Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lurking Libertarian
All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you.

So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.

34 posted on 02/26/2009 11:47:39 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
Never mind, I see what the problem is here. The poorly written article does not explain that the law requires that a person "knowingly" uses another person's ID. The defendant in question here already has a 51 month sentence for other crimes, so he won't escape punishment completely.
35 posted on 02/27/2009 5:40:53 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.

Different crimes have different intent requirements. Murder and voluntary manslaughter require intent to kill; involuntary manslaughter doesn't. Drunk drivers are typically convicted only of the latter.

36 posted on 02/27/2009 10:12:56 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson