Originally Posted by cincinnati chili
I'm in law school too. Did you all have to read the Welansky case? (Cocoanut Grove fire). The owner of a nightclub in the 50's was convicted of manslaughter (or negligent homicide or whatever they called it in that state) when the club burned down and all the fire exits were shut down, etc. A reasonable person would have known that the owner's behavior was committing these people to death. The owner obviously didn't WANT the people to be trapped in the club, in fact he himself visited the club almost every night (so he easily could have been killed). But that didn't matter.
It looks like the mens rea element is similar in Tennessee:
""We don't have any evidence nor do we allege that he intended to kill anyone," Schmutzer said of Martin. "But the proof for second-degree murder is 'knowing' ... the knowing of circumstances that could reasonably cause death."
We didn't read that particular case, but did study something similar. I understand quite well the concept of negligence leading to the death of another individual rising to the level of involunatry manslaughter through gross derliction of the duty of general care.
What I was quibbling with here was the wording of the language of "attempted involuntary," which using their plain meaning seem to be contradictory terms. Also applying the analytical framework of the manslaughter or 2nd Degree Murder claim, if one attempts do anything, doesn't that instantly make it rise to the level of intentional?