I’m not specifically saying that this particular case isn’t murder, but if the quote we’re all responding to is accurate then there’s explicitly a way it could be considered “not murder”. I know absolutely nothing about the relevant law, but legal definitions not quite matching common sense definitions is the case more often than not, I think
The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be.
Given how composed they are and premeditated it was, I’m not sure if this is in the spirit of the legal clause, but it could be… interpreted liberally by a judge.
Thanks for supplying your legal expertise pro bono, but we’re going to need a citation of relevant legislative definition if you’re going to make broad claims like that about legal matters.
How so? (sincere question)edit: I misread and thought it was claiming a specific legal possibility
I’m not specifically saying that this particular case isn’t murder, but if the quote we’re all responding to is accurate then there’s explicitly a way it could be considered “not murder”. I know absolutely nothing about the relevant law, but legal definitions not quite matching common sense definitions is the case more often than not, I think
Interestingly, I just saw a post claiming:
Given how composed they are and premeditated it was, I’m not sure if this is in the spirit of the legal clause, but it could be… interpreted liberally by a judge.
Insanity can make a person very … Focused.
Interpreted by the jury.
It’s murder.
Thanks for supplying your legal expertise pro bono, but we’re going to need a citation of relevant legislative definition if you’re going to make broad claims like that about legal matters.
It’s dinner
Maybe it’ll become true if you keep saying it over and over!!!