Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Manslaughter or not.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, manslaughter does not require intent. It can also be involuntary.

    No, the caller could be deemed to have acted in a reckless manner, even if there was no intent to harm. Consider the same caller, but instead of crossing a street, the victim is on a tightrope with a deadly drop beneath him.

    In this case the act of calling, which has a good chance of distracting the victim to the point they lose their balance, could be seen as reckless and the caller would be at least partially culpable for the results.

    Depends on the jurisdiction.

    No, but ordering a pizza is not a reckless action (for the pizza guy). Calling out to someone where they could come to harm and when they need to concentrate on what they're doing, could well be seen as such. Different scenarios entirely.

    What if I order pizza on a really windy night and the driver is blown off his moped, all because I'm too lazy to cook dinner, manslaughter..?


  • Options
    #33
    Badly Drunk Boy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,522 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    If you come home to find Peter Falk rooting through your potted plants I'd be afraid. Very afraid. And not just because he's dead.
    Did you know that one of Pete Falk's daughters is a private detective in real life?


  • Options
    #34
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,419 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »
    Did you know that one of Pete Falk's daughters is a private detective in real life?

    In her fathers footsteps.


  • Options
    #35
    It BeeMee
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭It BeeMee


    Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »
    Did you know that one of Pete Falk's daughters is a private detective in real life?

    I hope she called her agency "Falk Knows"


  • Options
    #36
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, the caller could be deemed to have acted in a reckless manner, even if there was no intent to harm. Consider the same caller, but instead of crossing a street, the victim is on a tightrope with a deadly drop beneath him.
    But the victim wasn't on a tightrope, nor was there a deadly drop. And even if they were, it's their own responsibility what decisions they make on the tightrope. If a person shouts from a distance: "I love you, please don't fall" and the tightrope walker falls to their death, does that imply reckless behaviour also? No, of course not. Maybe reckless behaviour on behalf of the tightrope walker.
    In this case the act of calling, which has a good chance of distracting the victim to the point they lose their balance, could be seen as reckless and the caller would be at least partially culpable for the results.
    Not legally responsible though. And definitely not manslaughter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    What if I order pizza on a really windy night and the driver is blown off his moped, all because I'm too lazy to cook dinner, manslaughter..?
    http://getdaddysomegin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/tumbleweed.jpg
    K4t wrote: »
    But the victim wasn't on a tightrope, nor was there a deadly drop. And even if they were, it's their own responsibility what decisions they make on the tightrope. If a person shouts from a distance: "I love you, please don't fall" and the tightrope walker falls to their death, does that imply reckless behaviour also? No, of course not. Maybe reckless behaviour on behalf of the tightrope walker.
    I'm afraid that's not how manslaughter works. Involuntary manslaughter is where there is no intent to kill, but the actions of another end up bringing this about. It could be due to negligence (e.g. a doctor not acting, or prescribing the wrong treatment, leading to death) or due to reckless behaviour (e.g. drunk driving). Even your example, shouting to someone who's on a tightrope, is a pretty stupid thing to do and depending on the jurisdiction, the law may see your action as reckless.

    So even if unintentional - even if an 'accident' - you can still be guilty of manslaughter.

    As to the tightrope example, I only used it to illustrate a scenario where it is more clear that the behaviour of the 'perpetrator' ultimately was causal to the death of the 'victim'.
    Not legally responsible though. And definitely not manslaughter.
    This ultimately depends on the legal jurisdiction. If you push someone and as a result they fall, hit their head and die, without the intent that this would happen, then in many jurisdictions this would probably not be manslaughter. However, in others, the push may be seen as 'excessive force' and thus lead to a manslaughter conviction.

    So not 'definitely'.


