this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
366 points (96.4% liked)

Political Weirdos

1335 readers
563 users here now

A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
366
MAGA Father kills his daughter over Trump (discuss.online)
submitted 15 hours ago by bytesonbike@discuss.online to c/political_weirdos@lemmy.world
133 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.inquisitr.com/british-woman-shot-dead-by-maga-father-after-heated-donald-trump-debate

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Yes, that absolutely matters as the jury decides whether it is murder or manslaughter.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Does the jury use it's psychic empathy to determine what was in my heart at the time the knife perforated your larynx or do they use the circumstances leading up to the murder to determine if I had intent to kill you or not?

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Weirdly gruesome. Disengage.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

Replying isn't disengagement. I used the knife as an example because it makes it clear that putting someone in immediate danger with no concern for their safety is a kind of "intent". If I juggled the knives near you instead would the humorous contrast make the analogy more palatable? Im just an amateur knife juggler, playing with his knives in your personal space after we had an argument, no hostile intent here.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

that absolutely matters as the jury decides whether it is murder or manslaughter.

Ideally, yes. In this case there was no trial for the jury to make such a determination.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

No. It doesn't.

If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they'd hoped they'd either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn't intend to kill them?

You pull out a knife and brandish it threateningly: That sets up intent. We do not know the mind nor will we ever; therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent. We have to rely on actions which could be reasonably interpreted as intent.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent.

Am I misunderstanding or is this completely wrong?

Because these concepts involve what was in the defendant’s mind, they are often established through indirect evidence. Some common ways prosecutors try to prove intent and premeditation include:

The nature and manner of the killing (e.g., >multiple stab wounds might suggest >planning) Possession of weapons or tools before the >act Statements or confessions indicating >planning or desire to kill Actions taken before or after the crime to >conceal evidence Witness testimony about the defendant’s >behavior or threats

Defense attorneys challenge this evidence by offering alternative explanations. They might argue that the defendant acted impulsively, under extreme emotion, or in self-defense.

https://www.vbrownleelaw.com/the-role-of-intent-and-premeditation-in-homicide-cases/

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago

If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they'd hoped they'd either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn't intend to kill them?

Yes, and it has been done successfully.

https://www.studicata.com/summaries/superior-court-of-pennsylvania/commonwealth-v-predmore-2018-so9l74/