The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

I didn't mean to kill nobody. I just meant to shoot the sonofabitch in the head and two times in the chest. Him dying was between him and the Lord.

If there was clear reason to believe that he was in fact only trying to kill the fleas, I would hope that any punishment would take his motivation into account and not pretend that he had a more sinister motive.

Kinda brings to mind what the great bluesman, R. L. Burnside once said, to wit:

Quote:

I didn't mean to kill nobody. I just meant to shoot the sonofabitch in the head and two times in the chest. Him dying was between him and the Lord.

as I understand it the law says that you "intend" all the clearly foreseeable consequences of your actions.

Depraved heart murder isn't exactly nothing. In Michigan that would get this Orkin man a 30 to 90 year prison sentence.

If you intentionally kill someone, that's murder. If you negligently kill someone, that's manslaughter.

Well, I take that to mean that you agree with my original statement that the Orkin Man wouldn't be immune from punishment, then, eh?

Well, OK, to be precise I should said that you are deemed have intended the foreseeable consequences of your deliberate actions. How's that?

But we didn't intend for the A-bombs to kill any civilians. The civilians were just in our way.

Yeah, just like the family was "in the way" of the Orkin Man getting his job done, eh?

Quote:

In 1948, Truman told a group of advisors and generals that the atomic bomb was not a regular weapon of war, because, “it is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses.” (Diary entry of 21 July 1948, in David E. Lilienthal, Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Volume II: The atomic energy years, 1945-1950 (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 390-391.)

Quote:

In the spring of 1945, the military convened a target committee, a mix of officers and scientists, to decide where the bomb should fall. Alex Wellerstein, a historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology, devoted his career to studying nuclear weapons and the decision to use them.

He notes that the Target Committee Meeting at Los Alamos in May 1945, it was recommended that “pure military” targets not be considered: “It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage” — that is, a city, an urban area — ...

The initial list included a remote military installation and Tokyo Bay, but the target committee decided those options wouldn't show the world the power of the new bomb. "They want people to understand that this is something different, and so picking a place that will showcase how different it is, is very important," Wellerstein says.

The committee settled on two "psychological" objectives of the first atomic bombing: to scare the Japanese into unconditional surrender and to impress upon the world the power of the new weapon.



The target committee decided the A-bomb had to kill. At the time, American bombers were already firebombing many cities, killing tens of thousands.

So, they decided this bomb would not just kill — it would do something biblical: One bomb, from one plane, would wipe a city off the map. It would be horrible. But they wanted it to be horrible, to end the war and to try to stop the future use of nuclear bombs.

https://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/429433621/why-did-the-u-s-choose-hiroshima

When the "psychological objective" is to "scare people," I think it's quite appropriate to call it "terrorism."

The problem is, Roy, that none of those "facts" prove the argument you're trying to make.

It's the facts which you ignore that allow you to keep repeating your spiel.

Small problem...