A person is standing in front of a car...........

[Stone]

7 to 10 feet in front of it. The driver guns the engine and drives forward slightly clipping them as the person standing attempts to dive out of the way. The person who was hit was slightly bruised but the driver of the car speeds off and gets away. Now here is the rub............there was also a person who was near enuff to have filmed the entire episode and turns it over to the police. What happens next? What happens is the police apprehend the perp and in all likelihood charge the driver with attempted murder through use of a vehicle.


I ask you.......if the LAW would consider it attempted murder WHAT THE FUCK do you think the person standing just 8 feet in front of the vehicle would consider it? They would reasonably consider it an imminent threat to their life and act accordingly.

BOOM!

 

[martin]

It wasn't "attempted murder". The driver was turning away from, not into, and were that unclear it still wasn't attempted murder. The "attempt" was to escape. Negligence, not homicide, would be the offense if a person in front of the car was killed in the event.

 

[Jarod]

7 to 10 feet in front of it. The driver guns the engine and drives forward slightly clipping them as the person standing attempts to dive out of the way. The person who was hit was slightly bruised but the driver of the car speeds off and gets away. Now here is the rub............there was also a person who was near enuff to have filmed the entire episode and turns it over to the police. What happens next? What happens is the police apprehend the perp and in all likelihood charge the driver with attempted murder through use of a vehicle.


I ask you.......if the LAW would consider it attempted murder WHAT THE FUCK do you think the person standing just 8 feet in front of the vehicle would consider it? They would reasonably consider it an imminent threat to their life and act accordingly.

BOOM!

The answer to your question would depend on the entirety of the facts.

If she only clipped him, I would say she did not have the intent to commit murder or even attempted murder.

She might be guilty of reckless endangerment. The police should, if the entirety of the facts support it, arrest her for reckless endangerment.

 

[Stone]

It wasn't "attempted murder". The driver was turning away from, not into, and were that unclear it still wasn't attempted murder. The "attempt" was to escape. Negligence, not homicide, would be the offense if a person in front of the car was killed in the event.

They would BEGIN most likely by charging the person with attempted murder,....then settle for a lesser charge.

 

[Stone]

The answer to your question would depend on the entirety of the facts.

If she only clipped him, I would say she did not have the intent to commit murder or even attempted murder.

She might be guilty of reckless endangerment. The police should, if the entirety of the facts support it, arrest her for reckless endangerment.

If you place yourself in the mind of the person standing in front of the car as it is happening IMO it could reasonably be assumed he was under direct threat of losing his life which then triggers a persons right to end the imminent threat through any means needed.

 

[Stone]

It wasn't "attempted murder". The driver was turning away from, not into, and were that unclear it still wasn't attempted murder. The "attempt" was to escape. Negligence, not homicide, would be the offense if a person in front of the car was killed in the event.

The person standing in front of the car CANNOT KNOW THAT. It is very reasonable to think he believed his life was under imminent threat at that moment.

 

[Stone]

If someone grabs at a cops gun AS A JOKE,...which is insane btw,....the cop has no way of knowing why the other person was grabbing at they're gun. Again,....he could reasonably assume his life was in imminent danger. We are talking about LAW here,....not GUESSING what someones intentions may or may not have been.

 

[Stone]

You cant beat me on this. The law, common sense, and the SPIRIT of the law are all on my side. Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE. I am sorry the woman got killed but the fact is she brought it on herself by acted stupidly.

 

[Monad Portal]

It wasn't "attempted murder". The driver was turning away from, not into, and were that unclear it still wasn't attempted murder. The "attempt" was to escape. Negligence, not homicide, would be the offense if a person in front of the car was killed in the event.

how did the car hit the cop then?

he was struck.

 

[Stone]

It wasn't "attempted murder".

Did you ask the woman that through the use of a Ouija board or did you use a medium ? Again,....it is not what YOU OR I think,....it is what the person standing in front of the car at that moment thinks and what THE LAW says.

