5 ms·
Going by the definition in the linked page what do you think isn't satisfied? >> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions. The victim got out
by k-mcgrady 9y ago
Going by the definition in the linked page what do you think isn't satisfied?
>> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
The victim got out of the car and only got back in because the defendant told him to.
>> The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
She may not have intended to kill him but given she knew of the poor mental state he was in, plus the fact he had just backed out of killing himself, it seems reckless to then tell him to get back into the car.
>> The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.
As above really.
- Simulacra 9y agoI think this is similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Someone is trampled to death as people rushed to get out. You didn't trample anyone, you didn't actually kill anyone, but your verbal actions set in motion a chain of events that caused the death of someone else. I think the same could also be said of someone on social media saying "this guy down the street is a rapist and a child molester, somebody should kill him." Well, if somebody takes you up on that and kills him, you should go to jail for manslaughter. This woman not only set the chain of events in motion, but she actively pushed them along.
- k-mcgrady 9y agoAgreed.
- jnwatson 9y agoThat's quite insightful. I hadn't thought of it that way.
- lettergram 9y agoThe difference is, they didn't cause their death by in sighting panic. They did it by suggesting they do, what they said they wanted to do.