With the "accidental" shooting involving Dick Cheney over the weekend shouldn't charges be brought up against him like involuntary manslaughter like they would if it was me? Shouldn't he at least have his hunting licsence taken away? Just wondering.
Where do I start here? Okay, what are you implying when you put quotes around "accident"? Are you suggesting it was intentional?
Manslaughter? Are you kidding me? Do you realize the victim did not die? That would be a requirement for manslaughter.
It was an accident. You know, an accident? They happen and the hunting license committee should investigate and take his license away if Cheney was negligent. But that's it.
I just think I would be able to tell a human from a quayle (unless it was the former V.P.) And by the way at thinkprogress.org Cheney was not allowed to be interviewed by the sheriff. And I said involuntary manslaughter not voluntary. You shoot someone as an accident that's what people are charged with.
As usual Robert incomplete information. From http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm
MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Again Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
You're not understanding the definition given on the website. First of all, it's specifically talking about involuntary manslaughter while we were discussing manslaughter in general. Forgetting that, the definitio of "involuntary manslaughter" is for all three of the conditions to be true, not just one.
If you still don't believe me, ask an attorney or even a paralegal. I know I am right about this. I'm in the legal industry and deal with this kind of terminology all the time.
15 comments:
Where do I start here? Okay, what are you implying when you put quotes around "accident"? Are you suggesting it was intentional?
Manslaughter? Are you kidding me? Do you realize the victim did not die? That would be a requirement for manslaughter.
It was an accident. You know, an accident? They happen and the hunting license committee should investigate and take his license away if Cheney was negligent. But that's it.
I just think I would be able to tell a human from a quayle (unless it was the former V.P.) And by the way at thinkprogress.org Cheney was not allowed to be interviewed by the sheriff. And I said involuntary manslaughter not voluntary. You shoot someone as an accident that's what people are charged with.
You're still calling it manslaughter. The man did not die. It is not manslaughter, voluntary or not.
If he died it's called murder
When in doubt Erik, look it up.
From Dictionary.com:
manslaughter the unlawful killing of a human being without malice
Murder would be the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.
I can sympathize with the Vice President. I was involved in an "accidental" shooting a few years ago. Boy did I pay for that one...
As usual Robert incomplete information. From http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m011.htm
MANSLAUGHTER, INVOLUNTARY - In order for a person to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others.
I believe definition 2 applies
Regarding your first comment I put accidental cause you weren't there I wasn't there how do we know other then what the right wing media tells us?
Erik, how many ways do I have to say this.
MANSLAUGHTER MEANS DEATH!!!!! DEATH AS IN NOT ALIVE! IT IS WRONG TO CALL SOMETHING MANSLAUGHTER UNLESS SOMEONE DIES!!!
Come up with a corpse and maybe we can call it manslaughter.
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
Again
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and
I've never known you to be so obtuse. Your own definition still requires a dead victim. Why are you not comprehending this?
Any definition of manslaughter involves a dead victim. Stop trying to fight me on this. I don't know how much plainer I can say it.
It's like your trying to argue that someone who was never in a car was drunk driving.
Funny that 2nd definition doesn't say that.
You're not understanding the definition given on the website. First of all, it's specifically talking about involuntary manslaughter while we were discussing manslaughter in general. Forgetting that, the definitio of "involuntary manslaughter" is for all three of the conditions to be true, not just one.
If you still don't believe me, ask an attorney or even a paralegal. I know I am right about this. I'm in the legal industry and deal with this kind of terminology all the time.
Post a Comment