I don't make the laws and ordinarily i'm attacking them, not defending
them. I just saw what Steve Goldstein wrote and I agree with that. Car or
gun, the question is whether there was criminal negligence. For what it's
worth, and this is really kind of red herring anyway, here's another jury
instruction for y'all:
1175 HOMICIDE BY NEGLIGENT HANDLING OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON — § 940.08
Statutory Definition of the Crime
Homicide by negligent operation of a dangerous weapon, as defined in §
940.08 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who causes the
death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a
dangerous weapon.
State's Burden of Proof
Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must
prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the
following three elements were present.
Elements of the Crime That the State Must Prove
1. The defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon.
2. The defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner
constituting criminal negligence.
3. The defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a
manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of (name of
victim) .
"Cause" means that the defendant's act was a substantial factor
in producing the death.
Meaning of "Dangerous Weapon"
"Dangerous weapon" means
[any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. A firearm is a weapon that
acts by force of gunpowder.]
[any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great
bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" means serious bodily injury.]
[any device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or
intended to be used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.
"Great bodily harm" means serious bodily injury.]
[any electric weapon. An electric weapon is a device designed or used
to immobilize or incapacitate a person by the use of electric current.]
Meaning of "Criminal Negligence"
"Criminal negligence" means:
• the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon
created a risk of death or great bodily harm; and
• the risk of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable and
substantial; and
• the defendant should have been aware that (his) (her)
operation or handling of a dangerous weapon created the unreasonable and
substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.
IF REFERENCE TO ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE IS BELIEVED TO BE HELPFUL OR
NECESSARY SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 925.
Jury's Decision
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three elements
of this offense have been proved, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Copyright 2006, Regents, Univ. of Wis.
On 10/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> -- "Robert F. Nagel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I really don't want to get too caught up in this, but I will briefly
> > respond. Although guns and cars can both achieve lethal results, a gun
> is a
> > weapon, a car is a means of transportation, favored by some and
> disfavored
> > by others. So, when somebody dies as a result of a gun operated by
> another,
> > typically some crime or another has been committed. When somebody dies
> as a
> > result of a motor vehicle accident, typically no crime has been
> committed.
>
> Robert,
>
> If someone dies as the result of a gunshot, even if that gunshot is
> 'accidental', i.e. not intentional, isn't that a crime? negligent use of a
> firearm or some such thing?
>
> If so, isn't the same true of an automobile? and if not, why the hell not?
>
> Either tool requires a certain degree of responsibility. Failure to live
> up to that responsibility should be a crime.
>
> -darin
>
--
Robert F. Nagel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.nagel-law.com
634 W. Main St., #201
Madison, WI 53703
608-255-1501
608-255-1504 fax
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
