False. Murder is homicide with malice. First degree murder requires a showing of a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill, usually established by the deadly weapons doctrine (firing a gun at a guy shows premeditation in getting and loading the gun, intent in firing the gun), felony-murder rule (engaging in one of the inherently dangerous felonies shows the inherent indifference to the serious harm likely to happen), statements ("I'm going to kill that guy" for example).
You are, as usual, completely ******* wrong in claiming that lack of premeditation precludes a finding of murder. Specifically, a wanton indifference to the very high risk of harm can be and often is second degree murder. An example we had in law school proves the point. In the example, a guy claims to be the best shot in the world, so good in fact that he can fire a round through a moving train and not hit anybody inside. He bets $100 on his aim, shoots, and kills a passenger.
Clearly no premeditation and indeed no specific intent to kill, right? Jeez, he bet $100 on NOT killing somebody. So according to the legal acumen of the almighty Flog, Welfare Queen and Traffic Hater, he just walks away. Right?
Yeah, no.
Cal. Penal Code, §187: "
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
Cal. Penal Code, §189: "(a) All murder that is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or that is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289 [felony murder rule here], or murder that is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree.
(b) All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.
(d) To prove the killing was “deliberate and premeditated,”
it is not necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of his or her act."
Malice aforethought defined (California Jury Instruction, CALCRIM No. 520):
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/520/
Sounds like Andy is guilty of second degree murder. The act - ordering nursing homes to accept Chinese-flu infected patients - was done intentionally. Andy knew or at a minimum should have known that the natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life. Andy acted with a conscious disregard for human life by ordering the infected into a population most vulnerable and at-risk.
That is second degree murder, Floggy. You may want to ask for your money back from law school.
Oh, wait, you're not a lawyer, just an assclown pretending to know more than you really do. As always.
You're welcome. Note your thanks via the third tab near the top of the page.
