- 11 Dec 2018 20:58
#14971366
Under Virginia law, premeditation can take "a matter of seconds". So yes, backing up and then making the decision to plow into a crowd at high speed would be sufficient to prove premeditation and intent to kill.
Of course, it was not the only evidence presented in the trial. The prosecution also presented his texts to his mother about how "we're not the ones who need to be careful" coupled with a photo of Hitler (sent a month before the rally).
It's a good job you didn't become a defence lawyer, with "arguments" like this. You'd somehow manage to get a shoplifter sent to the chair.
One Degree wrote:No it isn’t. It may have been accepted so by this jury, but no lawyer would honestly claim that is all that is needed.
Under Virginia law, premeditation can take "a matter of seconds". So yes, backing up and then making the decision to plow into a crowd at high speed would be sufficient to prove premeditation and intent to kill.
Of course, it was not the only evidence presented in the trial. The prosecution also presented his texts to his mother about how "we're not the ones who need to be careful" coupled with a photo of Hitler (sent a month before the rally).
One Degree wrote:Why wasn’t he already up to speed if that was his intent? It actually demonstrates lack of intent if he had to back up first. I would just step on the gas as I don’t believe a car needs a running start against a human body.
It's a good job you didn't become a defence lawyer, with "arguments" like this. You'd somehow manage to get a shoplifter sent to the chair.
"Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep talking." - Martin Luther