• MxM111
    link
    fedilink
    -3
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Yes, shooting was intentional, but intent plausibly was not to kill. Thus, not a murder. Anyway, that’s the only theory I have of why they did not charge him with attempted murder.

    • @Stovetop
      link
      58 months ago

      I just don’t think that argument would fly in court, though. Even if the stated “intent” is not to kill, it’s a reckless disregard of a reasonable risk of murder that the shooter is conscious of.

      If I swing a punch at someone and hit them hard enough that they suffer a traumatic brain injury and die (like that could ever happen with these spaghetti arms), I would still culpable for that death as manslaughter because it was an intentional act that carries an inherent risk of harm.

      If a cop ends up shooting a defenseless person in the torso, they shouldn’t be allowed to say “I didn’t mean to hit them, I was trying to shoot their belt off so their pants would fall and they couldn’t run away.” Likewise, if some kids are playing in the park and someone starts opening fire in their direction, you also can’t just explain it away as “I thought there were snakes in the grass, I was trying to protect them.” You bear the burden of responsibility for every bullet you shoot. Even if you miss every shot, that is still criminal negligence at best, attempted manslaughter or murder at worse.

      • MxM111
        link
        fedilink
        -18 months ago

        You are absolutely right, it would be manslaughter, not murder. Murder requires intent.