make out depraved indifference to kill. My office tried a vehicular for depraved indifference.The JURY wouldn't go for it, convicted him of either vehicular manslaughter or Man 2 (I forget which). Change all the statutes you want. Unless the jury of your peers goes along with it, "don't mean nothin'".
22 posted on
02/23/2005 5:40:18 AM PST by
PzLdr
(Liberals are like slugs-they leave a trail of slime wherever they go.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson