AirTran F.O. lost on Comair accident

[mhermann596]

He was not from C8

 

[SpeedBird]

FNFAL, In your little black and white world it may qualify as a homicide, but for the rest of us that use our brains to perform critical thinking and judgements based on reality, we don't find your point very entertaining or worthy of serious thought.

In case you didn't recognize this one fact, people are understandably very emotional today with the news of this tragic ACCIDENT. If you want to try and impress us with your trivial knowledge of Kentucky law and statutes, why don't you demonstrate some judgement and consideration for others and hold off for a couple of weeks.

 

[satpak77]

wrong

Declared?

Sorry hoss, the unnatural or unlawful death of a human by the actions of another human is defined as homicide.

Do a google search and prove me wrong...and I never accused anyone of anything.

To qualify as a criminal act, you need Actus Reas (the act itself) and Mens Rea, or criminal mental state/intent.

Absent criminal intent on the part of the actor, there is no homicide.

Period, end of story.

 

[ALGFLYR]

Nobody is accusing anyone of comitting murder, Nancy Frances Sally Mae.

You say he is not accusing him of murder? Well then your comprehension is a little slow...

FN FAL said:

"He is the sole witness to an air disaster and under Kentucky State Statutes, the FO is also a witness to a homicide."

"If you look of the definition of homicide, it is when a person causes the unlawful or unnatural death of a human being."

So FN FAL has determined this is a homicide, and even though this just happened this morning and he was not there, he has already determined the event was not an accident but was the actions of some individual that caused the deaths of the passengers and crew. Was it crew error? If it turns out to be that, I may agree with the homicide definition. What if it was mechanical? What if they took off the wrong runway, but managed to get the plane flying and hit a flock of birds and had a duel flameout at an unrecoverable altitude? Without knowing EXACTLY what happened, everything is assumption. Assuming the event was caused by the crew is jumping to a premature conclusion and yes, it is accusing the FO of murder. And we talk about the media jumping to conclusions...

So if Metal fatigue causes a wing to seperate in flight and the plane subsequently crashes and kills people, is that also a homicide??? If a deer runs out in front of you and you hit a tree and die, is that homicide? It's not his definition of what a homicide is, it's that he has already determined that it WAS a homicide.... I stand by my last comments!

 

[FN FAL]

We don't know what really happened yet or who was even flying the aircraft and your already accusing the FO of Murder? You're a Fuking Idiot!!

No soft mind, I didn't accuse anyone of anything...but I did see some pictures of the survivors and they certainly look pi$$ed.

Although the crash didn't occur in Hawaii, this informative piece from their statutes pretty much explains the logic behind adopting penal code on wreckless and negligent homicide and also clearly defines the acts and the state of mind of the actor. Pretty interesting stuff.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0702/HRS_0702-0206.HTM

§702-206 Definitions of states of mind.

(3) "Recklessly."

(a) A person acts recklessly with respect to his conduct when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person's conduct is of the specified nature.

(b) A person acts recklessly with respect to attendant circumstances when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances exist.

(c) A person acts recklessly with respect to a result of his conduct when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause such a result.

(d) A risk is substantial and unjustifiable within the meaning of this section if, considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to him, the disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation.

4) "Negligently."

(a) A person acts negligently with respect to his conduct when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk taken that the person's conduct is of the specified nature.

(b) A person acts negligently with respect to attendant circumstances when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances exist.

(c) A person acts negligently with respect to a result of his conduct when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause such a result.

(d) A risk is substantial and unjustifiable within the meaning of this subsection if the person's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a law- abiding person would observe in the same situation. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1983, c 132, §1; am L 1986, c 314, §4]

COMMENTARY ON §702-206​

This section attempts to define the four states of mind which the Code recognizes as sufficient to establish penal liability and to indicate by definition the manner in which each state of mind is related to conduct, attendant circumstances, and the results of conduct.

The difference between acting intentionally, according to subsection (1), and knowingly, according to subsection (2), is narrow but nonetheless distinct. The distinction lies in the fact that intent is characterized by a conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result whereas knowledge is characterized by an awareness that conduct is of a certain type or that a certain result will almost certainly obtain. While knowledge will in most instances suffice to establish penal liability, there are a limited number of offenses which require an intent to effect a particular result.

Recklessness in subsection (3) deals not with the conscious object of conduct or the relative certainty of conduct but rather with disregard of certain probabilities. Recklessness is the conscious disregard of a known risk. It goes without saying that the conscious disregard of every risk of harm to a protected social interest should not, in every instance, be sufficient to impose penal liability for an untoward eventuality. Precision in defining which risks the penal law will not let a defendant ignore is impossible. Following the lead of the Model Penal Code, the Code has labeled the relevant risks as "substantial and unjustifiable" and in subsection (3)(d) states the factors which ought to be considered in determining whether the disregard of the risk should be condemned. The Reporter to the Model Penal Code has stated the issue concisely:

The draft requires, however, that the risk thus consciously disregarded by the actor be "substantial" and "unjustifiable"; even substantial risks may be created without recklessness when the actor seeks to serve a proper purpose, as when a surgeon performs an operation which he knows is very likely to be fatal but reasonably thinks the patient has no other, safer chance. Accordingly, to aid the ultimate determination, the draft points expressly to the factors to be weighed in judgment: the nature and degree of the risk disregarded by the actor, the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him in acting.

