Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston-Sean
Just to repeat an earlier post.
It doesn't matter who or how a gun is loaded. What matters is how the person handles the gun. That is according to the New Mexico supreme court.
Also, an act does not have to be intentional to be criminal.
One would think these 2 concepts are not difficult to understand.
One would be wrong.
|
I'm forced to disagree with "concept 2" or more accurately, set the record straight
The basic legal term is mens rea---essentially criminal INTENT, without which there is no crime. To be more specific:
Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a
necessary element of many crimes.
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".[1] As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as
strict liability crimes.
As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies
strict liability to only the most MINOR crimes or infractions. One example is a parking violation, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. Serious crimes like rape and murder usually require some showing of culpability or
mens rea.