 

[volsrocks]

It wasn't "attempted murder". The driver was turning away from, not into, and were that unclear it still wasn't attempted murder. The "attempt" was to escape. Negligence, not homicide, would be the offense if a person in front of the car was killed in the event.

so if the wheel were turned the other way it would have been bad news for the agent


could the agent see the way the wheels were turned in that SPLIT SECOND???????!!!!!!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It wasn't "attempted murder". The driver was turning away from, not into, and were that unclear it still wasn't attempted murder. The "attempt" was to escape. Negligence, not homicide, would be the offense if a person in front of the car was killed in the event.

This is use of the homunculus fallacy. That is, the person in front of the car knew what the driver of it was thinking and their intentions therefore the person's actions should have been a reaction to the knowledge of what the driver was thinking and the driver in turn, knew what the person in front of the car was thinking.

Stated another way, the argument you present is one where both parties internally know what the other is thinking and that there is a meeting of the minds that allows both parties to act in a manner that produces the outcome you (they) desire.

 

[Stone]

could the agent see the way the wheels were turned in that SPLIT SECOND???????!!!!!!

BINGO...........

 

[Stone]

This is use of the homunculus fallacy. That is, the person in front of the car knew what the driver of it was thinking and their intentions therefore the person's actions should have been a reaction to the knowledge of what the driver was thinking and the driver in turn, knew what the person in front of the car was thinking.

Stated another way, the argument you present is one where both parties internally know what the other is thinking and that there is a meeting of the minds that allows both parties to act in a manner that produces the outcome you (they) desire.

In other words his argument is NONSENCE.

 

[Damocles]

could the agent see the way the wheels were turned in that SPLIT SECOND???????!!!!!!

Even if he could you can see in the frame by frame that the car starts moving while the wheels were pointed directly at him when he was struck by the vehicle. She was turning the wheels, to the right as it was moving but they had not turned that way before the car moved.

 

[martin]

This is use of the homunculus fallacy. That is, the person in front of the car knew what the driver of it was thinking and their intentions therefore the person's actions should have been a reaction to the knowledge of what the driver was thinking and the driver in turn, knew what the person in front of the car was thinking.

Stated another way, the argument you present is one where both parties internally know what the other is thinking and that there is a meeting of the minds that allows both parties to act in a manner that produces the outcome you (they) desire.

The argument I "present" is the law of negligent homicide.

 

[Stone]

The answer to your question would depend on the entirety of the facts.

If she only clipped him, I would say she did not have the intent to commit murder or even attempted murder.

She might be guilty of reckless endangerment. The police should, if the entirety of the facts support it, arrest her for reckless endangerment.

I disagree. If a person shoots someone else and they somehow manage to only be slightly wounded because the shooter is an awful shot that is STILL attempted murder.

 

[martin]

could the agent see the way the wheels were turned in that SPLIT SECOND???????!!!!!!

The video analysis showed the car turned away from, not toward, the agent.

 

[Stone]

Even if he could you can see in the frame by frame that the car starts moving while the wheels were pointed directly at him when he was struck by the vehicle. She was turning the wheels, to the right as it was moving but they had not turned that way before the car moved.

Exactly. Were talking about what they Ice agent had to try and decipher as it was happening over the course of a second or two. He quickly concluded his life was under imminent threat and sought to end that threat as soon as possible.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The argument I "present" is the law of negligent homicide.

No, it isn't.

Where was the negligence? What didn't happen to cause the death. Who didn't do what to prevent the death?

Negligent homicide is a type of criminal liability involving the unintentional killing of another person through reckless or criminally negligent conduct. Unlike murder, which requires intent to kill, negligent homicide occurs when someone’s actions show a gross deviation from reasonable care, creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. Penalties vary by state and can include imprisonment and fines.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/what-is-negligent-homicide.html

The only negligent / criminal conduct I see in the Good shooting situation is her attempting to evade arrest after illegally blocking traffic on a public street and in that attempt to flee, knowingly endangers someone in front of her vehicle. It is Good's gross negligence and criminal actions that set up the events that transpired.