Dio, at it again and raising the bar

[elucidator]

You mean the Boys in the Bag are toxic?! No fair! Totally, no fair!

[Cat_Whisperer]

See, this is why I never go there - first it gets sad, then it gets weird.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rand_Rover

I think you nailed it Blalron.

Dio, it’s not the case that ut must be intentional to be a crime, but it must at least be negligent. Not all of these cases involve negligence.

Leaving a baby alone in a car is automatically negligent, regardless of state of mind.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@bucketybuck

Heh, why are people chasing cites for the biggest fucking troll on the boards? A twat who is just going to continue to post one line variations of “no I didnt”, and “when did you finish beating your wife” for another six pages.

And after he has gotten his kicks from taunting you all, he will post “Ok, perhaps not all these parents were evil baby killing rapists”. Then four different people will jump in to praise Diokwad for being able to change his position. One will even say she has gained respect for him because of it.

You guys. You crack me up.

Don’t worry, whoever the fuck you are, I’m not going to change my mind. I also haven’t taunted anybody.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Leaving a baby alone in a car is automatically negligent, regardless of state of mind.

. . . which proves what I said upthread. Negligence is a state of mind, so this post makes absolutely no sense, and you don’t take state of mind into account (because you don’t understand it).

Look, you are a smart guy, I know you are capable of learning. Please read some wikipedia articles on “mens rea” and the like.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Negligence is not a state of mind, it’s a physical act. States of mind cannot be legislated. there is nothing in any statute that says leaving a baby in a car has to be willful to be illegal.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I know what mens rea means, by the way. It’s not relevant in these cases. They are strict liability crimes.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Negligence is not a state of mind, it’s a physical act. States of mind cannot be legislated. there is nothing in any statute that says leaving a baby in a car has to be willful to be illegal.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I know what mens rea means, by the way. It’s not relevant in these cases. They are strict liability crimes.

Dio, you are just digging yourself deeper here buddy. Not sure what else to tell you. Hopefully Bricker and Oakminster etc. etc. will be along shortly to tell you the same thing I’m telling you.

The short version is you are just absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as a strict liability crime of “causing the death of another person.” Taking (or not taking) an action that causes the death of another person is a crime in some cases and not a crime in others depending on the person’s state of mind. And tort law works in a similar manner.

[Rand_Rover]

Here’s some wikipedia reading from here: Mens rea - Wikipedia

Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether they had committed the crime, actus reus, and whether they intended to commit the crime, mens rea. However, many modern penal codes have created levels of mens rea called modes of culpability which vary depending on the offense elements of the crime

And:

Prior to the 1960s, mens rea in the United States was a very slippery, vague and confused concept. Since then, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability: the conduct, the circumstances, and the result, or what the Model Penal Code calls CAR (conduct, attendant circumstances, result).[11]

* Purposefully - the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

* Knowingly - the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result.

* Recklessly - the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from.

* Negligently - the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware

* Strict liability - the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant

And from here: Strict liability (criminal) - Wikipedia

As a jurisdiction with due process, the United States makes only the most minor crimes or infractions subject to strict liability.[dubious – discuss] One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant’s vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

• Negligently - the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a “reasonable person” would have been aware

A reasonable person would be aware that leaving a baby in a car could hurt it.

Plus, it’s just flat illegal to leave a baby in the car. There aren’t any loopholes or exceptions. Whether it results in death is neither here nor there. it’s negligent whether the parent intended it or not.

[Rand_Rover]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

A reasonable person would be aware that leaving a baby in a car could hurt it.

Plus, it’s just flat illegal to leave a baby in the car. There aren’t any loopholes or exceptions. Whether it results in death is neither here nor there. it’s negligent whether the parent intended it or not.

Translated from Diospeak to actual English, your post above says “I don’t understand how the law works and I don’t care to learn.” You keep using terms with specific legal meanings in a very haphazard manner, so it would take me too long to sort all that out and respond to you, after which I have no doubt you would continue using such terms in such manner. So, the bottom line is that you are wrong even if you don’t yet realize why.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Show me a statute that says intent must be proven to find a person negliegent for leaving baby in the car.

[MsWhatsit]

I’m just irritated because the original thread has turned into yet another installment of the Diogenes Show. The guy apparently sees the entire world in strictest black and white terms, is incapable of understanding that anyone else has a different life experience than he does, and only admits that he’s wrong in very rare circumstances, and then only after everyone else in the thread has exhausted themselves beating their heads bloody trying to reason with him. It’s just not worth it. He’s an all-right poster sometimes, but when he gets on one of his hobbyhorses and decides to ride it, you might as well kiss the thread goodbye. Very annoying.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Hey, I was accused of being capable of killing one of my kids through negligence. I am not. I took offense. Don’t tell me “it can happen to anybody.” No it fucking can’t.

[Nzinga_Seated]

Ok, it can happen to anyone except you.

[samclem]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Hey, I was accused of being capable of killing one of my kids through negligence. I am not. I took offense. Don’t tell me “it can happen to anybody.” No it fucking can’t.

Yes, it can.

My black and white post is my cite. You fail.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

A reasonable person would be aware that leaving a baby in a car could hurt it.

Again, nobody is arguing that the parents are ignorant of the danger of leaving a baby in the car.

Plus, it’s just flat illegal to leave a baby in the car. There aren’t any loopholes or exceptions. Whether it results in death is neither here nor there. it’s negligent whether the parent intended it or not.

No, it’s not. If it were, how do you explain the parents who weren’t tossed in jail or even prosecuted for a crime?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

What are you all really looking for? A rhetorical reach-around while Dio rhetorically pounds your ass? Boo-hoo, that mean old Diogenes schooled me again and he didn’t smile while he did so.

Waaaahhhh!

Seriously though, does it realty make sense if you stop for a moment that forgetting about a baby in the car could happen to anyone? Or are attentional and organizational capacities actually not distributed exactly equally across the entire population?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Or are attentional and organizational capacities actually not distributed exactly equally across the entire population?

They don’t have to be distributed uniformly across the population. “It could happen to anyone” implies that everyone has a nonzero probability of it, though some are of course more clumsy, careless or lost in thought than others. Admittedly negligence is a separate concept: one could posit that some are more prone to negligence than others, though everybody is at least a little prone, excepting Dio of course.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’m not an exception, I’m the rule.