Timeline for answer to When did Lee Harvey Oswald first break the law? by ohwilleke
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2025 at 17:59 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @NuclearHoagie Even negligence, and in particular "criminal negligence" is a level of intent that needs to be proved. Mere civil negligence is not sufficient for criminal liability. It requires what would be called "gross negligence" in a civil lawsuit which basically amounts to patent disregard for a known and obvious risk. Most accidental deaths caused to an innocent person do not give rise to criminal liability. Generally a mistake about being robbed or accidentally misfiring a gun for reasons other than "gross negligence" are not crimes. There might be civil liability then, at most. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 16:59 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | @ohwilleke Establishing mens rea is required for most crimes, but don't crimes like negligence arise specifically out of a lack of intent? Something might not be a strict liability crime defined by the act alone, but I'd think it could still be a crime even with the lowest level possible of intention. I'm having a hard time imagining with what intent it would be not a crime to kill an innocent person. If the person is innocent, wouldn't you have committed some crime whether you shot them for revenge, or because you mistakenly thought they were robbing you, or even just misfired the gun? | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 16:17 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @JFabianMeier But the distinction still matters because a jury if free to make or not make whatever inferences it deems fit from your actions. It is still working within the framework of trying to determine someone's state of mind from their actions. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 16:16 | comment | added | JF Meier | @ohwilleke Generally true, but one should also note that there can be no direct proof about your intent. It will be inferred indirectly from your actions. So practically, the actions are the important thing, and what the jury believes the actions are telling about your state of mind. It is not the real state of mind that matters. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 16:00 | comment | added | ohwilleke | "Isn't pointing a loaded gun at a person a crime no matter what you intend to do?" No. Intent is required for essentially all crimes except strict liability traffic offenses. If anything, a higher threshold of intent is particularly important for pointing a gun at someone. Physical actions are virtually never sufficient standing alone. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 13:44 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | I'd think some of Oswald's physical actions were illegal without knowing anything at all about his frame of mind. Isn't pointing a loaded gun at a person a crime no matter what you intend to do? Intent will help determine exactly which crime it is, but I expect it's still a crime with any intent or no intent at all - he might be acquitted of murder/assassination if the jury agreed he accidentally shot the President, but he may still have committed some lesser crime like recklessness just by pointing the weapon (even accidentally). | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 2:04 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Mar 21, 2025 at 0:08 | history | answered | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |