Thread by @ThatShockratees

Other than his obvious corruption, Barr’s biggest problem in his defense of Trump is that it confuses “mistake of law” with “mistake of fact.” Barr’s refusal to charge relies on “Trump didn’t know he was breaking the law.” So let’s have a class in “mens rea” this morning.

“Mens rea” (modern folks don’t use the Latin) is just general “criminal intent” - divides civil from criminal conduct. You can owe someone civil damages for an accident. You’re not a criminal for an accident. Being careless doesn’t make you a criminal. (But wait, what?)

So from what I said, it sounds like lots of criminals, including Trump, would have defenses. Problem is, the law recognizes several levels of criminal intent between “I planned for weeks to shoot my roofer buddy’s head with this power nailer” and mere “whoops.”

The levels of “general intent” are:
“Negligence” - an avoidable accident. Not criminal, though you might owe $$$.
“Recklessness” or “Gross Negligence” - deliberately ignored a serious risk. Criminal.
“Intentional” - duh you know that one.
“Premeditated” - that too.

Then in crimes, we also get into “specific intent” - when a criminal statute requires that the charged person acted “with intent to obstruct an inquiry.”

Best teaching example is a crime most ppl don’t even realize exists: “felony murder.” Here’s a first year exam question:

Two society ladies, giddy on wine, decide to break into a LuluLemon and steal the latest $2500 leggings. Legal carry state, so both have purse Glocks. They even went to gun safety class together. Off they toodle, and they snort a little coke in the car to boost their courage.

By the time they get there, Jalisa is losing nerve and wants to stop. But Becky says “look! door’s unlocked.” The store’s dark. In they both go. Seeking the goal leggings, Jalisa turns on her cell phone light, but accidentally turns on her music. Turns it off quick, but now:

Hark! Jalisa hears a grunting sound from the dressing rooms. Then a dark mass lurches toward her. Jalisa, terrified for her life, whips out the purse Glock and fires three shots toward center mass, just like in gun class. The lurching mass thuds to the ground. Meanwhile . . . .

Becky, on other side of store in dark, hears three quick shots! Terrified, of course, Becky shoots at the “attacker” she sees running toward her. Although it’s dark, and they’re both drunk and high, Becky gets off a lucky shot and hits running “attacker” between eyes.

Yeah. Unfortunately, it’s Jalisa. Police respond to the sound of gunfire at LuluLemon. Our brunch ladies never even found the leggings. But Jalisa lies dead. EMS fortunately saves the bum who also slipped in through the unlocked door, to sleep it off.

So that’s your final exam question. I’m going to post this thread, and do the analysis in another thread, so you have a few minutes to mull it over. Who committed crimes? Who’s innocent? Murder or manslaughter? What level of criminal intent?