Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Sorry Spacey.. that is not a point at all... Just because someone kills someone does not mean they are guilty of murder... But, if two people are invovled in the same killing, it is entirely feasible that one is guilty of murder and one of the lesser offence, or may be not guilty due to the cicrumstances..

 

The law is complex to make sure those that are only guilty of intentionally (or in the case of NSW, with reckless indifference to human life) are found guilty and we don't find people who fall short of the criminal liability for murder are not found guilty of it. Note, both intention and reckless have specific meanings in law that are narrower than normal parlance.

 

That doesn't mean they won't be found guilty of another offence related to killing a person.

 

 

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
Posted (edited)

This is true, but in finding for the defendants, the judge has said BR-S has been proven on the balance of probabilities to have committed a war crime and also illegally killed a person.. This would have been necessary for the defence to succeed. It is not proven to the criminal standard.

 

When Chump was sued for damages for rape, it was proven to the same standard. He has not been found criminally liable for rape, so can't technically be called a rapist

 

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Does not compute . in my life .

That's why you should leave it to the professionals 

Edited by Jerry_Atrick

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...