Wednesday, August 27, 2014

One Or the Other?

I'm not sure I agree. [More]

You can train and train and train under conditions where your life is not forfeit if you make a mistake.

Were I a juror, depending on the credibility  of a witness and his testimony, I can envision being somewhat receptive and sympathetic to a claim of being so flustered by unfolding events that someone temporarily -- for that critical split fraction of a second -- lost his bearings, focus and discipline, and reacted based on panic.

Sure the standard is high, as it should be, but very few of us are put to the test of meeting it while we desperately fear for our lives.

I don't actually know enough about this particular case to comment on the appropriateness of findings here -- I'm speaking in general terms.  A good rule of thumb: Try not to induce panic in anyone. Unless they deserve it.

[Via Michael G]

1 comment:

Mack said...

I don't really agree with Andrew F. Branca. At least in Virginia, you can have both; 'pick one' is silly.

Suppose someone is brandishing a gun in self-defense; it "accidentally" goes off. Person tells the police, "It was an accident!" ... well, that would be Homicide by Misadventure.