"Jack Stein" wrote in message

But, the part I'm not missing is without intent, it is an accident. I
said it was an accident, he said it wasn't. He said it was no different
than if he put a gun to her head and shot her, or something stupid along
those lines. Obviously, he, and anyone that thinks these two types of
incidents are the same, is simply wrong.

Semantics. Call it an accident, but he was still 100% responsible. Even
though an incident comes about from an accident, there is always something
that causes that accident. Often, it is negligence or carelessness, such as
drinking too much. If the car ended up in the water because the bridge
collapsed, the driver is off the hook as he could not prevent it. If the
car ends up in the water because he knowingly drank, he is as responsible as
any other type of killing. He had the power to prevent the mishap and chose
not to.