3 ms·

If you shoot someone accidentally, that might be a firearm accident. If you shoot someone intending to kill them, that might be murder. The term accident doesn

If you shoot someone accidentally, that might be a firearm accident. If you shoot someone intending to kill them, that might be murder. The term accident doesn’t necessarily imply “normal”, but rather “no intent”. 9/11 would not qualify as an accident because the intent of the hijackers was to crash the plane. You say car crashes are treated differently but your examples imply the opposite! That car crashes are treated identically to other mishaps which are classed as accidental or not by the intent of the actor(s).

ericmay 5y ago
Let me ask you this, if you are going over the speed limit or drunk driving and crash into someone else is that an accident or intentional? And why is it that everyone here is defending using the term "accident" by suggesting that car crash or wreck is not a correct description? In drunk driving for example, you intently operated the vehicle impaired and caused a crash. If you drive over the speed limit you are intently operating the vehicle recklessly. We do on occasion use the term vehicular homicide when describing these actions, but it depends on whether someone was hurt or not, even with the same action being taken (drunk/speeding/etc.). My point of contention is that "accident" assumes no intent or reckless behavior. Crash and wreck just describe what happened. There's a reason that accident was injected into our vocabulary. That reason is that we generally accept that accidents happen in society. We don't accept crashes or wrecks. If a lot of car crashes are happening and society doesn't accept them, you better figure out a way to re-categorize them.
- 542354234235 5y ago
  >Let me ask you this, if you are going over the speed limit or drunk driving and crash into someone else is that an accident or intentional? An accident. Accidents can occur from reckless or negligent behavior. That is not the same as intentionally hitting another car and the legal concept of “criminal negligence”[1] covers this exact distinction. > Most crimes involve intentional conduct. For example, in some states, the offense of assault can be committed by the defendant intentionally using or attempting to use force against someone, as with a punch or kick…some crimes involve reckless or negligent, rather than intentional, conduct. The term "reckless" essentially describes a defendant's simultaneous understanding and disregard of a substantial risk of harm. An example is a defendant having previous DUI convictions and understanding that driving drunk can harm or kill people, but nevertheless getting behind the wheel while intoxicated and causing a fatal accident. So in both a legal and common sense understanding of intentionality, it clearly is not. > And why is it that everyone here is defending using the term "accident" by suggesting that car crash or wreck is not a correct description? No one is saying crash or wreck are not also accurate. If you want to call it a crash, go right ahead, but you are objectively wrong to say that me calling it an accident is not a correct description. > In drunk driving for example, you intently operated the vehicle impaired and caused a crash. If you drive over the speed limit you are intently operating the vehicle recklessly. We do on occasion use the term vehicular homicide when describing these actions...My point of contention is that "accident" assumes no intent or reckless behavior. Once again, you are confusing intentional recklessness and intentional outcome. “Vehicular homicide, also known as vehicular manslaughter, is the reckless or negligent killing of another through the use of a vehicle.” [3] The resulting accident is still unintentional by both legal and common sense standards. The word “accident” does not assume no reckless behavior, and it does not assume that there were no intentional decisions that contributed to it. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-negligence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-neglig... [2] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-homicide/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-... [3] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-homicide/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-...

ericmay 5y ago

Let me ask you this, if you are going over the speed limit or drunk driving and crash into someone else is that an accident or intentional? And why is it that everyone here is defending using the term "accident" by suggesting that car crash or wreck is not a correct description? In drunk driving for example, you intently operated the vehicle impaired and caused a crash. If you drive over the speed limit you are intently operating the vehicle recklessly. We do on occasion use the term vehicular homicide when describing these actions, but it depends on whether someone was hurt or not, even with the same action being taken (drunk/speeding/etc.). My point of contention is that "accident" assumes no intent or reckless behavior. Crash and wreck just describe what happened. There's a reason that accident was injected into our vocabulary. That reason is that we generally accept that accidents happen in society. We don't accept crashes or wrecks. If a lot of car crashes are happening and society doesn't accept them, you better figure out a way to re-categorize them.

542354234235 5y ago
>Let me ask you this, if you are going over the speed limit or drunk driving and crash into someone else is that an accident or intentional? An accident. Accidents can occur from reckless or negligent behavior. That is not the same as intentionally hitting another car and the legal concept of “criminal negligence”[1] covers this exact distinction. > Most crimes involve intentional conduct. For example, in some states, the offense of assault can be committed by the defendant intentionally using or attempting to use force against someone, as with a punch or kick…some crimes involve reckless or negligent, rather than intentional, conduct. The term "reckless" essentially describes a defendant's simultaneous understanding and disregard of a substantial risk of harm. An example is a defendant having previous DUI convictions and understanding that driving drunk can harm or kill people, but nevertheless getting behind the wheel while intoxicated and causing a fatal accident. So in both a legal and common sense understanding of intentionality, it clearly is not. > And why is it that everyone here is defending using the term "accident" by suggesting that car crash or wreck is not a correct description? No one is saying crash or wreck are not also accurate. If you want to call it a crash, go right ahead, but you are objectively wrong to say that me calling it an accident is not a correct description. > In drunk driving for example, you intently operated the vehicle impaired and caused a crash. If you drive over the speed limit you are intently operating the vehicle recklessly. We do on occasion use the term vehicular homicide when describing these actions...My point of contention is that "accident" assumes no intent or reckless behavior. Once again, you are confusing intentional recklessness and intentional outcome. “Vehicular homicide, also known as vehicular manslaughter, is the reckless or negligent killing of another through the use of a vehicle.” [3] The resulting accident is still unintentional by both legal and common sense standards. The word “accident” does not assume no reckless behavior, and it does not assume that there were no intentional decisions that contributed to it. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-negligence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-neglig... [2] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-homicide/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-... [3] https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-homicide/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/vehicular-...