To prove a car accident was not intentional in court, you would need to present evidence demonstrating that your actions at the time of the crash were not deliberate, including factors like: witness testimonies, police reports, vehicle damage analysis, your driving record, medical records, and expert testimony to explain the circumstances leading to the accident, highlighting any distractions, mechanical failures, or unexpected road conditions that could have contributed to the crash.
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
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.
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.
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”
According to legal advice:
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
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.
that is literally what the law comes down to.
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.
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.