Originally Posted by ridinryan44
But that's just incorrect. In no way does "recklessness" equal intent. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Recklessness may bridge the gap between accidental and "on purpose", but in now way, shape or form does it suggest intent. In fact, "reckless" is clearly defined as "doing something without caution". Nowhere is it suggested that intent is a part of that, again, it's quite the opposite.
Actually it isn't.
I think the problem we're having is with the definition of "intent". You seem to equate intent with "motive". Intent, as I understand it, is not an individual's motive in carrying out an action. So, I don't think it has to be established that he intended to cut Karlsson's achilles, or that he intended to cut him at all. That's motive.
Here's a wikipedia article that I hope will explain what I'm getting at:
The issue in ethics is moral blameworthiness. If I see a crowd of people and I fire a gun and person A dies, I can honestly say that I didn't intend to hurt or kill person A. However, that doesn't mean I escape culpability for their death. If, on an objective analysis, it can be said that I fired the weapon recklessly, that means that I knew or ought to have known that death or injury was the probable result of my decision to fire the weapon. Knowing that, and still firing, makes me culpable for person A's death just as it would if directly fired at him with a motive to kill.
So "intent" refers to the belief that people intend the natural (or probable) causes of their actions.
To determine what is "reckless", some thought would have to be given for what is a normal everyday play in that situation. Can we fairly impute knowledge on Cooke that by lifting his leg and bringing it down and forward with force (which he did), that he knew or ought to have known their was a serious risk of a skate cut? If so, unless the action itself is so inherent to the game that players can be taken to have voluntarily assumed an obvious risk, then it is reckless. As I tried to explain (and maybe I'm not doing it very well), "recklessness" is a level of intent. Remember in my example, I may not have intended to injure person A
, but I did intend to fire the weapon at a crowd while I knew or ought to have known that an injury or death was a likely result
and therefore from an ethical point of view, I am culpable for the death.
Now, I fully admitted at the outset that I was not in a position at this point to conclude beyond doubt that the play was reckless. My point is that if you accept that it was reckless, as Dakkster did, that leads to a logical and ethical conclusion that Cooke did something morally wrong and deserves consequences. That is not synonymous with an "accident".
I suspect that he was reckless, but I have not taken the time to analyze it and study similar plays to the point where I can comfortably say he was in fact reckless. If I was so satisfied, then I would be advocating for a severe punishment.
So, I think the problem between us is that we have a different definition for intent. To me, "intent" means that a person intends the natural or probable consequences of their actions. As I understand your definition, "intent" would mean a subjective motive.
Now, as for a subjective motive, yes I do suspect. That's a reaction to watching the situation and considering the past practices of the actor involved. And I would submit that that is a permissible logical inference that can be drawn from the situation. You could also conclude that it was an accident. That's why in my posts above that I wasn't calling for Cooke's head. I still believe however that concluding beyond doubt that it was an accident and that anyone who disagrees is an irrational Senators' fan is intellectually dishonest.