Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
krw wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
What's the difference? Two people were out having fun, got in an
accident, one dies. Kennedy most likely had no intention of killing
her, she most likely had no intention of dying. It was a ****ING
ACCIDENT.
No, it was a homicide, or manslaughter at the very minimum. Of course
the investigation was quashed before all the facts could be known.
I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

As much as the world would have been better off if Kennedy's mother
had a pre, or post-natal abortion, the fact the dude got in an
ACCIDENT and someone died is just how it goes sometimes.
It was no more an "accident" than if he had pointed a gun at her and
shot her.
Wow! An accident is any event that happens unexpectedly, without a
deliberate plan or cause. Had he pointed a gun at her head, and shot
her, it would not likely be an accident.

I know a guy that cut the **** out of his hand on a table saw, so
what, it was also an accident. Neither of them did it on purpose.
Was he drunk at the time? If so, it was no "accident".
No, he was old. Old people have a propensity for accidents. New
drivers have a propensity for car accidents. People with high blood
pressure, high cholesterol and bad genetics have lots of heart attacks.
An old guy a few years ago had a heart attack and killed 4 people in a
park with his car. People involved in multiple accidents are more
likely to get in another accident more than those that never had an
accident. These people kill people on the road every day, they, imo,
are accidents, not homicides.

On the other hand, Kennedy's left wing, socialist, anti-American
positions on all things political is on purpose, and could have been
cured with the above mentioned abortion.
Your emotional outburst doesn't change the facts at hand.
The facts are it was an accident. No facts presented show Kennedy
killed the girl on purpose, so, it was simply an accident. Just like
the 16 year old that drove himself and 3 of his friends into a tree and
killed them all was probably an accident, not intentional, even if he
was speeding, high on grass, drunk, had a heart condition and so on. He
didn't mean to do it, so it was an accident.


I don't get why this subthread is so controversial. ISTM:

1) Kennedy clearly had no intent to kill the woman.

Ergo, an accident!

2) Kennedy DID have the intent to drink heavily.

Perhaps, drinking is a legal activity.

3) His impairment therefore was volitional (legally speaking) and he is thus
culpable for the consequences of his action.

Legally speaking, unless you can prove he was impaired, he wasn't.
Legally speaking, unless you can prove he killed someone on purpose, he
didn't. Legally speaking, money can be had anytime something goes awry.

When crime is considered, courts look at Motive, Means, and Opportunity.

Legally speaking, he didn't go to court, so nothing happened.

Kennedy's motive here was to drink. Everything that follows, therefore, is
in some significant degree his responsibility.

Of course. Just like the guy with a propensity to wreck runs into a
school bus and kills 20 kids is responsible, or, the guy with a heart
condition drives through a park a thousand times with no problem, then,
one dark day has a heart attack and kills 20 kids playing rugby...
Lawyers tend to think culpability and money, human beings tend to think
what a horrible accident.

I feel bad Mary Jo got herself killed. I feel bad Mrs. Kennedy didn't
have a post, or pre-natal abortion. She might still be alive, and the
USSA would not have had an anti-American, socialist ******* like Kennedy
to foul the air. Mary Jo's death was an accident, the foul air was
pre-meditated and no accident...

--
Jack
Got Change: Capitalism ===== Socialism!
http://jbstein.com