Safe Speed Forums

World's gone compo crazy . Motorist found texting is automatically guilty . yet ped ,with mind fully on text mode , is relieved of responsibilities:

What responsibility. Responsibility to get out of the way of a homicidal motorist?

Mouth?

What responsibility. Responsibility to get out of the way of a homicidal motorist?

negligent OR distracted != homicidal (unless you can reason there was an actual tendency to kill?)

Killing someone is homicide. It becomes criminal homicide when there is mens rea

There is a difference between homicide and "homicidal"

Only the latter will have your mens rea; the former is merely the act regardless of how it is intended.

... you've shown an anti-motorist prejudice.

Homicidal behaviour does not require mens rea.

Any behaviour which leads to a human death is, by definition, homicidal.

Any behaviour which leads to a human death is, by definition, homicidal.

Any act that leads to a human death is, by definition, homicide.
Any tendency to commit that death is, by definition, homicidal.

In this case you cannot show any tendency or mens rea. You cannot show the driver was homicidal even though he (could have) committed homicide.

Any right thinking person will easily (and correctly) understand that one's actions can lead to death without one being homicidal, as well understanding that one can be homicidal without actually resulting with any deaths.

Let's consider the unfortunate pedestrian in this particular case: your flawed logic also yields the conclusion that this pedestrian must have been suicidal - is that right Dave, or could the pedestrian have been merely negligent (without being suicidal)?

There was no death in this case. Therefore, by your own (flawed) logic, the driver wasn't homicidal! Either way, your argument is still wrong!

Unlike homicide the definition of suicide - Intentional self-slaughter - does include intent. So, indeed, the pedestrian was negligent rather than suicidal.

How do they know that I wonder? Many people commit suicide not because they want to die but as a cry for help. The dead in such a case are hard to interview, although not impossible some would say

I am not sure what "tendency to commit death means". If by that you mean behaving in manner which might cause death then that is not homicidal. A death must occur for the action to be homicidal.

I call shenanigans, if you want to utilise the etymologically correct sense of the word homicide, that is, killing one which is the same (species) as oneself, the you must exercise the same precision with the term suicide, meaning to kill oneself, absent of any requirement for state of mind. That cake is not available for both having and eating!

Be that as it may, I was wondering how long it would take you to realise that nobody was killed in the case at hand.

Agree to a degree with the first part, not with the second. If the intention to cause death exists in a cause of action then it is homicidal. I feel that you have focussed too much on the actus reus, to the neglect of the mens rea.

The killing of one human being by another human being.
Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.
English courts developed the body of Common Law on which U.S. jurisdictions initially relied in developing their homicide statutes. Early English common law divided homicide into two broad categories: felonious and non-felonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a felonious homicide and was classified as murder. Non-felonious homicide included justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable homicide was considered a crime, the offender often received a pardon. Excusable homicide was not considered a crime.

Justifiable or Excusable Homicide
A homicide may be justifiable or excusable by the surrounding circumstances. In such cases, the homicide will not be considered a criminal act. A justifiable homicide is a homicide that is commanded or authorized by law. For instance, soldiers in a time of war may be commanded to kill enemy soldiers. Generally, such killings are considered justifiable homicide unless other circumstances suggest that they were not necessary or that they were not within the scope of the soldiers' duty. In addition, a public official is justified in carrying out a death sentence because the execution is commanded by state or federal law.

Other Defenses
Other legal defenses to a charge of criminal homicide include insanity, necessity, accident, and intoxication. Some of these defenses may provide an absolute defense to a charge of criminal homicide; some will not. For instance, a successful defense of voluntary intoxication generally will allow an individual to avoid prosecution for a premeditated murder, but typically it will not allow an individual to escape liability for any lesser charges, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter. As with any defense to a criminal charge, the accused's mental state will be a critical determinant of whether he or she had the requisite intent or mental capacity to commit a criminal homicide.

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
The killing of oneself is a suicide, not a homicide. If a person kills another person in order to end the other person's pain or suffering, the killing is considered a homicide. It does not matter if the other person is about to die or is terminally ill just prior to being killed; the law generally views such a killing as criminal. Thus, a "mercy killing," or act of Euthanasia, is generally considered a criminal homicide.

homicidal adjective - likely to murder - a homicidal maniac

the killing of one person by another

I am not sure what "tendency to commit death means".

If by that you mean behaving in manner which might cause death then that is not homicidal.

A death must occur for the action to be homicidal.

...

I don't need to show mens rea. I death occured the action which caused it was homicide.

No no no! Dictionary definition of homicide is Killing of a human being esp by another. You are trying to redefine the word to include some element of criminality - watching too much CSI Miama perhaps.

Unlike homicide the definition of suicide - Intentional self-slaughter - does include intent. So, indeed, the pedestrian was negligent rather than suicidal.

But it doesn't destroy my argument that any action which causes death is , by definition homicidal.

Yes, rather stupid of me, but it did provoke an interesting argument.