3 ms·

I realize this is probably going to be an unpopular view but I'm concerned that this is yet another slippery slope. We have all said stupid things in the past

I realize this is probably going to be an unpopular view but I'm concerned that this is yet another slippery slope. We have all said stupid things in the past but should that all be held as evidence in judgement?

DannyBee 13y ago
If they are evidence of intent, yes, they can and should be evidence in judgement. This particular example would be absolutely no different if he had written down "I really liked speeding today!" repeatedly on pieces of paper and put them on his fridge or whatever else would show intent.
- newman314 13y ago
  But speeding != intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. "I really liked speeding today" could mean a day at the drag strip. Admittedly far-fetched but not implausible. Hence, unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that his tweets signaled his intent to hurt/maim/kill, it is hard to see how this should be allowed. Different example: you are having a bad day today and someone overhears you muttering "I'm gonna knock someone out". Your coworker shows up shortly after sporting a black eye from when he slipped and fell earlier. Is it reasonable to assume you beat the crap out of him then?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Doing 80 in a 40 and then bragging about it isn't evidence of intent to kill. It is, however, evidence of a state of mind that comprehends the speed limit and not only disregards it entirely, but does so deliberately. The law calls that (among other things) "depraved indifference". Similarly: imagine you got drunk at a friends apartment, picked up a rifle, and fired several rounds through the floor and into the apartment before (this happened with a friend of mine, now deceased). Imagine you killed someone. You clearly didn't intend to, but no reasonable person could fail to grasp the implication of firing a gun blindly into someone else's apartment. You were recklessly indifferent to the lives of the tenants below you, and have committed second-degree murder. Driving 80 in a 40mph residential zone is no different from firing a gun blindly through the floor of a top-floor apartment. When my late friend did that, I'm sure he had no comprehension that he might have killed someone. Thankfully, he didn't.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > But speeding != intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. " It is impossible to have intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. And he isn't being charged with a murder of an intent-to-kill type, he is being charged with murder of the type known as "depraved indifference", or, in the specific language of the California Penal Code, where malice is implied by "an abandoned and malignant heart". (Penal Code Sec. 188) > Hence, unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that his tweets signaled his intent to hurt/maim/kill, it is hard to see how this should be allowed. First, intent to hurt/maim/kill isn't an element of the crime he is being charged with, so it doesn't need to be proved at all; second, the tweets are not the only evidence being offered of the actual mental state relevant to the crime, so the tweets don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt by themselves; and third, whether the evidence proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is what we have juries for, we don't evaluate whether the evidence proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before deciding whether to allow a prosecution to proceed.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Yes, I should not have used the word intent, i was writing fast because I was on my way out. As others have said, intent is not an element that needs to be proved here, but the tweets (and "i really like speeding" on post-it notes on your fridge) would be direct evidence of reckless indifference. Vehicular manslaughter is not an intentional crime (it's a negligent one in some states, and a reckless/grossly negligent one in others), so it's not possible to have intent to commit it. (This also means attempted vehicular manslaughter is not a possible crime in most states)
dragonwriter 13y ago
It isn't a slippery slope, because presenting statements and actions (note that it wasn't just the tweets, but driving record as well) that show intent has been routine evidence of mental state for as long as mental state has been an element of crimes. If it was a slippery slope, we'd have slid the whole way down it long ago.

DannyBee 13y ago

If they are evidence of intent, yes, they can and should be evidence in judgement. This particular example would be absolutely no different if he had written down "I really liked speeding today!" repeatedly on pieces of paper and put them on his fridge or whatever else would show intent.

newman314 13y ago
But speeding != intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. "I really liked speeding today" could mean a day at the drag strip. Admittedly far-fetched but not implausible. Hence, unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that his tweets signaled his intent to hurt/maim/kill, it is hard to see how this should be allowed. Different example: you are having a bad day today and someone overhears you muttering "I'm gonna knock someone out". Your coworker shows up shortly after sporting a black eye from when he slipped and fell earlier. Is it reasonable to assume you beat the crap out of him then?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Doing 80 in a 40 and then bragging about it isn't evidence of intent to kill. It is, however, evidence of a state of mind that comprehends the speed limit and not only disregards it entirely, but does so deliberately. The law calls that (among other things) "depraved indifference". Similarly: imagine you got drunk at a friends apartment, picked up a rifle, and fired several rounds through the floor and into the apartment before (this happened with a friend of mine, now deceased). Imagine you killed someone. You clearly didn't intend to, but no reasonable person could fail to grasp the implication of firing a gun blindly into someone else's apartment. You were recklessly indifferent to the lives of the tenants below you, and have committed second-degree murder. Driving 80 in a 40mph residential zone is no different from firing a gun blindly through the floor of a top-floor apartment. When my late friend did that, I'm sure he had no comprehension that he might have killed someone. Thankfully, he didn't.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > But speeding != intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. " It is impossible to have intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. And he isn't being charged with a murder of an intent-to-kill type, he is being charged with murder of the type known as "depraved indifference", or, in the specific language of the California Penal Code, where malice is implied by "an abandoned and malignant heart". (Penal Code Sec. 188) > Hence, unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that his tweets signaled his intent to hurt/maim/kill, it is hard to see how this should be allowed. First, intent to hurt/maim/kill isn't an element of the crime he is being charged with, so it doesn't need to be proved at all; second, the tweets are not the only evidence being offered of the actual mental state relevant to the crime, so the tweets don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt by themselves; and third, whether the evidence proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is what we have juries for, we don't evaluate whether the evidence proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before deciding whether to allow a prosecution to proceed.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Yes, I should not have used the word intent, i was writing fast because I was on my way out. As others have said, intent is not an element that needs to be proved here, but the tweets (and "i really like speeding" on post-it notes on your fridge) would be direct evidence of reckless indifference. Vehicular manslaughter is not an intentional crime (it's a negligent one in some states, and a reckless/grossly negligent one in others), so it's not possible to have intent to commit it. (This also means attempted vehicular manslaughter is not a possible crime in most states)

dragonwriter 13y ago

It isn't a slippery slope, because presenting statements and actions (note that it wasn't just the tweets, but driving record as well) that show intent has been routine evidence of mental state for as long as mental state has been an element of crimes. If it was a slippery slope, we'd have slid the whole way down it long ago.