http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/01/vampire.peacock.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/01/vampire.peacock.ap/index.html)
What the hell?? THAT guy is the one who needs to be put to sleep. Painfully.
That guy is crazy. He probably killed it for fun and came up with any excuse.
Okays I wanna buy some crack from him
:erk
Now that's just sad...also brutal, stupid, and cornering the market on ignorance.
One would think I just described the human race in general. :rolleyes
Quote from: Aisha deCabre on July 01, 2007, 08:38:42 PM
:erk
Now that's just sad...also brutal, stupid, and cornering the market on ignorance.
One would think I just described the human race in general. :rolleyes
*signs Aisha up for the Human Extinction Associated Persons... HEAP... which is also where they throw the bodies!* :U
ooo, do they have literature? Sign me up, too!
I'm reminded of the old "Boots of escaping" video.
Once again, these threads turn into something I have no idea what the fuck is about.
That's ok, neither does anyone else.
I blame the vampire peacocks and their brain waves.
LMAO I heard about this on Monday on the radio. Dad and I both were dumbfounded as to how someone could be this deranged and stupid.
sadly this amount of stupidity sums up most of the human population...
in other news... i'm not wearing any pants... more on that after the break :kruger
Quote from: gh0st on July 10, 2007, 12:43:32 AM
sadly this amount of stupidity sums up most of the human population...
in other news... i'm not wearing any pants... more on that after the break :kruger
... Does anyone else see the irony in this post?
No, I don't see the irony, because he hasn't tried to deny his own stupidity >.>
What I find strange is that apparently nobody did anything to stop him. Here they are feeding this bird, having a good time, when this guy comes running up and starts beating it to death. Why didn't anyone step up to save the bird? I mean seriously deranged guy beating a very large bird to death and they all just sit there and stare while someone calls the cops?
It must be one of those things that's like a car wreck. You just can't look away.
It isn't about looking away, it's about stopping the idiot.
Some madman starts tearing a bird up in front of you...
... how do you know he won't start on you next?
And then there's the shock factor - you shock people, most of them freeze for a bit. That can be long enough for him to get completely away, while they're still trying to believe their eyes. Wouldn't surprise me to discover that that was what everyone around at the time was thinking - one of those two, if not both.
they apparently weren't shocked enough not to ask him what he thought he was doing and generally doing things that DON'T involve stopping him.
The answer is very simple. Some people love pets, but not enough to put their lives on the line for an animal. The guy was obviously crazy, and they didn't want to stand between him and his vampire crusade. Self preservation.
They're multiple people up against an unarmed man. If you think you're in any danger you're an idiot.
Quote from: AngelSephy on July 07, 2007, 12:14:22 AM
LMAO I heard about this on Monday on the radio. Dad and I both were dumbfounded as to how someone could be this deranged and stupid.
And still on the street :erk :boggle :aack :blink
Quote from: Evil Richter on July 12, 2007, 01:08:46 AM
The answer is very simple. Some people love pets, but not enough to put their lives on the line for an animal. The guy was obviously crazy, and they didn't want to stand between him and his vampire crusade. Self preservation.
Someone should have still given him a boot to the head.
You both seem to miss the fact that assault against a man for reason of harming an animal is assualt nonetheless and not by any means justifiable.
you forgot the part where he's a dangerous maniac and they can claim self defense easily. Even if they couldn't, restraining the damn guy wouldn't be too much to ask.
This is a great discussion; we'll all know exactly what to do when we see a guy strangling a supposed vampire peacock. :3
Quoteyou forgot the part where he's a dangerous maniac and they can claim self defense easily
No, he attacked no people. Self defense requires being attacked.
Aye, but how do you know he wouldn't have attacked anyone if he were provoked by, say, someone trying to restrain him?
Explain that to the police. "Oh, but he was attacking a peacock, so I assaulted him". Unless you encounter an animal loving judge, you're screwed. Even if you did, you're pretty much neutralized. Such is the law.
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on July 12, 2007, 04:01:26 AMAye, but how do you know he wouldn't have attacked anyone if he were provoked by, say, someone trying to restrain him?
