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.”

  • tazeycrazy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    il y a 10 jours

    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.

    • mjr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      il y a 10 jours

      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.

      • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        il y a 10 jours

        I expect to see them say bike riding is a form of protest, and he was afraid. 😆

      • podian@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        il y a 9 jours

        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.

    • manxu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      il y a 10 jours

      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.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      il y a 10 jours

      just to hit them and teach them to stay off the road

      That right there is intent to commit “an act dangerous to human life” under the Texas murder statute quoted above.

    • quick_snail@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      il y a 10 jours

      So when I shot my ex in the spine, it wasn’t murder. I was only trying to paralyze them.

    • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      il y a 9 jours

      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.)

    • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      il y a 8 jours

      If there’s skid marks, he better get upgraded charges. He has a history of this shit too:

      Those jail records also showed prior arrests for Medina on counts such as deadly conduct by discharging a firearm, assault causing bodily injury, and reckless driving. Dispositions for those cases were not immediately available.