|
Question for the GC Legal Eagles
Me and a friend were having dinner the other night and a situation comes up in conversation:
a man steals a car. the car has onstar. onstar shuts the car off. the vehicle ends up striking and killing someone because the driver (car thief) didn't have control of the vehicle anymore.
is it a plausible defense that the man didn't have the intent on hitting someone and thus is not guilty of murder/manslaughter/vehicular manslaughter? any one of the three?
substitute man for woman for the GC feminist.
LMAO.
__________________
my signature sucks
|
Threaded Mode
