LogFAQs > #952385747

Sahuagin posted...

that does not fly, there are lots of things that can kill you, that doesn't make them attempted murder. you have to demonstrate a lot of things in between.

There are, but I feel like this particular example carries a high enough risk to qualify as attempted murder, particularly where it is a deliberate violent act. This is very different from, say, driving normally, which can kill passengers, but almost certainly won't.

Sahuagin posted...

blatant "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy

with regard to the issue I pretty much agree, but this reasoning is just bad (especially since you're presenting that as if it was all the legal reasoning needed to convict...)

On its own, yes, but I feel like it goes without saying that the close proximity of the two events and obvious medical connection between them means one can safely infer a causal relationship. You're correct that additional context is required to justify the conviction, but that context is pretty obvious to everyone and therefore doesn't really need to be explicitly outlined outside of a court situation (where it's going to happen regardless of how silly I say it is).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.