According to legal advice:
To prove a car accident was not intentional in court, you would need to present evidence demonstrating that your actions at the time of the crash were not deliberate, including factors like: witness testimonies, police reports, vehicle damage analysis, your driving record, medical records, and expert testimony to explain the circumstances leading to the accident, highlighting any distractions, mechanical failures, or unexpected road conditions that could have contributed to the crash.
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
What context was this legal advice given in? This may be advice for a civil lawsuit too?
In any case it is of course true that it is good to be able to present evidence in one’s favor in criminal court, but that is to establish that there is reasonable doubt, not because the defendant has the burden of proof.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill. He had a manifesto, there are witnesses… He murdered a man.
If it were a gun or a car. It’s irrelevant.
I’m not getting trapped up in semantics.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill.
Intent must be proved, and depending on the circumstances, can be hard or easy. Using a gun carries with it an assumption of intent - unless you’re hunting or target shooting, your intent can be assumed to not be good. With a car, there are a lot more things you could reasonably be doing, ill intent can’t be assumed.
And I wasn’t talking about this or any other specific case, just attempting to make sure that people understood the general legal concepts.
