• GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    You’re right, I don’t think he was guilty of murder, but that wasn’t the only focus of the trial was it? Seems like there should have been a better case brought against him, but there wasn’t a good legal precedent or framework to really categorize the level of responsibility he had for the situation. While it isn’t murder, it’s something.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      True, and I think that speaks to the loophole point you brought up. He very obviously went there and was okay with the possibility of doing harm to people. That, in itself, should be illegal, but it’s very hard to prove.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        By that logic anyone who carries and is willing to defend their life if necessary could be argued to be “okay with the possibility of doing harm to people.” Clearly that’s not what you meant but it is important to think about how laws could be abused when advocating for things to be illegal, as other people are able to interpret laws differently than intended based on improper wording.