Ok but murder has specific requirements in the statute.
I don't know the specific language in this state, but what I asserted isn't exactly far off. If I dump you dead drunk somewhere where you have no idea where you are, and you end up dying hit by a car, that is murder in my jurisdiction - and rightly so.
The DA did not think he could prove that those legal requirements were met.
Intending to kill someone, then carrying out that plan is not the same as negligence.
You don't need intent. If you drive drunk with 200 km/hour in an area where there are several schools, it's hardly an excuse that you did not "intend" to kill a kid. You took the risk that you would.
I don't know the English legal term, but the thing's there.
I don't know the specific language in this state, but what I asserted isn't exactly far off. If I dump you dead drunk somewhere where you have no idea where you are, and you end up dying hit by a car, that is murder in my jurisdiction - and rightly so.
I don't know the specific language in this state, but what I asserted isn't exactly far off. If I dump you dead drunk somewhere where you have no idea where you are, and you end up dying hit by a car, that is murder in my jurisdiction - and rightly so.
Or maybe he was funded by Soros,
Holy shit, Tony. At best it is criminal negligence. As in, it could have been reasonably foreseen that she'd come to serious harm.
Intending to kill someone, then carrying out that plan is not the same as negligence. Not even in California.
You don't need intent. If you drive drunk with 200 km/hour in an area where there are several schools, it's hardly an excuse that you did not "intend" to kill a kid. You took the risk that you would.
I don't know the English legal term, but the thing's there.
Lol please