Well, the law doesn't work like that. You can't say, ``Well, if I had tried to talk him off the ledge, he might have thrown me down, so I was justified in shooting him.''
I'm don't think that the law works like Evil Richter says, either. If you think you, or someone else, or someone else's property is in imminent danger, then you're probably allowed to take reasonable, non-lethal action against the person to prevent bodily harm from coming to (in this case) that peacock. Trying to subdue the man would probably fall under this category.
Of course, you try doing that when you've got a crazy man in front of you who may be hopped up on some pain-numbing, muscle enhancing drug trying to kill a peacock because it's a vampire.
I'm not, by any means, suggesting anyone attempt anything being said, I'm just telling what could happen.
And who says you have to tell the absolute truth to the police? That's a bit foolish.
So is assuming police are idiots. Pretend you're a cop. You come upon a smashed up peacock and a beaten and bleeding man, and someone still standing with a few grazes. They (still standing) tell you that the man attacked the peacock, then assaulted you. Yet the man is whooped and homeboy is near fine. You know about animal rights people and how they think. You know they've been feeding the peacock in a pet like way. The whooped up vampire-hunter in training tells you he did not attack the man that is near fine. So do eyewittnesses. Do you immediately accept what you're told by the guy that is okay? Does a judge?
Quotethen you're probably allowed to take reasonable, non-lethal action against the person to prevent bodily harm from coming to (in this case) that peacock. Trying to subdue the man would probably fall under this category.
Preventing danger to an animal is by no means justifiable for assault on a human. I personally think it's ridiculous that it would be. It's sad if an animal is harmed, but I don't confuse animal life and human life, at all.
Why are you automatically assuming he is to be assaulted? Or did you not read what I typed?
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on July 12, 2007, 04:01:26 AM
Aye, but how do you know he wouldn't have attacked anyone if he were provoked by, say, someone trying to restrain him?
Quote from: Evil Richter on July 12, 2007, 08:49:32 PMSo is assuming police are idiots. Pretend you're a cop. You come upon a smashed up peacock and a beaten and bleeding man, and someone still standing with a few grazes. They (still standing) tell you that the man attacked the peacock, then assaulted you. Yet the man is whooped and homeboy is near fine. You know about animal rights people and how they think. You know they've been feeding the peacock in a pet like way. The whooped up vampire-hunter in training tells you he did not attack the man that is near fine. So do eyewittnesses. Do you immediately accept what you're told by the guy that is okay? Does a judge?
It depends on the state. This happened in NY, so let's look at the laws.
Quote from: Part 1, Title C of the NY Penal Code§ 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief.
A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises.
Criminal mischief is intentional or reckless damage of another person's property. Since peacocks are not native to New York, you could expect the peacock to be someone else's property.
Of course, you could try to get in between the man and the peacock, and when he starts throwing punches at you, you throw them back.
And I'm sure that the BK parking lot has enough cameras to verify your side of things.
Frankly if I was there when that happend (after the shock wore off, anyway) I would probably take steps to beat the crap out of the guy, and think about the law later. Not trying to be macho or anything: In that situation, its what I would do. I tend to treat animal life with respect, even the animals I eventually eat, and seeing something like that would probably have me seeing red, and breaking the guys arms, before I stopped to think about what the cops would do.
I think, however, that seeing as the guy is clearly deranged, I would probably scrape past with nothing more then some community service.
Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on July 12, 2007, 08:58:05 PM
Why are you automatically assuming he is to be assaulted? Or did you not read what I typed?Quote from: xHaZxMaTx on July 12, 2007, 04:01:26 AM
Aye, but how do you know he wouldn't have attacked anyone if he were provoked by, say, someone trying to restrain him?
In fact, I already said that before you did. Someone wasn't listening, which is why telling him is pointless.
Restraining someone against their will is assault by the way. Also, beating someone near to death will definitely get you more punishment than serving hobos soup for a week.
