Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:

> 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.

Is "homicide" a crime in California? There is no such crime as 
"homicide" at common law or any state statute I've ever heard of.

Oh, and what's the difference between "intent" and "recklessness"?

> KWW

Ta ta,
K