  • Options
    #38
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    http://getdaddysomegin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/tumbleweed.jpg

    I'm afraid that's not how manslaughter works. Involuntary manslaughter is where there is no intent to kill, but the actions of another end up bringing this about. It could be due to negligence (e.g. a doctor not acting, or prescribing the wrong treatment, leading to death) or due to reckless behaviour (e.g. drunk driving). Even your example, shouting to someone who's on a tightrope, is a pretty stupid thing to do and depending on the jurisdiction, the law may see your action as reckless.

    So even if unintentional - even if an 'accident' - you can still be guilty of manslaughter.
    Guilty of stupidity maybe, not manslaughter. I really cannot fathom how you can compare medical negligence and drunk driving to a person shouting "I love you" to a person walking on a tightrope. The personal responsibility lies with the individual walking the tightrope.
    This ultimately depends on the legal jurisdiction. If you push someone and as a result they fall, hit their head and die, without the intent that this would happen, then in many jurisdictions this would probably not be manslaughter. However, in others, the push may be seen as 'excessive force' and thus lead to a manslaughter conviction.

    So not 'definitely'.
    Now you've jumped from speech to physical interference. The two are not the same. My point, and apologies if I wasn't completely clear, is that charging people for what they say as someone is killed is ridiculous, and enters the realm of hate crime legislation i.e. not a good thing.


  • Options
    #39
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    K4t wrote: »
    Guilty of stupidity maybe, not manslaughter. I really cannot fathom how you can compare medical negligence and drunk driving to a person shouting "I love you" to a person walking on a tightrope. The personal responsibility lies with the individual walking the tightrope.
    Sorry, but that's not how it works in a lot of jurisdictions. In most, I'd imagine that shouting "I love you" and causing that person to loose their balance and fall to their death would not be seen as manslaughter, but in others it may well be.
    Now you've jumped from speech to physical interference. The two are not the same.
    Doesn't matter if the act caused the death, the person did or should have known better and it was reckless or dangerous. It doesn't even have to be physical interference to constitute manslaughter:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/teen-charged-with-manslaughter-for-encouraging-friend-to-commit-suicide/

    Beyond that, it really comes down to how it's seen in any jurisdiction - you'd be right in many, but not all. And that is my point.


  • Options
    #40
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Doesn't matter if the act caused the death, the person did or should have known better and it was reckless or dangerous. It doesn't even have to be physical interference to constitute manslaughter:
    So the person who shouts something should know better, as opposed to the person walking on a tightrope...
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/teen-charged-with-manslaughter-for-encouraging-friend-to-commit-suicide/

    Beyond that, it really comes down to how it's seen in any jurisdiction - you'd be right in many, but not all. And that is my point.
    She'll never see the inside of a prison. If I tell you to go and kill yourself, and a week later you commit suicide, that would mean I am complicit in your death and could be charged with assisted suicide or manslaughter! Madness. Prosecutors and legislators with too much money and time on their hands.


  • Options
    #41
    Depraved
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭Depraved


    Kevin McCloud wrote: »
    The bus is at fault.

    Except in America. Then it's the fault of the guy in the factory who installed the brakes on the bus when it was built.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Topper Harley
    Registered Users Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭Topper Harley


    Depraved wrote: »
    Except in America. Then it's the fault of the guy in the factory who installed the brakes on the bus when it was built.

    Not just America. In Peru an aircraft technician was found guilty of negligent homicide after he forgot to remove some tape covering a static port on an aircraft after he had cleaned it leading to the crash of Aeroperú Flight 603.

    More info here: 10 Controversial Cases of Negligent Homicide

    I haven't actually read that article yet but will later so can't comment on any of the other cases until then. Looks interesting and possibly relevant to this thread though.


  • Options
    #43
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    K4t wrote: »
    So the person who shouts something should know better, as opposed to the person walking on a tightrope...
    I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing what manslaughter is legally, not whether this makes sense, or makes sense to you.


  • Options
    #44
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    They probably deserve to get knocked for being stupid.


  • Options
    #45
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    No, but as a judge I lock you up in a nut house & throw away the key for asking such a strange question.


Advertisement