"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Without the option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for
quite a bit less.
The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way.

You sure you've got this story straight? Was it a plea bargain or a jury
trial? How'd he put her away if the jury "almost" went for it?


Does it matter at this point? Your logic is flawed. Considering the level of
public awareness about DWI, there is only one way you could not know that
drinking a certain amount and then driving makes you dangerous: You're
retarded, in which case you probably won't have a license to begin with.

If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent. It's
crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it.

You know it's dangerous to leave a baby in the bath tub unattended. If you
do it anyway and the baby drowns, there was intent.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Does it matter at this point?

It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good.

Your logic is flawed.

By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be
charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I
just think you're wrong.

If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent.
It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it.

I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice.
Sorry about your sadness.

"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Does it matter at this point?

It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good.

Your logic is flawed.

By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be
charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I
just think you're wrong.

If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent.
It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it.

I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice.
Sorry about your sadness.


But, it's not negligence any more. 50 years ago, maybe that's how it was
defined. Not any more.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Does it matter at this point?

It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good.

Your logic is flawed.

There have been a couple of fatal DUI's tried as murder in this state. But
all the cases were people with previous DUI's. The rampant disregard of the
law is the difference over someone who is a first time DUI. And the BAC was
always 2-3x legal limit.

By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be
charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I
just think you're wrong.

If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent.
It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it.

I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and
malice. Sorry about your sadness.


But, it's not negligence any more. 50 years ago, maybe that's how it was
defined. Not any more.