Some principle must be articulated, however, to indicate what final judgment is demanded after everything is weighed. There is no way to state this value judgment that does not beg the question in the last analysis; the point is that the jury must evaluate the conduct and determine whether it should be condemned.[1]

The fourth type of culpability which the Code recognizes is negligence. It is distinguished from the other three types of culpability (intent, knowledge, and recklessness) in that it does not involve a state of awareness on the part of the defendant. Rather, negligence involves the inadvertent creation by the defendant of a risk of which the defendant would have been aware had the defendant not deviated grossly from the standard of care that a law-abiding person would have observed in the same situation. As in the case of recklessness, the risk which the negligent defendant failed to perceive must be "substantial and unjustifiable." In the final analysis the jury will have to address themselves to the factors listed in subsection (4)(d)-- i.e., the nature and degree of the risk, the defendant's purpose, the circumstances known to the defendant, and the degree of deviation from a standard of ordinary care, and determine whether the behavior of the defendant should be condemned.

Of the four states of mind which this Code recognizes as sufficient for penal liability, negligence is the least condemnable because, by hypothesis, the defendant was inadvertent.[2] It has been argued that negligence is not a proper subject of penal--as opposed to civil--law.[3] The Code, however, adopts the position that:

Knowledge that conviction and sentence, not to speak of punishment, may follow conduct that inadvertently creates improper risk supplies men with an additional motive to take care before acting, to use their faculties and draw on their experience in gauging the potentialities of contemplated conduct. To some extent, at least, this motive may promote awareness and thus be effective as a measure of control.... Accordingly, we think that negligence, as here defined, cannot be wholly rejected as a ground of culpability which may suffice for purposes of penal law, though we agree that it should not be generally deemed sufficient in the definition of specific crimes, and that it often will be right to differentiate such conduct for the purposes of sentence.[4]
In the definitions of "recklessly" and "negligently" the Code refers to the "standard of conduct" or "standard of care that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation." The reference to the defendant's situation is not entirely clear. If the actor received a blow to the head or was blind, certainly these factors would be considered in assessing the actor's situation. On the other hand, factors such as "heredity, intelligence or temperament" could not be considered "without depriving the criterion of all of its objectivity."[5] Further discriminations of this sort must, of necessity, be left to the courts.

Previous Hawaii statutory law did not define any mental state except "malice," which was so imprecisely defined as to run the gamut of culpability and be meaningless.[6]

Although "intent," "knowledge," "recklessness," and "negligence" are used extensively in the present penal code, these terms have not been judicially defined in a penal context.[7] This section of the Code will supply the needed definitions.

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §702-206​

The Legislature adopted §206 as contained in the Proposed Draft of the Code; however, the Legislature also added to the Code the offense of negligent homicide in the second degree, set forth in §707-704, which introduces a less culpable state of mind called "simple negligence" - essentially a civil standard of negligence. (Cf. §§702-204, 213, and 707-704, and the commentaries thereon.)

In a prosecution under Hawaii trespass law prior to the enactment of the Code, the defendants sought to attack the statute in question on the grounds of vagueness, indefiniteness, and overbreadth for failure to require knowledge as "an element of the offense." In disposing of this contention, the court said:

Moreover, however, [sic] "knowledge" be defined, the failure of a statute to provide for knowledge as an element of a crime does not ipso facto render a statute unconstitutional. For not only are there statutory crimes without any requirement of intention or knowledge, but, as we noted in State v. Taylor, 49 Haw. 624, 636-7, 425 P.2d 1014, 1022 (1967), the applicable test for vagueness and overbreadth, which we adopted from Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 340-1 (1952), is not a checklist of requirements but is far more general.

 

[FN FAL]

4) "Negligently."


(d) A risk is substantial and unjustifiable within the meaning of this subsection if the person's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a law- abiding person would observe in the same situation. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1983, c 132, §1; am L 1986, c 314, §4]

In case you couldn't cipher though all of that.

But anyway, Kentucky has negligent homicide on the books and it's just like that one there.

 

[ALGFLYR]

No soft mind, I didn't accuse anyone of anything...but I did see some pictures of the survivors and they certainly look pi$$ed.

Although the crash didn't occur in Hawaii, this informative piece from their statutes pretty much explains the logic behind adopting penal code on wreckless and negligent homicide and also clearly defines the acts and the state of mind of the actor. Pretty interesting stuff.

Again (read my last post because I think we posted at the same time) It's the fact that you have single-handedly determined that this was NOT an accident and was indeed a homicide. And in this latest post a "wreckless and negligent homicide"

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED YET!!! HELLO McFLY!!! That's an accusation on your part. Period. I stand by my Fuking Idiot comment...

 

[FN FAL]

Again (read my last post because I think we posted at the same time) It's the fact that you have single-handedly determined that this was NOT an accident and was indeed a homicide. And in this latest post a "wreckless and negligent homicide"

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED YET!!! HELLO McFLY!!! That's an accusation on your part. Period. I stand by my Fuking Idiot comment...

I don't think you get it...in 2006, there is no such thing as an "accident" when it comes to people who are dead from unnatural or unlawful causes.

 

[FN FAL]

What if it was mechanical?

What if it was? Then, if there was recklessness or negligence on the part of a mechanic, then a mechanic would be the one on the hot seat.

 

[AA717driver]

Can someone stop this thread? It has become absurd.TC