Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
But, the part I'm not missing is without intent, it is an accident. I
said it was an accident, he said it wasn't. He said it was no different
than if he put a gun to her head and shot her, or something stupid along
those lines. Obviously, he, and anyone that thinks these two types of
incidents are the same, is simply wrong.

Semantics.

Yes, semantics. Words have meanings, and accident is a word that
basically means something bad happened without intent. You can't change
that by studying the meanings of words (semantics) but you can easily
confirm it.

Call it an accident,

Unless he intentionally drove off the road into the water thats what it
was, an accident. On the other hand, me pulling out a gun and shooting
you between the eyes because I don't like your attitude, is not an
accident. This is easily confirmed by simply looking up the meaning of
the word, which I made simple with a clickable link.

but he was still 100% responsible. Even
though an incident comes about from an accident, there is always something
that causes that accident.

Of course. If you go out on a snowy night, spin off the road and run
into a house full of kids, and and everyone dyes, you are responsible,
but it's still an accident.

Often, it is negligence or carelessness, such as
drinking too much.

Some, particularly lawyers, think it is ALWAYS someones fault, and they
are not wrong. Nonetheless, if there is no intent, it's an accident.

If the car ended up in the water because the bridge
collapsed, the driver is off the hook as he could not prevent it.

Right, but then the bridge builder, architect, maintenance crew,
government entity or someone is responsible. Ask any lawyer. Still,
unless intent is there, it is just an accident. Words have meanings,
and this is the meaning of the word "accident".

If the
car ends up in the water because he knowingly drank, he is as responsible as
any other type of killing. He had the power to prevent the mishap and chose
not to.

He is also just as responsible if he wasn't drinking, just as in any
other type of killing. Lets say he was tired from fighting the flu,
working all day, then going to a party, but NOT drinking. He is STILL
responsible if HE falls asleep and drives off the road. It is STILL an
accident, he is STILL responsible. If he drove off the road because he
wanted to drown his pregnant girlfriend, he is still responsible, but,
it would NOT be an accident. Intent makes all the difference, exactly
opposite to what krw has been saying.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com