Re: 4 May 1970

Richard Eney <dicconf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another thing called for would be proof of what the Left blandly
assumes: intent and malice. "Nurder is the unlawful killing of a
human being with malice aforethought."

The legal term "malice" has a definition that's quite different from
the ordinary definition. And intent to kill is not a necessary
element of murder.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 4 May 1970
    ... assumes: intent and malice. ... the ordinary definition. ... And intent to kill is not a necessary ... murder and manslaughter. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: A stupid college prank claims a life...
    ... Doesn't murder require both malice and intent? ... I believe if they were intentionally committing arson and they killed ... would seem to me to preclude murder one and arson charges. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: California officer kills man by mistake
    ... The intent to kill or cause serious injury. ... That is not with malice - there has to be a 'guilty mind'. ... to do so cannot constitute malice aforethought. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: California officer kills man by mistake
    ... Where is the 'malice aforethought'? ... The intent to kill or cause serious injury. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: A stupid college prank claims a life...
    ... Doesn't murder require both malice and intent? ... I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like involuntary manslaughter ... Maximum sentence is deserved by reason of stupidity. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading