Michael Cash wrote:

> On 28 Jul 2004 12:18:43 -0700, worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.) brought
> down from the Mount tablets inscribed:
> 
> 
>>Michael Cash <mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote in message news:<1c5fg0hkfrf1ico8k6t3ekhlp1s9g4ur5e@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>My point was that as far as criminal law is concerned, not every
>>>killing is a murder. And if the judge says the father didn't intend to
>>>kill, then the prime element of a murder charge is missing.
>>>
>>
>>But if he knew that action would (most likely) result in death, and
>>willingly took that action, shouldn't that be murder? It's not like he
>>bumped into the kid's high chair and he fell over.
> 
> 
> In such cases, the courts will often make a presumption of intent. The
> actual lawyers here can shed more light on this, but I think there is
> something called the "reasonable man" standard used for stuff like
> this.
> 

The "reasonable man" standard is used to judge such things as 
recklessness and expectation. Questions like "Would a "reasonable man" 
believe that bodyslamming a 5-year old would result in serious injury or 
death?" If the jury believes so, then you are able to make the case for 
things like negligent homicide, reckless homicide, etc. To get to the 
more serious murder charges you still have to show a concious intent.

KWW