Replies

Of course politicians, as usual, would be exempt...

;-)

Well, this case was local news here. In fact the kid didn’t even shoot the gun on purpose, it was in his backpack. Obviously, there seems to be a component where the dude who owned the guns was incredibly stupid.

Washington state is a “common law” state. The common law shall be the rule of decision in cases unless the legislature has specifically made rules for the subject.

So we go to “criminal liability”. If you ever read any of the Federal statutes, you will see a phrase pop up again and again...

Knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily.

In other words:
Knowingly - the results that occurred were results that might occur and were KNOWN to the accused
Willingly - the results that occurred were DESIRED by the accused, there WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE INTENT
Voluntarily - the accused was under NO COMPULSION OR THREAT to do whatever the act was that achieved the results.

This is pretty much the standard elements of a crime. Failure to prove even ONE of the elements means whatever happened wasn’t criminal.

So, what does that mean in Washington state?

Title 9A RCW
WASHINGTON CRIMINAL CODE

Chapter 9A.08 RCW
PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY

RCW 9A.08.010
General requirements of culpability.

(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.

(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:

(i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or

(ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

(3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.

So that pretty much sums it up. No intent, no crime. He might be found guilty of criminal negligence, but he is NOT guilty of assault.