It would absolutely, 100% go to trial, and the prosecution could easily prove an intent to harm.
As much as the Better Call Saul kinds of legal arguments look clever on TV, in reality the law is much more about vibes and how people interpret what happened.
I just wonder where the line is. Is it intent to harm. So if say the thing was a gift, and they didn’t know it was explosive. Would that absolve the person of guilt. Maybe it goes to manslaughter in that case?
There are a lot of serious laws in the US about owning, transporting and storing explosives (thank you Anarchist bomber movement last century) as well as requirements for permits and the like, so you would have to prove it was a “gift” and not intended to be used for anything, but even then you would not only face negligence charges/manslaughter if someone was killed, but also various kinds of “aggravated” charges related to public safety. I am not a lawyer but I have a feeling the prosecution would make a pretty heavy case to make an example.
It would absolutely, 100% go to trial, and the prosecution could easily prove an intent to harm.
As much as the Better Call Saul kinds of legal arguments look clever on TV, in reality the law is much more about vibes and how people interpret what happened.
I just wonder where the line is. Is it intent to harm. So if say the thing was a gift, and they didn’t know it was explosive. Would that absolve the person of guilt. Maybe it goes to manslaughter in that case?
There are a lot of serious laws in the US about owning, transporting and storing explosives (thank you Anarchist bomber movement last century) as well as requirements for permits and the like, so you would have to prove it was a “gift” and not intended to be used for anything, but even then you would not only face negligence charges/manslaughter if someone was killed, but also various kinds of “aggravated” charges related to public safety. I am not a lawyer but I have a feeling the prosecution would make a pretty heavy case to make an example.