[ SECRET POST #2571 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

[riddian]

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.

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

[ill_omened]

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.

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

[riddian]

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.

Re: why are drink drivers not charged with attempted manslaughter

[(Anonymous)]

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.