On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:22:14 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:31:34 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

krw wrote:

I never saw anyone claim Kennedy intended to kill her?

Though it has been claimed, intentions have nothing to do with it.

You are wrong, intentions have a LOT to do with accidents.

Wrong. Because he was driving drunk, it was no accident.

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.

You are absolutely *wrong*.

I am absolutely **right**, according to the dictionary. Your problem
with the term "accident" should be addressed to someone else, I can't
help you.

You two are talking past each other.

The word "accident" does not appear in the Massachusetts penal code. The
common meaning of "accident" has no traction, at all, in the criminal
justice system. An act may be an "accident" is the normal sense and it may
or may not be a crime.

The dingbat is claiming that there was no crime committed because it
wasn't intentional.

You simply cannot make a legal claim based on whether something was an
"accident."

The dolt thinks the crime is in the intent.