[general counsel]

There is a HUGE difference between the two situations. Little's incident was an accident. Was he negligent? Probably so, especially with the drinking. But no one has ever said that Little had any intent to break the law, let alone an intent to injure another person, let alone any intent to kill anyone.

Vicks acts were intentional. He knew what he was doing was breaking the law and he did it anyway.

I am not equating the death of the woman with the animals in the vick case, however, intent is at the core of our criminal code. There is a HUGE difference between an overt and intentional act especially when the person knows what he is doing is against the law and an accident.

ramming speed to all

general counsel