As a firearms owner I can unequivocally say that guns don’t shoot themselves. “Accidental” firearm deaths are all preventable. Idiots, like the person in this article that should be in jail awaiting trial for murder, should not own guns.
I don’t believe this death was unpreventable. Whether he only intended to brandish the gun and his finger slipped or if he intentionally murdered her is immaterial in the face that there’s no charges, not even manslaughter is appalling.
Agreed with all of that. Im not making any statement about how warranted or unwarranted his criminal charge, or lack of charge was.
Im just especially interested in the notion that pointing a gun at someone means there is intent to kill, regardless of circumstances. That seems weird. It seems like it would logically follow that all gun deaths have intent.
Edit: after doing some research, it appears intent to kill and criminal intent is the distinction. Legally, pointing a gun means there is criminal intent. However, pointing a gun alone does not imply intent to kill, at least not legally. I may have muddled the waters by not asking OP to clarify what type of intent they meant. I assumed intent to kill.
If I bring out a knife and kill you with it but only because I tripped while holding it at your throat, did I intend to kill you or not? Does it matter?
Does the jury use it’s psychic empathy to determine what was in my heart at the time the knife perforated your larynx or do they use the circumstances leading up to the murder to determine if I had intent to kill you or not?
Replying isn’t disengagement. I used the knife as an example because it makes it clear that putting someone in immediate danger with no concern for their safety is a kind of “intent”. If I juggled the knives near you instead would the humorous contrast make the analogy more palatable? Im just an amateur knife juggler, playing with his knives in your personal space after we had an argument, no hostile intent here.
If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they’d hoped they’d either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn’t intend to kill them?
You pull out a knife and brandish it threateningly: That sets up intent. We do not know the mind nor will we ever; therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent. We have to rely on actions which could be reasonably interpreted as intent.
therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent.
Am I misunderstanding or is this completely wrong?
Because these concepts involve what was in the defendant’s mind, they are often established through indirect evidence. Some common ways prosecutors try to prove intent and premeditation include:
The nature and manner of the killing (e.g., >multiple stab wounds might suggest >planning)
Possession of weapons or tools before the >act
Statements or confessions indicating >planning or desire to kill
Actions taken before or after the crime to >conceal evidence
Witness testimony about the defendant’s >behavior or threats
Defense attorneys challenge this evidence by offering alternative explanations. They might argue that the defendant acted impulsively, under extreme emotion, or in self-defense.
If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they’d hoped they’d either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn’t intend to kill them?
Do you believe in accidental deaths via firearms? Or are all firearm deaths intentional?
Edit: this is not snark but an honest question.
As a firearms owner I can unequivocally say that guns don’t shoot themselves. “Accidental” firearm deaths are all preventable. Idiots, like the person in this article that should be in jail awaiting trial for murder, should not own guns.
I don’t believe this death was unpreventable. Whether he only intended to brandish the gun and his finger slipped or if he intentionally murdered her is immaterial in the face that there’s no charges, not even manslaughter is appalling.
Agreed with all of that. Im not making any statement about how warranted or unwarranted his criminal charge, or lack of charge was.
Im just especially interested in the notion that pointing a gun at someone means there is intent to kill, regardless of circumstances. That seems weird. It seems like it would logically follow that all gun deaths have intent.
Edit: after doing some research, it appears intent to kill and criminal intent is the distinction. Legally, pointing a gun means there is criminal intent. However, pointing a gun alone does not imply intent to kill, at least not legally. I may have muddled the waters by not asking OP to clarify what type of intent they meant. I assumed intent to kill.
If I bring out a knife and kill you with it but only because I tripped while holding it at your throat, did I intend to kill you or not? Does it matter?
Yes, that absolutely matters as the jury decides whether it is murder or manslaughter.
Does the jury use it’s psychic empathy to determine what was in my heart at the time the knife perforated your larynx or do they use the circumstances leading up to the murder to determine if I had intent to kill you or not?
Weirdly gruesome. Disengage.
Replying isn’t disengagement. I used the knife as an example because it makes it clear that putting someone in immediate danger with no concern for their safety is a kind of “intent”. If I juggled the knives near you instead would the humorous contrast make the analogy more palatable? Im just an amateur knife juggler, playing with his knives in your personal space after we had an argument, no hostile intent here.
Ideally, yes. In this case there was no trial for the jury to make such a determination.
No. It doesn’t.
If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they’d hoped they’d either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn’t intend to kill them?
You pull out a knife and brandish it threateningly: That sets up intent. We do not know the mind nor will we ever; therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent. We have to rely on actions which could be reasonably interpreted as intent.
Am I misunderstanding or is this completely wrong?
https://www.vbrownleelaw.com/the-role-of-intent-and-premeditation-in-homicide-cases/
Yes, and it has been done successfully.
https://www.studicata.com/summaries/superior-court-of-pennsylvania/commonwealth-v-predmore-2018-so9l74/
Pointing a real firearm at a person should always be treated as if the holder wants to kill a person. There are exceptions, none of them apply here.
Agreed, that’s a good rule to stay safe, but that’s not what the law says.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-it-a-crime-to-point-a-gun-at-someone/
Im sure I’d agree if i read it, but I’m ignorant to the details of this story. I am solely interested in the claim that pointing a gun means intent.
Pretty sure they don’t have laws in Texas at this point.