Why is it the 'beating him is wrong' people all seem to think we want to beat him within an inch of his life? Honestly myself I'd try to stop him, probably hit him/kick him a few times, but I probably wouldn't beat the living hell out of him. I'd try to restrain him but if he got out of the grapple then yeah punch or be punched.
Likewise what Luser posted is right, you can defend your stuff or the stuff of others through physical means if it becomes necessary. If someone's walking past your house and kicks your dog, you yell at them for it and to not do it again, and they keep doing it. Then you're justified to defend yourself. Likewise for wild animals. They're living creatures, not playing things for retards with nothing better to do.
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 14, 2007, 09:23:50 AMRestraining someone against their will is assault by the way.
Looks more like unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, if you ask me. And again, defensible.
Also, you do have to realize that the police and district attorneys are often very overworked, and they will often not prosecute cases which don't pass a certain threshold. You'll often see police telling people to break it up and go home, but it's much rarer to see that person get shipped into a paddy wagon and taken away.
Now, my idea of how to restrain someone in this case would be to put myself between him and the peacock, or to grab him around the waist and attempt to drag him away from the peacock. No more physical interaction than that, unless he tries to hit me.
Geez.
Grabbing someone about the waist is assault. Restraining someone against their will is assault, as MAD said. Property is someone's property only if you know it's someone's property. You can't just assume a stone, a bird, a wandering peacock is someone's property and beat/hold down someone for it. I know what the law for New York says as quoted above but nine times out of ten it falls to the responding officer's judgment. Also just as likely is you get the hell beaten out of -you-, unless you are all Mr T. Maybe Mr. Vampire Killer or whoever carrys knives, a gun, or other weaponry. You never know. Again, it's sad, but you don't go screwing with people over animals physically unless you want to end up in the cooler or worse. If you don't believe me, then whatever. Go out and restrain/beat someone trying to harm a peacock/squirrel/cat/dog whatever. That's your prerogitive. They may take pity if they are also animal compassionate (the cop, the judge etc.) but what if they think animal people are psychos? You never know. End of my two cents for this discussion.
Does anybody else notice that the people who were there are all said to be employees? This may actually be a key point since many establishments have codes of conduct in the event of a crime, nearly all of which refer to staying out of the situation and contacting authorities.
You may have heard about a clerk or two who have lost their jobs after breaking a robber's bowling/shooting arm. It's the same concept. Burger King just doesn't want it's employees tackling people of any sort and probably hate the idea of customers going to order a crispy chicken sandwich from the guy who tackled the bird killer. Sounds like bullshit, but it happens.
Quote from: Evil Richter on July 14, 2007, 10:15:15 PMGrabbing someone about the waist is assault. Restraining someone against their will is assault, as MAD said.
No, it isn't. It's unlawful imprisonment. For assault, you need to cause injury. In New York, it's not even sufficient to make a threat of violence. That's a separate crime, called menacing.
Quote from: Evil Richter on July 14, 2007, 10:15:15 PMbut nine times out of ten it falls to the responding officer's judgment.
And the judgment of the district attorney and the judgment of 12 jurors.
Please note that this man was obviously not all together, mentally. When the police come, he's not going to tell them that he was out for a stroll when he was jumped by hoods. He's going to tell police that these impertinent subjects of the Burger King have stopped Van Helsing from exterminating the vampire peacock. And that's when the nice men in the white coats will place Mr. Vampire Killer into the back of a wood-paneled station wagon.
And then if he stomped on the bird, there will be bird blood inside his shoe tread (not just on the surface, where you could get it if you walked through blood spatter, but deep inside, where you'd have to walk through a deep puddle of blood), and that's hard to explain if you're not doing the assault.
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 14, 2007, 11:02:45 PM
Does anybody else notice that the people who were there are all said to be employees? This may actually be a key point since many establishments have codes of conduct in the event of a crime, nearly all of which refer to staying out of the situation and contacting authorities.
You may have heard about a clerk or two who have lost their jobs after breaking a robber's bowling/shooting arm. It's the same concept. Burger King just doesn't want it's employees tackling people of any sort and probably hate the idea of customers going to order a crispy chicken sandwich from the guy who tackled the bird killer. Sounds like bullshit, but it happens.
