I prefer to get a definition from a recognized book of definitions, such as a dictionary.
Now you're just talking in circles. Dictionary definitions have already been provided and scrutinized
here,
here and
here, and though you acknowledged that all the "1n's" contained in the equation, "1n + 1n + 1n = 1a," did indeed represent three separate acts of negligence, you have yet to explain how three 1n's equals 1 accident, which is pretty easy to understand since negligence plus negligence plus negligence does
not equal accident unless you're like the Chief of Police in Denver, and just looking for an excuse to relieve his idiot underlings of accountability for their negligent discharges.
As far as the two links I gave with the
proper definitions of accident and negligence as they pertain to firearms handling, I gave them to you at your own request when you answered another poster's unlinked quotation from them by asking "According to whom?" Now you say you prefer dictionary definitions, which itself is a BS assertion, because you have completely ignored the three times I've given you the dictionary definitions, and you have continued to imply that it's possible for cops in Denver to "accidentally" pull their triggers when they were attempting to actuate their rail-mounted flashlight switches.
This satisfy you for a cite? Link Removed
Yeah, thanks. Now it becomes much clearer what your purpose is in pursuing detracting from the topic of the CoP and his idiot cops in Denver. Anything to take peoples' eyes of that ball, eh?
First of all, I asked you who would use the word "accident" during the trial of the Alabama woman awaiting trial for the death of a man after she hit him with her car while DUI. I said,
"Described as an accident by whom, her defense attorney? You do realize that defense attorneys are tasked with the job of excusing inexcusable behavior and/or actions, right?"
I then cited the Alabama law covering criminally negligent homicide, in which not one single reference can be found to the word "accident," and lists DUI as one of the possible conversions from misdemeanor to felony criminally negligent homicide, completely decimating your claim that "accident" would be any part of the trial other than the defense attorney's attempt to excuse her criminally negligent homicide, just exactly as the CoP in Denver is acting as his idiot underlings' defense attorney while trying to blame their negligent discharges on "unsafe" flashlight switches.
So let's look at the case you (and/or Ayoob) are citing, shall we? Any chance we'll find that it is the defendant's claim that the discharge was an accident in order to excuse his negligence in allowing it to happen?
Link Removed:
On this appeal defendant argues that, because he claimed the discharge of his pistol was accidental, and did not claim that he fired it in self-defense, the justification defense is inapplicable. He maintains that justification does not apply to an unintentional crime, and that drawing his pistol did not constitute a "use of deadly physical force" within the meaning of Penal Law § 35.15. These arguments are without merit.
Is there likewise a chance that we might find where the appeals court
correctly identifies the defendant's actions as "reckless" or "negligent?"
Defendant's contention that the law of justification has no bearing on his conduct, solely because the discharge of his pistol was accidental, requires little comment. It is settled that the defense of justification applies fully to a defendant's risk-creating conduct, even though it had unintended consequences (see, Link Removed, Link Removed). That a defendant causes injury or death, not deliberately, but recklessly or negligently, does not remove his conduct from the scope of Penal Law article 35. As we explained in Link Removed, "there is no basis for limiting the application of the defense of justification to any particular mens rea or to any particular crime involving the use of force." Hence, in a prosecution for any "crime involving the use of force, a charge on justification is warranted whenever there is evidence to support it." (Id., at p 549.) Indeed, in Link Removed we specifically held the defense applicable to a charge of reckless homicide (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]), the very crime at issue here (see also, Link Removed; Link Removed).
You are SO out of gas on this semantics argument. As I said from the first or second of my posts in this thread, negligence and accident are legal terms. Magliato was not convicted of having an "accidental" discharge as you (and/or Ayoob) assert, he was convicted of not meeting the defense of justification standards at the time he pulled his weapon in the first place, and the opinion(s) in the ruling you yourself linked to state unequivocally that he was negligent and/or reckless in cocking a firearm that
his own experts described as having a "hair-trigger," and aiming it at the decedent, and that those two acts alone constituted unjustifiable deadly force. The assertion by the defendant that his weapon discharged unintentionally is irrelevant to the finding in that opinion that he was never justified in pulling, cocking or leveling the weapon at the decedent in the first place.
