Intent to Cause Death?
Agreeing that GENERALLY when a person w a loaded firearm, unholsters it, points it at another human a few feet away, and fires it at the other person, in many/most/virtually all situations, inferring something LESS THAN ---
the shooter had intent to cause death --- requires some mental gymnastics.
Especially when shooter continues firing several more rounds.
In some situations, def't/def atty may argue shooter did not have intent to cause death, because of def't's claimed INCAPACITY to FORM intent. Say, by alcoholic intoxication, hallucinogenic/psychedelic drugs (a statutory defense in some jurisdictions. I did not search re KY statutes).
If only one shot is fired, A def't might claim he didn't know it was loaded or
that his index finger slipped on the trigger, did not intend to fire the gun.
Prob'ly a lame def attempt for THIS def't, even if he did not fire again.
And reading ^ post again, I noticed it referred to in THIS case.
From little but presumably factual MSM I've seen, there's no indication of ingestion of alcohol or mind bending drugs, so yep, w. circumstances HERE,
--- re INTENT to CAUSE DEATH, prosecutor works w some possible advantages besides easy jury inference that by firing, sheriff intended to cause death (i.e., multiple witnesses as to def't behavior that day & afternoon, not indicating booze or drug ingestion, who heard the multiple rounds, vid cam footage confirming that timing of rounds fired, etc.)
--- re INTENT, def atty most definitely has an uphill battle to try to show no intent, if they want to try to show that. Remember def. does not have to put on any witnesses or evidence, can argue weakness of pros' case.
Any way for def atty to do that w'out putting the def't on the stand to testify?
Anything def't can testify to negate intent? I did not mean to kill him? Or just joking around? Feeble imo.
As ^ post mentions, maybe the judge had a firearm too. Loaded or unloaded, maybe crank up a self defense argument. IDK.
Thanks @I AM not Sherlock H for prompting more thoughts on intent.
@I AM not Sherlock H Thanks for your comment.IANAL…. yet wouldn’t the act of simply raising a loaded firearm and shooting at a victim once include the ‘intent’ in a case like this? And add seven more shots IIUC. Another question that might arise is whether the victim also may have had a loaded firearm.
And @al66pine this isn’t directed at you, just using this as a reference for the question.
And this does not take any possible elements of motive into consideration. MOO
Agreeing that GENERALLY when a person w a loaded firearm, unholsters it, points it at another human a few feet away, and fires it at the other person, in many/most/virtually all situations, inferring something LESS THAN ---
the shooter had intent to cause death --- requires some mental gymnastics.
Especially when shooter continues firing several more rounds.
In some situations, def't/def atty may argue shooter did not have intent to cause death, because of def't's claimed INCAPACITY to FORM intent. Say, by alcoholic intoxication, hallucinogenic/psychedelic drugs (a statutory defense in some jurisdictions. I did not search re KY statutes).
If only one shot is fired, A def't might claim he didn't know it was loaded or
that his index finger slipped on the trigger, did not intend to fire the gun.
Prob'ly a lame def attempt for THIS def't, even if he did not fire again.
And reading ^ post again, I noticed it referred to in THIS case.
From little but presumably factual MSM I've seen, there's no indication of ingestion of alcohol or mind bending drugs, so yep, w. circumstances HERE,
--- re INTENT to CAUSE DEATH, prosecutor works w some possible advantages besides easy jury inference that by firing, sheriff intended to cause death (i.e., multiple witnesses as to def't behavior that day & afternoon, not indicating booze or drug ingestion, who heard the multiple rounds, vid cam footage confirming that timing of rounds fired, etc.)
--- re INTENT, def atty most definitely has an uphill battle to try to show no intent, if they want to try to show that. Remember def. does not have to put on any witnesses or evidence, can argue weakness of pros' case.
Any way for def atty to do that w'out putting the def't on the stand to testify?
Anything def't can testify to negate intent? I did not mean to kill him? Or just joking around? Feeble imo.
As ^ post mentions, maybe the judge had a firearm too. Loaded or unloaded, maybe crank up a self defense argument. IDK.
Thanks @I AM not Sherlock H for prompting more thoughts on intent.
Last edited: