{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/17/2014 4:31:38 PM
8
Because you are simplifying it.
Its a double homicide because the mother was choosing to go through with the whole thing. Technically they could add on a third charge of violating her rights, but the two murder charges make that unnecessary.
English
-
Wut wut
-
I don't think "violating rights" is a criminal offense.
-
It can be. At least in a civil sense. That's how they broke that white supremacist group. The guys who dragged that black kid behind their truck went to prison, but then the kid's mom sued the group for violating her kid's civil rights and got the land their compound was on. So, maybe the family could have gone after the killer, but like I said, what would be the point?
-
Which case was this? I'm not familiar with it.
-
So the mother's choice is what determines humanity, not DNA and biology?
-
I beg your pardon? I'm not sure what you are asking here. Until a certain point, the mother decides if she will carry a baby to term. Until that certain point the fetus isn't counted as legally alive. If she is killed, and she had no plans to abort the pregnancy, then the law interprets that the baby had the potential for life, and there was indeed a murder. The only time I could think this wouldn't be the case is if a anti-abortion protestor shot and killed a woman who was on her way in to get an abortion. Then it would be clear she had no intention of carrying the baby to term.
-
-
It counts as double homicide because it is assumed that the mother was planning on having the child, which means she wasn't going to abort it. Meaning you've killed the mother, and the child she had every intention to raise.
