10-11-2018, 07:20 AM
(10-10-2018, 10:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Offer any reasonable explanation and I'll listen.
I'll throw out one:
A poltergeist was in the room and was throwing the furniture at AB, so he threw the furniture out the window in self-defense!
Aside from that, I'm not really sure what other explanation you could provide, but I'll happily listen.
Your problem is that you think I'm trying to exonerate the guy. I'm not. He was extremely dumb and reckless. I just don't think it's reasonable to accuse him of attempted murder.
The reasonable question you're ignoring is one of intent. You're more than happy to question whether Henry intended to get underage girls drunk. Fine. But you won't even consider whether Brown intended to kill a kid. He was extremely dumb and reckless, yes. But the fact that a kid just happened to be nearby was something that was completely circumstantial: it was out of his control. Had he done his thing a minute earlier or later, the kid might not have been an issue. Yet you act as if that moment of chance paints the guy as a child murderer. Dont get me wrong:had he killed the kid, he'd have been guilty of manslaughter, which is terrible in and of itself. But there's a reason they distinguish between the two.
Maybe you can relate to this example: Let's say that I did something extremely dumb and reckless, like driving my car into a dangerous area that I wasn't supposed to, hitting a tree and severely injuring myself in the process. If someone had been standing between my car and the tree and I hit them, that doesn't make me more murderous than I would have been if nobody was there. It makes me more unfortunate, and definitely more liable, but it has no effect on my original motivation to be dumb and reckless. I would be guilty of doing something really stupid, but I would not have intended to kill.
Can you relate to that? I apologize if that's too personal; I don't intend it as a personal attack. I'm just trying to make my point relatable to you.
