How can anyone admit to stabbing someone in the heart and get found not guilty.

[soulman101]

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/...icagos-murder/

[viaductbaggies]

I thought that very odd

[phild]

Anybody on here who knows a bit about the law? If so can someone state what 'acted unintentionally' means. Cant find nowt on the internet. The jury ought to be put on trial.

[mickd1961]

With being a local to the area as many of you know I think this verdict is going to cause a lot of trouble.

Jury's are normally well directed by judges ( on the whole ) and it makes you wonder what the whole story is behind this incident.

Must admit to being surprised at the verdict.

[Calgarybaggy]

My training is as a lawyer in Canada but its based on the English system so the basic legal principles are the same with some minor but insignificant differences in terminology etc.
There are two elements to a crime: the actus reus (the act of committing the crime) and the mens rea (the intention to commit the crime.) Both usually have to be present to constitute a crime. Lest take the example of killing someone. Killing someone clearly satisfies the actus reus for murder but is not murder at all unless the mens rea of intentionally killing someone is present.
The best way to demonstrate this is a situation where you are in a bar and you have a disagreement with someone. You get so angry you punch the other guy and he falls back and hits his head on the snooker table and dies. If you intended to hurt him but not kill him, you will be guilty of manslaughter, which is a lesser charge than murder but you still will go to jail for a while, but likely not a life sentence because you did not have the mens rea to kill him. You only had the mens rea to hurt him.
If you intended to kill him, or ought to have known it was likely that if you hit him that hard he would have died, you will be guilty of second degree murder and will go to jail for life but likely will get out after, say, 15 years because its not as serious as first degree murder. Second degree murder is murder than is not pre-meditated but is nevertheless murder because you still had the mens rea, the intention, to kill him.
If you go home, get a knife, come back to the bar intending to stab him and do stab him to death, that is first degree murder and you will go to jail for the longest time because the murder was premeditated, which is the highest level of mens rea.
However, if the other guy pulls a knife on you and in attempt to defend yourself you punch him and he dies, if you can demonstrate that you acted purely in self defence that is an absolute defense. You have committed no crime even though you killed someone. The actus reus is present and you may have had the mens rea to kill him but self defence trumps that mens rea.
If you have no dispute with anyone but you trip someone up as a joke when he is carrying two glasses of beer and he falls over, cuts himself on the broken glass and bleeds to death, that is likely criminal negligence which is one of the few unintentional crimes because there is no a mens rea requirement. With criminal negligence, you do something that you knew or ought to have known could cause bodily harm but had no intention of hurting the person, but they end up getting hurt anyway as a direct result of what you did.
If you are playing snooker, and you take the ball out of a pocket but drop it on the floor and someone carrying two glasses of beer steps on to, falls over and bleeds to death on the cut glass, you are likely negligent for dropping the ball in a place where someone could step on it but that is only a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Its not criminal negligence because dropping a snooker ball does not seem like it could cause harm to someone but you did cause the accident. The dead person's family could sue you for damages but its not a crime.
Finally, if you are playing snooker and hit the ball just as someone leans on the table and it hits their fingers, they jump in pain, and knock over a passing waiter who drops his tray of beers and someone steps on the broken glass and eventually dies of blood poisoning from the infected cut, that is not even negligence because the death of the person is too remote from what you did so that you could not have foreseen that hitting a billiard ball on a snooker table would cause any injury to anyone.
So you have there seven situations where it could be said you killed someone but only two are murder, two are lesser crimes than murder, one may cost you money for damages and the other two are not crimes at all nor make you liable for damages.
I have deliberately not read the news story you are referring to but I have provided this for you to demonstrate that just because you kill someone, it does not mean you have murdered someone or even committed a crime. It really all depends on the circumstances and Courts are actually a pretty good way of working through those circumstances to come to a conclusion, but of course they don't always get it right. It doesn't help the dead guy or his family though.

[phild]

Thanks CB. I think the circumstances of the killing have not been fully revealed. But As far as the newspaper reports suggest it seems that the act and the intention took place. It didnt read as self defence but if it were then why use a knife?

[Prando]

God to hear from you Calgary buddy. Seen anything of my lad recently ?
PS
Q) What’s the difference between a solicitor and a rhinoceros?....



A) one has a thick skin and charges a lot.........and the other is an animal


I’ll get my coat :-)

[Calgarybaggy]

No I've been pretty busy and doing a lot of travel lately, I keep thinking of getting all the area baggies together but never seem to get round to it. I think the Pulls years took the gusto out of us!

Q. What's the difference between a lawyer and a rat?

A. there are some things a rat won't do.