Edited by le_nelson_mandela_face ()
i have some vague stirring of a thought about this but i'm drunk and also really sick so here it is: uh, i don't know why this guy actually killed the american sniper, and it doesn't matter, because intent doesn't matter, only the material outcomes of one's actions. i know a lot will be made about whatever reasons he had for gunning chris kyle down but the end result is the same, that he put down a murderer and the only tragedy here is that he didn't get to him ten years prior.
Of course intent matters, how are we supposed to order society and administer justice if we can't consider the intentions of our subjects?
hey it's skylark
that restaurant is built like a steakhouse but handles like a bistro
Rhizzone Revolutionary: my tip is the service i provided you while freeing my country. you're welcome for my vanguard. read puig.
it's always incredible to me that anyone thinks intent can be proven or is even relevant legally
i hope it's obvious there should be a difference between manslaughter and murder? not really relevant in the case of eddie ray routh though, even if he didn't mean to kill chris kyle he still deserves a medal.
intent still doesn't matter, because wreckless enough manslaughter is indistinguishable from murder regardless of whether or not deep down someone wanted to kill
It's spelled "reckless," Professor Harvard.
never mind you guys