It's interesting how the Washington Post wants to try to justify punching someone over a word they said. (twice)
Did we really need to know that? How about "This guy hit an old man and caused him to die a few days later?"
Isn't that the actual relevant detail?
For years they've found people guilty of murder, even decades later sometimes, if they injure someone and that injury eventually leads to a death.
And so the Washington Liar Post wants us to focus on the "well he had it coming" aspect of this?
The Washington Liar Post is garbage and everyone who works for them is also garbage.
Not a lawyer but I used to watch Matlock a couple of times so here’s my half baked analysis: There’s a principle that’s been recognized by the courts since the 1940s about “fighting words” not being protected speech and can be regulated because they are so inflammatory as to directly invite conflict. SCOTUS keeps changing the definition of what “fighting words” are every time it comes up but I’d imagine some judge took the concept into mind when sentencing this guy to two extra years of COVID lockdown. However the point of the fighting words is not to immunize individuals who respond violently to them, it’s to allow laws to restrict said speech in the first place. Basically they dead guy could be charged with hate speech but the killer can’t say “he had it coming” and escape consequences. Yet that’s what appears to have happened here with this light sentencing.