You have just described all of the U.K. minus the work at Burger King part. Again, only God or whatever superior entity you place stock in can help you if the man claims that killing/assaulting you/it is a part of his culture. If that's the case the officers just call you racist and do nothing as you/it are wounded, assaulted, and/or killed. Afterwards they -may- pursue your case if it becomes too prominant.
Anyway, I seriously doubt any jury in the U.S. would convict you for restraining him. I'm also fairly sure you could sue BK for wrongful termination if they fire you for this incident. Besides here in the U.S. you'd be praised for restraining the man as the attitudes expressed in doing so is shown on this thread and the fact that Americans are bleeding hearts when it comes to pretty/cute animals. The incident would therefore increase your worth to BK for being a local hero which would slightly boosting sales for that establishment. You probably will not get a pay raise, but you have a fairly good chance of them not firing you on the basis that you brought them good press about how they have employees that are willing to defend animals (and by extension the customers) from crazy people. I think it's fairly established that people like to eat at a place where they feel safe.
I think the employee's lack of effort is more or less something plaguing New York specifically. It is the city known for it's population's complete lack of concern for others (animal or human) in a depressing extreme after all.
Quote from: superluser on July 15, 2007, 12:57:12 AM
Quote from: Evil Richter on July 14, 2007, 10:15:15 PMGrabbing someone about the waist is assault. Restraining someone against their will is assault, as MAD said.
No, it isn't. It's unlawful imprisonment. For assault, you need to cause injury. In New York, it's not even sufficient to make a threat of violence. That's a separate crime, called menacing.
How is grabbing someone "unlawful imprisonment?" I thought imprisonment involved being in prison.
QuoteQuote from: Evil Richter on July 14, 2007, 10:15:15 PMbut nine times out of ten it falls to the responding officer's judgment.
And the judgment of the district attorney and the judgment of 12 jurors.
No, that would be the one out of ten...
Quote from: Valynth on July 15, 2007, 02:24:46 AMI'm also fairly sure you could sue BK for wrongful termination if they fire you for this incident.
I'm certain that you could sue for wrongful termination/wrongful discharge. I was prepared to say here that I was also certain that you'd lose, but in the wake of Feliciano v 7-Eleven, it appears that you just might win such a case.
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 15, 2007, 10:58:26 AMHow is grabbing someone "unlawful imprisonment?" I thought imprisonment involved being in prison.
No. As a general legal term, it also covers holding people against their will. Look up unlawful imprisonment on Google News. Most of the cases that you'll find do not involve prison (except for the person convicted of unlawful imprisonment).
As a technical legal definition...
Quote from: Part 3, Title H of the NY Penal Code§ 135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined "without consent" when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
[definitions for `abduct' and `relative' omitted]
§ 135.05 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree when he restrains another person.
Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
If you want to claim that it's not unlawful imprisonment, then I don't think it's against the law to grab someone (so long as you don't cause injury) in NY.
You would still have to force someone into said restrained positions wouldn't you?
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 15, 2007, 10:27:19 PMYou would still have to force someone into said restrained positions wouldn't you?
So? There is no law against using force in NY, so long as you don't intend to cause injury and wind up causing injury. Look it up:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
You want Penal Code, Part 3, Title H, OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING PHYSICAL INJURY, SEXUAL CONDUCT, RESTRAINT AND INTIMIDATION
Thats the thing though. Many people can claim assault by simply claiming to have also been injured. Considering the persons reaction to the law, and their own violent nature, there would have been a struggle and any form of scratch or cut received in said event regardless of size can be seen as an injury and therefore the grounds of an assault charge. Then there's the classic emotional damages...
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 15, 2007, 11:24:48 PMThats the thing though. Many people can claim assault by simply claiming to have also been injured. Considering the persons reaction to the law, and their own violent nature, there would have been a struggle and any form of scratch or cut received in said event regardless of size can be seen as an injury and therefore the grounds of an assault charge. Then there's the classic emotional damages...
