From the article - “The agency said Rapp and a fellow bicyclist were riding on a local road when Medina passed them in his car, stopped, and drove his vehicle in reverse. Medina then hit Rapp, and she was pronounced dead after emergency responders brought her to a hospital.”
In Texas, murder applies when the person
While manslaughter means
Sure reads like those charges should bump from manslaughter to murder.
It all hinges on the intent to kill. I’m sure he now would say he didn’t intend to kill. just to hit them and teach them to stay off the road. They have enough to charge them with both. And let a jury sort it out.
Saying you intended to hit someone with a motor vehicle is saying to intended to kill them, unless you’re provably insane and don’t understand that hitting someone is likely to kill.
Even a legally “insane” defendant would most often be found to have met the “knowing” criteria; the bar is that of foresight or knowledge (including constructed knowledge in some jurisdictions) of “merely” physical harm that is likely to cause grievous injury or death. No metaphysics required.
For example, acting to cause the stoppage of breath (that “happened” to result in death) is an automatic pass for murder in many common law countries.
I expect to see them say bike riding is a form of protest, and he was afraid. 😆
Read the article, it has his excuse, which explains the manslaughter reason.
Agreed, intent is hard to prove. That’s why the law also says, “knowingly.” He definitely knew he could kill someone by hitting them with his car.
The man had priors for reckless driving, according to the article. And a bunch of other things.
That right there is intent to commit “an act dangerous to human life” under the Texas murder statute quoted above.
So when I shot my ex in the spine, it wasn’t murder. I was only trying to paralyze them.
If there’s skid marks, he better get upgraded charges. He has a history of this shit too:
That ‘or knowingly’ closes the door on that hinge.
ianal, but I don’t think they could be charged with both murder and manslaughter. Wouldn’t that violate double jeopardy? Otherwise there would be absurdities where people get charged with the whole spectrum of criminal intent just to see what sticks. (Which does totally happen anyway, when they can get away with it.)
Though we all think we know what happened, intentionally and/or knowingly are much harder to prove. It has to be “beyond reasonable doubt”. So if the available facts don’t back that up, a manslaughter case could be a much safer way to get a conviction. It could be bumped up to murder if new facts come to light as part of the investigation, though.
Oh good. I came here to say exactly this. Good to know this isn’t something I’d have posted a comment for,and have everybody tell me I’m wrong. When I’m clearly right.
Like how GIF is pronounced. The Q, Z, and R are not silent, but they are invisable. The other 44 letters are silent AND invisable.
c/UsernameChecksOut
What?