The Derek Chauvin Trial

I understand it very well, and consider it in all situations.

I do expect that if we make a big enough 'mistake' (read, badly reasoned decision with very negative consequences), that there be consequences for same....because again, we are responsible for our own choices, and with responsibility, comes consequences, both positive and negative.

When someone makes a big mistake and makes a badly reasoned decision, you deny that it could have been a mistake, and you insist that is must be malice instead.

Of course if you are referring to the slaying of Arbery - those boys acted in malice, no matter what they told themselves. They had no good reason for:
- arming up (no reason to believed a jogger would be armed)
- hunting him down (no complaint against him, and no evidence of him stealing anything)
- pointing guns at him (complete strangers in a street, standing over Arbery in a vehicle, pointing guns at him)
- All of which resulted in Arbery fearing for his life and trying to protect himself, at which point they shot and killed him.
- Arberys actions were reasonable. The McMichaels were not. Nor were they a mistake, as at each stage, deliberate actions were taken, and the outcome was very, very foreseeable.
- but they still did it anyway

The McMichaels did wrong. Simple as that. Other than that, I don't see what you are referring to.

24 Mistake of fact

(1)A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as the person believed to exist.

Edit: oh hello, you removed 'that law is my exact position'

it is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for the commission of the offense.

I either missed the "and reasonable" or you edited it in. I don't know which and it really doesn't matter.

You are from Texas, right?

From the Queensland Criminal Code Act

Quote:

24 Mistake of fact

(1)A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as the person believed to exist.

As far as I know, most jurisdictions have a similar rule, be it codified, or common law. I would be very surprised by a place that does not have a similar law.

Mistake of Fact, if reasonable and in good faith, may negate the state of mind necessary to commit a crime

The thing is, virtually everyone believes that reasonableness is necessary to justice. If you did not have a reasonableness test, then anyone could make up any lie they liked that met a defense law, and people would never go to jail...because it wouldn't matter how unreasonable the 'belief' (which may, or may not be a lie).

Your arguing against testing the reasonableness of a mistake is contrary to the interests of justice....and why I'd be incredibly surprised if it did not exist in every democratic juridisction.

See, manslaughter would arguably be right for her.

What I object to is the idea of that an unreasonable mistake must be treated the same as malice.