BTW, partly from researching Ayoobs article about that case led me to share your opinion of him.
I'm sure he lays awake at night worrying about what strangers on the internet think of his support for cops who anally tortured a man for 14 hours. Invite him over if you have a direct line to communicate with him. I'll be glad to tell him what I think of him after reading the article I linked to username to username.
He wrote because the actual shot was unintentional, Magliato could not claim self-defense because there is no such thing as a justified accident. He ended the article with this statement: "Ironically, Magliato shot the decedent at a point in time when he would have been perfectly and provably justified in killing him with a double action pull of the trigger"
Then Ayoob can't read any better than you can. For one thing, your link proves it wasn't a "double action pull of the trigger." But the pull of the trigger, DA or SA, was irrelevant to the bottom line of the ruling anyway. More from the link you so kindly provided, but apparently couldn't be bothered to read and/or fully comprehend:
On this appeal, defendant argues that his allegedly protective conduct in drawing and aiming a loaded and cocked weapon at Giani — but not firing it intentionally — is not governed by the law of justification for the use of deadly physical force (Penal Law § 35.15 [2]). He sought to argue to the jury that his actions in preparing to shoot were a reasoned response to Giani's threatening conduct, and he contends that the court should have permitted him to make such argument without charging the jury on the elements of the statutory defense including, specifically, the duty to retreat (Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]). For reasons which will appear, we disagree with these contentions. There should be an affirmance.
The defendant
tried to claim the death was justified, and the court denied the appeal, affirmed the earlier ruling that it was
not justified because in NY, there is (or was, as the case may be) a duty to retreat. The facts of the case are further explained in the link which you provided, but apparently can't be bothered with actually reading and/or understanding. The initial attack by the driver of the car the decedent was in had broken off. The decedent had gotten out of the car that hit Magliato's, and was left standing in the street when the driver took off. Magliato gave chase and claimed he broke chase to look for a cop, and while looking for a cop, had gone to his apartment to retrieve his gun, gotten back in his car and ran across the decedent's car again while on his way to report the hit-and-run at the cop-shop. He pulled over, exited his vehicle to go to a phone booth (he said) to call the cops, when the decedent got out of the car he was in, started yelling and threatening Magliato again with a club from across the street, Magliato drew, cocked and aimed his weapon, and he said it "accidentally" went off while the decedent was across the street. He even said a car drove between them, and that the decedent was actually backing towards the curb (away from Magliato) when the round fired.
He had a duty to retreat. He had cleared any and all danger to himself or his passenger long enough before the shooting to even run by his apartment to pick up his gun. He had exactly
zero justification to confront a guy who had already threatened him with a club and he had successfully escaped that danger when the decedent was left standing in the street. Ayoob is full of crap that
anything that Magliato did that night would justify him pulling the trigger, and it was precisely a question of justification that was being ruled on in the link you provided! And he lost! Not because it was an accidental pull of the trigger, but because he couldn't sustain the burden of the justifiable use of force defense that he put on!
So now you can go back to Ayoob's Anal Torturer's Support Group website and tell him I think he's even more full of crap than I thought he was yesterday.
Well, I have had a couple of accidental discharges, and pulling the trigger certainly was an unintentional act. In fact I don't know how I even touched the trigger. Was it carelessness? Absolutely, but those were still accidents
Make all the excuses you want, but if you don't even know "how" you "carelessly" pulled a trigger a "couple" of times, then that is negligence pure and simple. The only "accident" in such a scenario is the accident of plain ol' dumb luck that you or some innocent bystander didn't get hurt or killed, which I'm only assuming you didn't purposely leave out of your little fairy-tale-telling.
Whatever, as far as the CoP in Denver, his excuse-making doesn't go over any better with me than your and Ayoob's inability to read and understand a case that you linked to on the basis of a false premise. Magliato didn't go to prison for an "accidental discharge," he went to jail because he put forth a justifiable use of force defense that neither the jury, or two appeals courts bought into.
You should quit while you're ahead.....Oh wait....You're not ahead, in fact, you owe points on the credibility scale!
Blues
