fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2571 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2571 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Revenge]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Vatta's War - Trading in Danger]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Dirty Rotten Scoundrels]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Doctor Who]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Sherlock]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Mass Effect]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Sleepy Hollow]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11. [tb2]

__________________________________________________

12. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #367.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

if you fired a revolver with one bullet at someone russiam roulete style you'd get charged with attempted murder, the fact that nothing happened would be immaterial

the action is materially the same, the only difference is due solely to chance

maek u think

Are you drunk (and driving)?

I think the difference between accident and non-intentional crime, and shooting a gun at someone should be pretty clear...

alcohol company lobbists

same reason why big tobacco is so hard to sue and child labor on big tobacco farms and the children's subsequent nicotine poisoning not illegal

Not really. "Manslaughter" implies that there wasn't any intent behind what happened [Ex. it was an accident], murder on the other hand, does have intent behind it.

So "attempted manslaughter" would basically be charging someone with "attempting to kill someone on accident" which isn't possible.

this pretty much.

Is it just me or is attempted manslaughter a contradictory term? The whole reason we have the term manslaughter is for cases where you killed someone when you weren't trying to. How do you attempt to accidentally kill someone?

Because manslaughter can't be attempted...

a.) there's a difference in intent
b.) manslaughter has several subsets, one of which you can be charged with in some areas
c.) manslaughter usually has to do with murders that happen without anyone plotting it or going out of control. Therefore, you don't "Attempt" manslaughter - you do it or you don't.

Are you drunk posting?

Echoing others, I don't think attempted manslaughter is a thing.

Because intent matters. It's why we have different degrees of murder, and also manslaughter. Speaking of manslaughter, my understanding was that it means an unintentional killing, thus it should be impossible to "attempt" manslaughter. Your argument makes no sense to me.

Generally to attempt an offence your action merely needs to be 'more than merely preparatory' towards the substantive offence. Intent doesn't play into it per se.

If someone is driving along the pavement because they're that smashed than I could see the argument for having passed that line.

But the phrase "attempted manslaughter" still makes no sense to me. Plus, why not also charge them with attempted property damage? Attempted failure to stop at a stop sign? Attempted failure to wear a seat belt? Any of those could also result from driving drunk. I think they should just be charged with "driving drunk," instead of a contradiction of terms, and given a serious penalty.

Preparatory is getting stuff together or thinking about it. Intent is a substantive step toward your goal. Intent is deliberate. The difference is small but important.

There are other charges that careening down the pavement while drunk (and not hitting anyone) would certainly embody but manslaughter is literally "X is dead. You didn't intend to do it. And you didn't fly off the handle and murder X in a rage. But it happened, possibly due to your indifference to human life and safety."

So no. "Attempted" manslaughter is not a thing. It's an action-related offense (although intent may compute into the 'level' beneath the heading of manslaughter) and you either did it or you didn't.

"Attempted murder" - first (you plotted out the murder or cooled down, had a chance to stop, and didn't) or second (emotional) - is a thing because that's a crime that relies on intent + actions taken in support of that intent to be charged. If they can't prove one of those two elements, you get bumped down to the charge beneath that.

Just wait until there are enough deaths by accidents caused by drunk drivers; then they'll ~~be forced to finally~~ change the laws like they did in my country recently.

If you kill someone while drunk driving, isn't that vehicular homicide? Not murder or manslaughter?

OP, you've inspired me to drink a beer.

I think it depends on different factors as to what it falls under, but most cases is manslaughter because it wasn't intended (which is the hallmark of manslaughter)... Unless they made a point of hitting the person, or something along those lines.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't intended. It's common knowledge that driving drunk puts everyone around you at risk, so if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk, it's understood that you know perfectly well that you could kill someone and you just don't give a fuck.

Intent isn't the only hallmark of guilt. There's also negligence, recklessness, and in some cases, "depraved indifference."

the action is not materially the same tho

please don't ever go into law.

[ SECRET POST #2571 ]

why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter