2 ms·
The original comment I was responding to went into great detail about how the defense is claiming that all of the mishaps were due to incompetence rather than m
by saghm 3y ago
The original comment I was responding to went into great detail about how the defense is claiming that all of the mishaps were due to incompetence rather than malice, so my responses were my views on that sort of defense strategy. It sounds like you don't think this sort of defense is valid at all, but I'm not sure why you're arguing with me like I was the one who presented that idea.
- taeric 3y agoIt is valid for some crimes, not others. I don't know if it is valid in this particular case. But, even if it is, that wouldn't excuse purposefully being incompetent. So, your concern about this encouraging the appearance of incompetence feels off. You could maybe actually be incompetent, such that you would have a legal defense. However, if you are, how did you get to the point of causing harm? A sibling post earlier pointed out that manslaughter is not murder. That is basically what I'm posting. Just incompetence to fraud, as manslaughter is to murder. Does the existence of manslaughter pose a hazard of people pretending to accidently kill others? Maybe? But evidence is lacking that it is a major hazard.