The excuse of having fun with no intention to kill is not valid. Outcomes of hitting people deliberately with a car is death, severe injury or paralysis, so it has the intention to kill or severely injure. They would have been charged with attempted murder if the person survived.
That's not what I said. To prove murder you need intent to kill. He made a comment in the moment about knockout. Speed is not high. Other collisions did not result in death, data points that made them believe it wasn't lethal. None of which I necessarily agree with because i'm against drivers hitting cyclists.
Police didn't shoot a cooperative guy in France, he was a risk, and was behaving that way, yet the public protested because they didn't follow protocol or overstepped it. But, nobody is going to protest the innocence of someone deliberately hitting people with a car. It is intent to murder or injure. His claim of knocking them out will be rejected, as he is not a mental retard. He has a driver's license, and they don't ask you to hit people for fun in a driving test.
Now I know you're a corrupt troll. Ignored.
No, you are the corrupt troll.
Yes they did. He's dead.
Where in the world is it legal to shoot "risks" dead? Not your shithole country. Apparently you think it is legal.
No, it was a murder. Plain and simple. Pointing a gun and shooting someone is murder.
He was charged with murder, and that requires intent. Why are you ignoring information told to you. Just imagine you held sway over processes like this and what a corrupt shithole you would create.
Why add or injure? The charges read murder.
If so, it's corrupt. Period.
You know he's youth, it wasn't high speed and others survived, all corroborate the comment about knocking him out. Ignoring it is corrupt. You've established you are corrupt, so do you think the courts are too?
This is about murder charge, not hitting people. Stop equivocating because it's corrupt to do so.
Pointing a gun and firing it at someone, is extreme malice and ill-intent.
No he wasn't. I 've explained why. You can hit people with a car lightly to move them on. At certain speeds there is no expectation of death or even injury on collisions. This wasn't at high speed.
Depends on the situation and context. Police job is to protect people from a threat who is an imminent risk to someone else's life. If they kill someone like that, then it's job well done. Otherwise, they can and do get into trouble. Nobody has license to murder, corrupt troll.
Many of us voted for democrats our whole lives for the very reason to check government overreach especially police brutality. Even marched in BLM protests after a shift of taking care of Covid patients. That is why I voted for Eric Adams, he was a former cop but I hoped he would balance both sides of the issue.
If they are tried as juveniles, at the very least they need long prison sentences, of hard labor (ideally it would be to earn money to pay back the family of the man they killed).
Pointing a gun is malice regardless of who you point it at. It's malice against "threats" too.
Yes they do indeed. I've told you about the French case already with the undercharges. There are hundreds of cases that are not ever even known about or covered up.
That's inconsistent. Giving police illegal immunity is not about stopping anything, it's about promoting police crime. Your statement is false. Democrats were always for it.
I think keeping them in prison costs more than anything they earn, and I have not heard of prisoner pay getting docked for the victim. Not sure if it happens, I believe prisoners keep their pay.
It’s not something that happens but there should be someway criminals can pay restitution to the families of their victims, not just the state.
Yup that's the defense to use next time someone shoots another person in the head, just call out loudly, that n!gg@ knocked out and you'll get off scott free.
