This is not circular logic. She should be punished because of her actions that led to the death of a human being.
I am not alluding to anything. I’m actively stating that people in this very thread think the pain and suffering she will feel is punishment enough for killing somebody. And I don’t think that is sufficient punishment for someone who caused the death of a human being. You may not agree, but that’s you.
I’m not sure why his bad feelings of the incident were not good enough punishment. And the family got money too? Why couldn’t they just look at how bad Mehserle felt as payment enough? :rolleyes:
I really don’t think it adds to the “serious repercussions” lesson and is just a waste of money. If the family wants to prosecute, fine, but if I told my wife to shoot me or push me off a cliff or pitch a grenade to me in a stunt I convinced her was “safe” and I ended up dead because of our stupidity, I sure as heck don’t think it would add any value to society to punish her further (assuming she didn’t want me dead in the first place.)
They didn’t have a pre-existing romantic relationship, as far as I can tell.
And, as you probably know, quite a few people feel the same way you do about punishment. In any event, the civil justice system is by and large designed to compensate, not punish. (with some exceptions)
There’s a vast difference between someone who is driving drunk and this girl. If you don’t see it already, however, then I’m not sure explaining it to you is going to do any good.
I will try once, though:
See, driving drunk carries with it something you already know to be wrong, but are doing anyway…something you know carries a chance of danger, but are doing that exact thing with it. Namely, taking a chance.
Even if you’re too drunk to even consider any of this logic, it’s still clearly doing something you know to be wrong if you weren’t drunk.
In this case, none of that logic holds up. She didn’t know her boyfriend would be killed. She did not knowingly engage in any action she thought would be deadly. She did not intentionally choose to do something that she believed would put another person’s life in danger.
None of that is the case with someone who drives drunk.
I don’t expect you to be swayed by this argument or see my/others who have my opinion any more, though…because again, you either see the difference between what she did and what a drunk driver does from the the start…or you don’t.
I don’t know if I agree or disagree because you cannot seem to articulate the reasons you think prison as punishment is good.
I think what you’re saying is that it’s good because it deters her (or others) from crime and because social morality requires us to seek retribution to set the cosmic scales of justice right.
But I’m not clear, because you haven’t clearly articulated your reasons.
If those are your reasons, then I partially agree and partially disagree. I think the idea of moral retribution to set the cosmic scales right is stupid. I think deterrence makes a lot of sense. After all, it’s not just her you’re seeking to deter (and I think she will not likely make this or a similar mistake again!), but others who might engage in risky activity. There probably is some deterrent effect for them. I’m willing to consider it.
She didn’t think her boyfriend would be killed. Got it. And neither does the drunk driver drive the car thinking they’ll kill someone.
But you say the drunk driver, even though they don’t intend to kill someone, knows that drunk driving is dangerous. And how do they know that? Because every reasonable person knows it.
In her case, it was not reasonable for her to believe that shooting a gun at her boyfriend was safe. It was reckless and negligent, because it’s obviously so to any reasonable person. But she’s dumber than a regular person, and it wasn’t obvious to her? Except we don’t let dumb people drive drunk, do we?
If the cop arrests me for drunk driving, can I claim I had no idea drunk driving was dangerous? And as proof, point to the fact that I wouldn’t have driven drunk if I thought it was dangerous, and therefore I must be one of those idiots who don’t realize drunk driving is dangerous?
She was stupid and made a mistake. She didn’t intentionally do anything, whereas a drunk driver intentionally takes the risk to drive knowing someone might get hurt (knowing that possibility exists, without a doubt)
If the stunt “worked”, and nobody got hurt, assuming firing the gun where they did was not illegal, would anyone have been charged with anything? Say a cop was strolling by, heard the bang, and checked out what was going now.
Of course she intentionally did things. She intentionally pointed a loaded gun at the victim, and intentionally pulled the trigger. Of course she intended for the bullet to be stopped by the book, but that doesn’t matter.
Just like the guy who takes his eyes off the road to send a text doesn’t intend to crash into a bus full of nuns, he still intentionally took his eyes off the road, which everyone knows is dangerous. And everyone knows shooting a gun at someone is dangerous, even if a book is in the way.
Wait, to add: Of course her thinking that the book would stop the bullet matters. That’s what changes this from murder to manslaughter. What makes this manslaughter and not “what a tragic accident” is that no reasonable person could think it was safe to fire a gun at someone just because a book was in the way. The only way she wouldn’t be culpable is if she were legally incompetent in some way, like if she literally had the mind of a child and didn’t understand guns are dangerous. If a toddler pulls a gun out of his mom’s purse and shoots her, he hasn’t committed a crime because he doesn’t understand what guns are.
IMO, it does. It’s the difference between whether I believe she should serve jail time or not serve jail time. IMO, she shouldn’t.
Everyone is unreasonable sometimes. She didn’t mean to do it. Mercy is the best answer here, IMO.
According to some reports, the three year old watched. Just so sad all around.
Yes, she is guilty of criminally negligent manslaughter. Or, at per her municipality, second degree manslaughter. But she shouldn’t do jail time. All that jail time will accomplish is quenching the need for vengeance a lot of people seem to harbor. If I can ask the people who are adamant that she should do time, what reason do you have besides retribution for stupidity?
Probably assault with a deadly weapon.
We can never really know what she was thinking in the moment. However, someone who actually loves someone and doesn’t want to see them harmed would never fire a gun at that person.
And her “victim” would testify for the defense.
Magic 8 ball says: not guilty.
Let us just suppose the stunt had worked as planned, in the celebration afterwards the woman fired 5 shots into the air. When they came down they killed the 3 year old child. By what many of you are saying there shouldn’t be any punishment for stupid behavior. What if she claimed that they had fired into the air before and no one was injured so why should they be imprisoned for manslaughter now?
The three year old is not a voluntary participant. Her bf was.
Actually it would be Recklessly/negligently Discharging a Firearm which is either a misdemeanor or felony depending how severe the circumstances. Pointing a gun at someone else in front of a crowd would seem felony level.