• schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    What context was this legal advice given in? This may be advice for a civil lawsuit too?

    In any case it is of course true that it is good to be able to present evidence in one’s favor in criminal court, but that is to establish that there is reasonable doubt, not because the defendant has the burden of proof.

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill.

        Intent must be proved, and depending on the circumstances, can be hard or easy. Using a gun carries with it an assumption of intent - unless you’re hunting or target shooting, your intent can be assumed to not be good. With a car, there are a lot more things you could reasonably be doing, ill intent can’t be assumed.

          • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            It’s as good an analogy as any other… It’s wrong to expect an analogy to fit the situation perfectly, because that would not be an analogy, it would be the thing you are talking about. The purpose of an analogy is to compare things that are not identical, but have some similarities.

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’m not getting trapped up in semantics.

        that is literally what the law comes down to.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        And I wasn’t talking about this or any other specific case, just attempting to make sure that people understood the general legal concepts.