Did you read the law?
Quote from: Part 3, Title H of the NY Penal Code§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
With intent to cause *physical* injury to another person, he causes *such* injury. So if you didn't mean to injure him, but you did, then it's not assault unless you were reckless or using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
Assault in the first and second degrees look to be more complicated, but a quick scan suggests that you can't commit them unless you meet the criteria for assault in the third degree.
Yes I did read the law.
Quote from: superluser on July 16, 2007, 12:03:29 AM
Quote from: Part 3, Title H of the NY Penal Code§ 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
With intent to cause *physical* injury to another person, he causes *such* injury. So if you didn't mean to injure him, but you did, then it's not assault unless you were reckless or using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
Do I need to comment? Can you not tell that the idea of jumping a
vampire slayer might actually be considered reckless?
Only you seem to be considering it reckless, ya coward.
WOW MAN. SO NICE TO SEE YOU MAKE SUCH NICE CALCULATED POSTS IN THIS THREAD.
Seriously though, did you just read the last post and comment at random in an attempt to seem awesome?
Uh, no. I've been reading this entire thread every time a new post is up, and I find your constant gabbering about reckless annoying. It's not until now that I said something about it.
As Aridas put it adequately:
Quote
They're multiple people up against an unarmed man. If you think you're in any danger you're an idiot.
Actually, we've been talking about assault. You would know that if you have read more than just my last post.
Hmm, I do see where I have made a mistake, and I apologize.
But your post was a little misleading,
Quote
the idea of jumping a vampire slayer might actually be considered reckless
The way you worded it seemed to imply you were taking this in another direction. But let's go back over everything:
An obviously insane person starts beating up a lost bird.
Going hypothetical, someone (or several someones) get up and atempt to restrain the man.
Said man possibly resists, resulting in the need for the restrainers to use force in self-defence.
Said man is accidentally injured in the process.
First off, as superluser has quoted from a (at least a NY one) legal document, this cannont be classified as even third degree assault.
Taking that into account, I simply do not see how this is reckless.
And again, I apologize for this
'Only you seem to be considering it reckless, ya coward.'
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.
Secondly, you also don't understand that being as safe as can be in a situation does not nullify the concept of recklessness. Recklessness does not just apply to ones own party, but the party (or parties) they act upon as well. The very idea of unintentionally harming someone due to the lack of forethought is definitely under the definition of reckless.
So in closing: hurting people is illegal.
-edited for extra vowel-
Okay honestly WHY are we debating this. All the arguments aside the bird didn't deserve to die, and frankly 'Van Helsing' there deserves to be beat with bricks until it stops being funny. Fuck, the guys either a COMPLETE fucking asshole, completely cracked out of his fucking mind, or just plain nuts. Either way he shouldn't be on the streets and if he's one of the first two, he deserves whatever the fuck comes to him. God!
Edit: To Dalmunda:
You're still completely missing the point of just stopping this maniac, by any means on hand, but instead using only those that are neccesary.
But if I owned a gun, and I happened to be on the scene, the moment the guy beating on the peacock yells "I'M KILLING A VAMPIRE!", betraying his obvious insanity, I probably would have shot the man though the head and be merciful on the peacock and him, life sentance in prison be damned. (I certainly wouldn't have pleaded 'not guilty' in court)
Ok, that's harsh. I really would have just taken out a leg to incapacitate him.
EDIT:To Netrogo:
Thank you Netrogo. I couldn't have said it any better myself.
I don't know, Netrogo, why are you still debating it? :I
He was talking about debating weather or not it was ok with the law to stop this hellsing wannabe, not the actual act of doing so.
Why do you have the ability to pull me back into this mind-numbingly stupid discussion?
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 17, 2007, 10:37:57 PMYou 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.
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 17, 2007, 10:37:57 PMThe 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:
Quote from: NY Penal Law, Section 15.05"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.
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.
QuoteA 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.
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 18, 2007, 11:21:28 PM"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.
Quote from: Malicious Appendix Dalmunda on July 18, 2007, 11:21:28 PM"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.
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.