Posted on 03/15/2006 4:25:33 AM PST by don-o
Where did "the justice system" go wrong in this case? I generally agree with the sentiment, but it looks like this case adhered to the law very well.
Dislike of a verdict and/or penalty is not necessarily evidence of failures in the justice system.
Maybe "failure" is not the word I am looking for. How about miscarriage?
I see it as: He intentionally put paddle(s) on her and pulled the trigger. Not that he accidentally put the paddle(s) on her and pulled the trigger. Involuntary manslaughter would be that he somehow got the paddles on her by accident and slipped and pulled the trigger. Of course, I am not an attorney. ;-)
Yes, he did. But the question of whether he expected that action to kill her is the key. It's just like a DUI. They are both inherently dangerous, reckless actions not necessarily involving any intent to seriously harm anyone. When he activated the defibrillator, was he really trying to seriously hurt or kill his coworker, or was he exercising stubbornness and very bad judgment in the execution of a prank?
Intent is a very important issue in a criminal trial.
1. He was a trained EMT, and should have known that defribillators can be deadly to those who don't need them
2. It was actually his second attempt. He tried it a few minutes before, but they saw him and told him to knock it off, it wasn't a toy.
He intended to shock a healthy woman with a defribillator, and in his position as an EMT should have know how deadly that could be. He shouldn't be given slack on the off chance he wasn't listening during his training.
The legal theory is no different than a DUI. It's a dangerous, stupid thing which the defendant clearly should know better than to do.
Negligent, reckless, stupid, foolish, dangerous. Not malicious. That marks a clear distinction between murder and manslaughter.
I think that's happening in June in Jonesbourough, TN.
Perhaps you do. Have you looked up the word "malice"? Here's the entry from dictionary.com:
mal·iceThe common theme in both definitions is the desire to harm. Malice is wanting to make someone hurt. Malice is found in the presence of hatred, anger and revenge. There is no evidence of any of those things in this case.
n.
- A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
- Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
He was not angry at Courtney. He did not hate Courtney. There's no evidence of a desire for revenge. He wasn't even defending himself against a perceived attack.
Nothing in this case demonstrates that Joshua Martin intended to harm Courtney Hilton, but rather that he intended to startle her. It was a definitive case of involuntary manslaughter. The prosecutor charged Martin correctly.
Please do! I'd be interested to see how that goes.
Exactly. Any of those things being present would have been mitigating, though not at all exculpatory. At least then it could have been a "heat of the moment" type thing.
"Nothing in this case demonstrates that Joshua Martin intended to harm Courtney Hilton, but rather that he intended to startle her."
No, if you want to startle someone you pop a balloon behind them or give them a gag can of beer nuts filled with snakes. You don't purposely send 800 volts through someone's body after being told not to unless you have "[a] desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.