>>3004665>A man stands on trial...a strawman argumentThis is invalid for a number of reasons, number 1 being that the judge is not up for trial. Number 2 being that the judge's view factors into this; You state he "must convict himself of murder" but that is not true. Ruri is not convicting herself here and our view on the matter does not matter, as you have clearly demonstrated. Thus it is apples to cherries. Number 3 being that shamelessness is not a crime and intent is also not necessary as I demonstrated here
>>3004287 with our bedroom example. You're also missing a large volume of information here: Where was this pedestrian? If he's walking in the street then (in my state at least) the driver has no fault in the matter even if he purposely plowed into him. If the pedestrian had the right of way then the driver is always at fault. No exceptions. Did the driver lose control of the car? Then it's an accident if it wasn't due to negligence. If it was negligence then he is at fault regardless. Mechanical failure? Accident. What's the driver's driving history like? Does he have a tendency for road rage or crashing into things? Circumstantially suggest intents, poor control and/or negligence; lends credibility to him being at fault. As you can see, his intent does not matter because the evidence deems it unnecessary in the eyes of the law. The empirical evidence tells us everything we need to know by the law's definition.
Oh and, by the way, eye-witness testimony is considered highly unreliable in trials. They would most certainly question your defendant to see if he essentially admits to purposely plowing into that pedestrian but they would also question anyone else who happened to be around to try to determine what happened. If the pedestrian was clearly visible for some distance then barring mechanical failure the defendant is at fault. Even negligence fulfills this.
