“Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.” — Benjamin Rush, letter to David Ramsay, Circa April, 1788
So, let’s say that I were to somehow find a gun on the ground which had just been stole the other day, do I as a reasonable man ‘accidentally’ fire it in a crowded area? Is there not a certain amount of reasonability that the actions of taking the gun off the ground and firing it at a crowded wharf might lead to injury and/or death?
If a person dies as a result of my clearly negligent acts of picking up the gun and firing it, maybe that could reasonably be seen as not intentional.
If I am driving a car and do not operate it properly and that causes the car to hit and kill someone that’s not murder, correct? But what then reasonably is it? The state of California’s own penal code, if I recall this correctly, asserts this is reasonably construed as ‘involuntary manslaughter’.
So, while a man, no matter how suspicious the circumstances nor even his past record of criminal acts might reasonably expect that he’s not found guilty of murder. But, does that excuse away all culpability for his intentional actions that result in the death of someone?
Stare decisis seems to suggest this is settled law and reasonable. Such a man would have taken another’s life wrongfully and with intentions that are not justifiable. To allow the man to escape any semblance of justice is it’s counter point – injustice. Not justified by any excuse of politics.
Somewhere in California, a young lady is dead due to the actions described above. Somewhere a family is grieving and will never get to watch that young lady live her life to the fullest. Somewhere in California law was not followed. And there has been a disservice to the community, the people involved who have suffered this loss and to us all.