5 ms·
I can kind of see the hazard, if I squint. But that would still be a crime, in a lot of cases. And if you look incompetent, there are serious questions to ask
by taeric 3y ago
I can kind of see the hazard, if I squint. But that would still be a crime, in a lot of cases. And if you look incompetent, there are serious questions to ask on why you are getting backing.
Consider, if a bus system lets a genuinely incompetent driver on the street, there are all sorts of fines they will face. Rightfully so. Same for a hospital that has a genuinely incompetent doctor.
Now, if you are incompetent at things that are not your core competency, things are different. But, in general, incompetency at the level we are looking at here should raise as many questions on why so many others ignored red flags.
- saghm 3y agoThe original comment I was responding to went into great detail about how the defense is claiming that all of the mishaps were due to incompetence rather than malice, so my responses were my views on that sort of defense strategy. It sounds like you don't think this sort of defense is valid at all, but I'm not sure why you're arguing with me like I was the one who presented that idea.
- taeric 3y agoIt is valid for some crimes, not others. I don't know if it is valid in this particular case. But, even if it is, that wouldn't excuse purposefully being incompetent. So, your concern about this encouraging the appearance of incompetence feels off. You could maybe actually be incompetent, such that you would have a legal defense. However, if you are, how did you get to the point of causing harm? A sibling post earlier pointed out that manslaughter is not murder. That is basically what I'm posting. Just incompetence to fraud, as manslaughter is to murder. Does the existence of manslaughter pose a hazard of people pretending to accidently kill others? Maybe? But evidence is lacking that it is a major hazard.