- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 30,559
- Reaction score
- 162,689
The issue isn't as stupid as it sounds. There is a legal argument for it, but I hope the court decides it's ridiculous. The problem I see is that if they decide that a drunk driver is too out of it to be responsible for second degree murder. Then why wouldn't a person who's high or drunk be responsible for at least second degree murder inside a house?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/nyregion/drivers-defense-too-drunk-to-be-guilty.html?src=recg
Drivers Defense: Too Drunk to Be Guilty
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: October 8, 2013
...Juries convicted all three of second-degree murder after prosecutors argued successfully that they had shown a depraved indifference to human life. But those convictions were brought as a group before New York States highest court for review on Tuesday, where a panel of judges wrestled with a thorny legal question: Can people become so intoxicated that it is impossible for them to be in the state of mind the law defines as depraved indifference?
During more than an hour of intense questioning from judges, defense lawyers argued their clients were too drunk or high to understand what they were doing and were oblivious to the threat they posed to others. Prosecutors countered, often in emotional terms, that the three drivers had enough presence of mind to know they were endangering other drivers but did not care....
The part I understand is that somebody could be so out of it that they don't have the capacity to make controlled decisions, but it's opening a can of worms. JMO :truce:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/nyregion/drivers-defense-too-drunk-to-be-guilty.html?src=recg
Drivers Defense: Too Drunk to Be Guilty
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: October 8, 2013
...Juries convicted all three of second-degree murder after prosecutors argued successfully that they had shown a depraved indifference to human life. But those convictions were brought as a group before New York States highest court for review on Tuesday, where a panel of judges wrestled with a thorny legal question: Can people become so intoxicated that it is impossible for them to be in the state of mind the law defines as depraved indifference?
During more than an hour of intense questioning from judges, defense lawyers argued their clients were too drunk or high to understand what they were doing and were oblivious to the threat they posed to others. Prosecutors countered, often in emotional terms, that the three drivers had enough presence of mind to know they were endangering other drivers but did not care....
The part I understand is that somebody could be so out of it that they don't have the capacity to make controlled decisions, but it's opening a can of worms. JMO :truce:
