As much as I say that I have no real desire to have kids - in part because I don't feel I would make the best dad. I can always sleep easy at night knowing I could be a much better parent than some of the brainless scum who are so desperate to have children, so they can treat them as badly as these two women did.
This makes me so angry, my grasp on language isn't adept enough that I can express how angry this makes me. Not only does this story reach that special zone where its Mind-Bendingly stupid people doing stupid things, and its just too much stupid- but it makes you lose a bit of faith in humanity as well.
9 year old girls shouldn't die because of morons punishing her for eating sweets.
"Deputies were told the girl was made to run after lying to her grandmother, 46-year-old Joyce Hardin Garrard, about having eaten the candy, Barton said."
.... what? A police officer will know full well what it is, especially if he or she is a person in contact with press releases. It wouldnt be a random guy patrolling the streets.
If you bothered to look things up too. You would see they follow the felony murder law, thus use a broad term of murder which in accordance to this, means it can be mean they will be charged with manslaughter, they also use different definitions. So stop appealing to English law to make a point.
What the newspaper quotes a (probably legally uneducated) police officer as saying does not equate to what the prosecution will push for in court.
What if a person has an intent to punish (like these women did) and shoots someone in the leg (non lethal) but the victim bleeds out? Can that be murder or is it still manslaughter since the perpetrator did not intend to kill?
What if a person has an intent to punish (like these women did) and shoots someone in the leg (non lethal) but the victim bleeds out? Can that be murder or is it still manslaughter since the perpetrator did not intend to kill?
Shooting someone with a gun has clear intent to cause bodily harm, which if it then kills someone is classified as murder. Making someone run around does not have intent to cause actual harm.
.... what? A police officer will know full well what it is, especially if he or she is a person in contact with press releases. It wouldnt be a random guy patrolling the streets.
If you bothered to look things up too. You would see they follow the felony murder law, thus use a broad term of murder which in accordance to this, means it can be be mean they will be charged with manslaughter, they also use different definitions. So stop appealing to English law to make a point.
When did I ever say that would not be the case? It is clearly not murder, but it is manslaughter.