• Showroom7561
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    3 days ago

    Can any lawyers answer this:

    If the person driving that vehicle did end up running someone over, and had that sign in the window, would they get an elevated charge?

    To me, that sort of thing is like premeditation, and it would be extremely hard for me to believe that an “accident” led to them killing someone with their vehicle.

    • NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not a lawyer but, premeditation isn’t what you think it is; one can premeditate an action in seconds, the concept really just conveys that the individual had time to think of the consequences.

      But yeah, a sticker like this would certainly hurt the case of any defendant. It wouldn’t likely get them any modifiers (though it would help), but it could definitely affect a judge’s decision on how much time they should serve.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Not a lawyer, but I think stuff like this is a minefield. The defense would try to get it thrown out as prejudicial and without the suspect testifying all they could do is show a picture to an officer of it who affirms that he saw it on the car and enter it into evidence, but they could only indirectly talk about it in opening and closing because nobody can personally testify about the motivations behind the sticker.

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        But if the defense was “I panicked and hit the gas when people surrounded me” this is something that would poke quite a few holes in that argument.

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          It could, its just hard for the prosecution to handle. Because it’s not direct evidence of the mindset for that incident and it’s inflammatory to the jury the chances of it being ruled as prejudicial and not probative is high. That’s why past criminal convictions are also often excluded from trials.

        • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          It shouldn’t. I think people put far too much value on motive. Dead is dead. If I am killed by a gun or car it doesn’t make any difference to me or my loved ones who will never see me again. Likewise, if I had a kid who was killed by a school shooter or someone who was gooning to his phone while driving, I would hate them both equally. Motive can’t bring back the dead.

          Obviously motive has some value, but it shouldn’t be the difference between a few weeks of community service vs a lifetime in jail. Motive shouldn’t have more weight than the actual consequences of our actions because that is insane and gives people this fucked up idea that they don’t need to worry about preventing the deaths of others as long as they don’t intentionally kill anyone they can drive like the most selfish asshole in the world and they will never go to jail

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think it would be easy to defend against, with so many of those stickers around it could easily demonstrate just a particular sense of humour