> I discussed months ago here on HN that looking legally causing someone's death without intent is not criminal because you had no intent of killing

Intentional killing is usually first degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter, depending on premeditation. Second (in some schemes third) degree murder (depraved indifference) and involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide all are crimes, and do not require intent to kill.

So, you are very, very wrong.

> I have no intent or knowledge that I'm going to harm anyone

The source you link notes that there are other levels of mens rea supporting criminal offenses (recklessness, negligence) as well as offenses which are not dependent on mental state at all (strict liability offenses.)

I understand what involuntary manslaughter is but does it apply to spreading a virus? I'm not a lawyer but if it does I will act accordingly and try not to commit involuntary manslaughter hypothetically speaking.

> I understand what involuntary manslaughter is but does it apply to spreading a virus?

Neither depraved heart murder nor involuntary manslaughter has an exception for viral-agent-as-mechanism on any jurisdiction I'm familiar with.

You better hope that the judge handling your case doesn't stumble upon this comment thread. Your lack of Mens Rea isn't going to fly if you're caught meta-discussing the whole thing.

Also, manslaughter?

> I have no INTENTION of HARMING anyone.

I feel the same way when I'm doing 150mph down the highway. And yet...

If you kill somebody you will be charged for involuntary manslaughter or constructive manslaughter depending on what speed limit was but if I sit next to you unvaccinated in a waiting room should I be charged as well?

Are you asking for an ethical opinion, or legal one? I am no lawyer, I have no idea if you could be on the hook for reckless endangerment. If you know that your choice is risky, and you fail to act, then there are circumstances when you could be criminally liable. But usually these are situations where the law prescribes a duty to act.

Are you comfortable endangering those around you because protecting them is an inconvenient imposition on your freedom? That's an entirely different issue.

I mean if you're against vaccines, the best public health measure since soap, perhaps you're the weakest link we're begging natural selection to act on. Hope you don't use glasses, take antibiotics, receive surgery, or benefit otherwise from the million and one things humans have invented so as to not deal with random selection dependent on changing external stimuli

>I mean if you're against vaccines, the best public health measure since soap, perhaps you're the weakest link we're begging natural selection to act on.

I'm not against vaccination I'm against mandatory vaccination and limiting my human rights if I don't vaccinate. Nobody will prevent you from visiting a country if you don't use glasses, take antibiotics or anything else you mentioned.

I never visited Africa but I heard there are some security measures regarding Malaria but c'mon forbidding someone to work or travel only because he or she didn't get vaccinated against 1 pathogen is over the top.

I guess you're against sovereignty of nations other than your own? Plus how are they going to buy your country's vaccine if you/your countrymen won't take it?

And btw I understand what manslaughter is but again I'm not a lawyer. Refer me to any case or cases where someone is guilty of spreading a virus without intent(Involuntary).

Laws adopted in the course of the HIV pandemic in many jurisdictions made various acts that were more likely to spread the virus criminal if you knew you were infected unless other people put at risk were informed of the fact and consented to the risk, whether or not you intended to cause harm.

First google result: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit.... It's not difficult to find more examples.

If you know or could reasonably suspect you have a lethal virus and still go out without taking proper precautions then that is absolutely something people have sued over many many times.

It is unclear whether defendant was aware of having a HIV. It seems like he had no intent of spreading a disease and had limited or no knowledge of having it.

"I didn’t really do it intentionally but when we were drunk it ended up happening”."

How the case ended?

Legality and ethics are two distinct things.

I know but legal system is based on ethics. E.g. not stealing or not killing etc.