Modern VampireKiller - "IM KILLING A VAMPIRE!"

[superluser]

Why do you have the ability to pull me back into this mind-numbingly stupid discussion?

You fail to understand that responsibility would fall on the party who initiated physical contact. If these "restrainers" force themselves on to the man and he tries to struggle loose and the group then proceeds to "use force" on him, then they have acted in a way which lead to injuries and we would have a case of assault.

This isn't grade school and you're not a principal; you can't just make rules up as you go.  It's not a question of who threw the first punch.  It's a question of what the law says.

The very idea of unintentionally harming someone due to the lack of forethought is definitely under the definition of reckless.

Oh, really?  I thought the definition of recklessly was the following:

"Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.  A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto.

So you would have to prove that the restrainer knew that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury, and that disregarding this risk would constitute a ``gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.''

A guy comes along and starts stomping a peacock.  Do you consider giving him a bear hug to get him away from the bird a ``gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation?''

Now, please, this is getting silly.  Don't make me come back here.

[Xuzaf D]

Your out of ideas man. In fact, your basically just paraphrasing me by citing the law directly.


Let's have a gander shall we?

My words:
"The very idea of unintentionally harming someone due to the lack of forethought is definitely under the definition of reckless."


The law:
"A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists."

So the offense, which in this case is assumed to be assault, came about as the result of someone acting without weighing the risks involved. That oddly sounds like "unintentionally harming someone."


The law:
"The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

Someone acting unlike a reasonable person? As in, say, doing something without thinking about it first? I suppose you can call that a "lack of forethought."


The last part of the law:
"A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto."

This just says it stills counts if your drunk. Not to relevant considering drunkenness was not mentioned in any of the theoretic situations in this thread.


Really, all I can do is thank you for saving me the trouble of citing the law.

A guy comes along and starts stomping a peacock.  Do you consider giving him a bear hug to get him away from the bird a ``gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation?''

Yes, I do think getting fresh with a violent and potentially psychotic person, based on the belief that his human rights are below the life of a small bird with colorful feathers, to be a deviation from human reasoning. In fact, it might also be evidence that you're in league with vampire peacocks.

[superluser]

"A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists."

So the offense, which in this case is assumed to be assault, came about as the result of someone acting without weighing the risks involved.

Good job ignoring the key words `substantial' and `unjustifiable.'

A person who ``is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk'' is the exact opposite of a person who is ``acting without weighing the risks involved.''  In order to consciously disregard a risk, you have to have weighed the risk.

"The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

Someone acting unlike a reasonable person? As in, say, doing something without thinking about it first? I suppose you can call that a "lack of forethought."

It cannot just be unlike the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe, it must be a *gross* deviation from that.

[Xuzaf D]

I'm just going to stock up on rosaries and garlic in case one of you deranged peacock fans try and pay me a visit.