[First_Salute]

Thanks for catching that - I did too, as soon as I posted it.

This is a classic example of my being tired and not getting down on paper what I meant to say, here and there.

I was referring to the distinction between what a person is thinking, during the commission of a violent act, and the violent act itself; a situation, I hope that you'll understand.

We may arrest for the violent act, and charge the perp for that, but we may not charge the perp (piling on charges) for his/her thinking.

It's one count, not two.

My apologies for writing hastily.

[HitmanLV]

No problem, I just thought I had missed something. Keep the faith! ;-)

[Luke Skyfreeper]

We may arrest for the violent act, and charge the perp for that, but we may not charge the perp (piling on charges) for his/her thinking.

So you would say we should make no distinction between an accidentally fatal shooting and premeditated murder?

The fact is, the motivation behind an act always has been and always will be relevant.