@[email protected] to People [email protected] • edit-21 month agoUnbelievablesh.itjust.worksmessage-square131fedilinkarrow-up11.56Kfile-text
arrow-up11.56KimageUnbelievablesh.itjust.works@[email protected] to People [email protected] • edit-21 month agomessage-square131fedilinkfile-text
https://social.ridetrans.it/users/daihard/statuses/112941278386750975 Link in the post: https://publicola.com/2024/08/09/kevin-dave-officer-who-struck-and-killed-23-year-old-student-is-challenging-his-traffic-ticket/
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish4•1 month agoMurder. You’re not going 75mph in a 25mph zone and trying not to kill people. Doesn’t matter whether there was a specific target in mind.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 month agoIf you do it in a car it’s all good. Evidently if you get killed by a speeding hunk of metal, it’s really important to differentiate between the different sizes.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•edit-21 month agoMurder requires malice (i.e. intent), and you don’t meet the standard of intent just by exceeding some level of recklessness/negligence.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•1 month agoDriving 75mph in a 25mph zone is malicious and indicates intent to kill people.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 month agoNo, that’s not how intent works. What it shows is recklessness.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month agoMaybe that’s not how it works by your definition of intent, but it certainly is how it works in mine.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month agoRight, and I’m not a prosecutor so I don’t give a fuck about specific legal definitions.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•1 month agoConsidering the PU interference I would say murder second class is justified.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink5•1 month agoI don’t think fuckery after-the-fact can change whether you intended to kill someone.
Manslaughter. But yeah, fuck this guy.
Murder. You’re not going 75mph in a 25mph zone and trying not to kill people. Doesn’t matter whether there was a specific target in mind.
If you do it in a car it’s all good. Evidently if you get killed by a speeding hunk of metal, it’s really important to differentiate between the different sizes.
Murder requires malice (i.e. intent), and you don’t meet the standard of intent just by exceeding some level of recklessness/negligence.
Driving 75mph in a 25mph zone is malicious and indicates intent to kill people.
No, that’s not how intent works. What it shows is recklessness.
Maybe that’s not how it works by your definition of intent, but it certainly is how it works in mine.
I’m just using the legal definition.
Right, and I’m not a prosecutor so I don’t give a fuck about specific legal definitions.
Considering the PU interference I would say murder second class is justified.
I don’t think fuckery after-the-fact can change whether you intended to kill someone.