Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
She was criminally negligent, and/or reckless, and it cost a man's life. Therefore she should be required to pay a price for recklessly killing a man.

About 28 years if the prosecution recommendation is followed.

The intent was to kill a criminal she believed to be a threat to her in her own home. The intent was not to kill an innocent man in his own home.

Intent isn't always relevant. The police officer in Minneapolis intended to kill someone posing a threat to his and his partner's safety. The result was killing an innocent, unarmed woman who posed no threat. The consequence was a murder conviction. No accident in either case.

The difference here is that her intent wasn't criminal, her intent was to do something she believed was legal.

Well she really blew that one then.

167 posted on 10/02/2019 1:12:39 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
Well she really blew that one then.

Clearly.

224 posted on 10/02/2019 2:53:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson