>>3004665As for murder vs. manslaughter, I would argue manslaughter in all situations except:
1. where the pedestrian was clearly visible out of road and had the right of way; intentional murder
2. mechanical failure; accident that was impossible to account for, no fault
3. some sort of failure or issue was known a priori; if the man had been texting, he already knew the risks (and illegality!) and thus should qualify for murder 2nd degree.
However, none of these imply in Ruri's case. This is not a court of law and we are not bound by rigid definitions. In this case, the objective evidence is sufficient enough to determine objective shameless-ness. If you wish to argue subjectively, then her subjective view is all we can consider and she would subjectively consider herself to qualify. In the event that you wish to continue with some mock court preceding to determine intent then my post here
>>3002833 already covers both outcomes. Either your subjective defense loses and my objective evidence is back on the table despite your handwave or we've already determined that her subjective view fits. i.e. her "intent" as you are now branding it. It's also worth noting that good intentions do still result in bad outcomes; Does that vindicate one of a crime? Absolutely not.
