This strikes me as a good example of rebutting a point that nobody made. I didn't say I'd hit her on purpose.
But if the conditions depicted in the video are accurate -- meaning, not artificially manipulated to make the lighting appear darker than it was -- then it would be awfully easy to rationalize away any guilt I might feel. If that amounts to victim-blaming, then so be it. When no malice is present, sometimes the victim really is to blame.
Put another way, this is one of those cases where it's better to focus on fixing the problem rather than the blame.
Hitting her on purpose would not be criminally negligent homicide, it would be homicide. What you described is a blase attitude that suggests it's OK to have no imagination of risks that can get people killed, and that's OK because after all they're drunk or stupid. Your words.
Malice is not required for criminally negligent homicide. And yes, indeed, much better to fix the problem, that was my point. Not blame drunk or stupid people, which was your point.
> Hitting her on purpose would not be criminally negligent homicide, it would be homicide
Any killing of a human by a human is homicide, even the kind that is not criminal; what you probably mean is that it would have been murder (or maybe voluntary manslaughter.)
But if the conditions depicted in the video are accurate -- meaning, not artificially manipulated to make the lighting appear darker than it was -- then it would be awfully easy to rationalize away any guilt I might feel. If that amounts to victim-blaming, then so be it. When no malice is present, sometimes the victim really is to blame.
Put another way, this is one of those cases where it's better to focus on fixing the problem rather than the blame.