Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
Which is fulfilled by this case.
Please explain to me how this could cause harm.
How could in cause harm if when he intended to summon a murderous demon he actually succeeded in summoning a muderous demon?
The murderous demon murders people. Duh.
Murderous demons don't exist and can't be summoned.
So your question wasn't 'What's the harm if it happens as intended' so much as 'What's the harm if it doesn't happen as intended which it won't because he's nuts'?
These two questions are not the same.
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
Couscous on
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
I just blew up New York. In my mind. Take me away officer!
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
I just blew up New York. In my mind. Take me away officer!
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
that is retarded
if i thought that staring at you very hard would give you a nosebleed, should i be arrested for looking at you?
this case is incredibly clear-cut and it's only getting muddled because some people have asinine interpretations of justice
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
that is retarded
if i thought that staring at you very hard would give you a nosebleed, should i be arrested for looking at you?
this case is incredibly clear-cut and it's only getting muddled because some people have asinine interpretations of justice
If you were attempting to cause my nose to bleed. Being a shithead doesn't mean a person isn't attempting the crime. It means the person is an idiot. There are reasons other than the apparent possibility of the harm actually occurring for attempted crimes being punishable.
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
that is retarded
if i thought that staring at you very hard would give you a nosebleed, should i be arrested for looking at you?
this case is incredibly clear-cut and it's only getting muddled because some people have asinine interpretations of justice
If you were attempting to cause my nose to bleed. Being a shithead doesn't mean a person isn't attempting the crime. It means the person is an idiot.
you are literally advocating for thoughtcrime here, you know that right
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
that is retarded
if i thought that staring at you very hard would give you a nosebleed, should i be arrested for looking at you?
this case is incredibly clear-cut and it's only getting muddled because some people have asinine interpretations of justice
I see Mr Sum of All Legal Knowledge
Some of us are noting intent and act, and that this person needs help. Some people argue that the ritual was inherently impossible, whereas other similar cases relied on a theoretically possible situation grossly misinterpreted by the criminals. Some people don't accept the harassment to suicide linkage to murder. Some people are employing reductio ad absurdum in droves and are generally dragging the discussion into the gutter. I don't really care for that last group.
Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
Which is fulfilled by this case.
Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harmshould it play out the way the intender intends.
could conceivably cause harm...and some other stuff that's probably not important.
could conceivably ain't no such thing as demons, boy
Notice how you had to drop a clause there to make this work right? Yeah, there's a reason for that. It's kind of important. If he succeeds in doing what he intends, people die. That's pretty straightforward; in his mind, he performed an action that would kill someone.
I don't think you could ever use that in legal proceedings because you'd have to definitely prove that he was SURE he could indeed summon that demon and obviously the defense would argue that either
a) He doesn't believe that, therefore he didn't commit attempted murder (just a bad practical joke)
or
b) He does believe it in which case he'd nuts, send him for treatment
I'm also wondering how you would treat something like a voodoo curse which is both utterly bullshit and occasionally fatal, supposedly. There's also this follow up, since that's 60 years old, saying basically that's it's at least plausible. Would there be culpability for attempted murder for something like that, which has a disputed but possibly non-zero chance of actual success? Is there a lower limit other than zero chance for 'might actually work' here, and if so where's it at?
Well yes. I thought that was implied. You know, him being fucking crazy and demons not existing. In the actual world, bomb plots kill people and so intent is a big part of that. In the real world, though, demons do not kill people and so intent is not so relevant criminally. It just means he crazy. Not guilty of attempted murder. Demons could not "conceivably cause harm."
They could conceivably cause harm if the universe was the way he thought it was. For me, the simple attempt of doing it, no matter how impossible under all laws of physics and inherently impossible, is something that should be punished.
that is retarded
if i thought that staring at you very hard would give you a nosebleed, should i be arrested for looking at you?
this case is incredibly clear-cut and it's only getting muddled because some people have asinine interpretations of justice
I see Mr Sum of All Legal Knowledge
Some of us are noting intent and act, and that this person needs help. Some people argue that the ritual was inherently impossible, whereas other similar cases relied on a theoretically possible situation grossly misinterpreted by the criminals. Some people don't accept the harassment to suicide linkage to murder. Some people are employing reductio ad absurdum in droves and are generally dragging the discussion into the gutter. I don't really care for that last group.
you only don't care for it because common sense keeps butting heads against meaningless legal wonkery
And of course this means that if someone can convince you that they thought that they were genuinely possessed by a Japanese fox spirit you cannot blame them for their actions.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harm should it play out the way the intender intends.
Which is fulfilled by this case.
Intent needs to be combined with an act that could conceivably cause harmshould it play out the way the intender intends.
could conceivably cause harm...and some other stuff that's probably not important.
could conceivably ain't no such thing as demons, boy
Notice how you had to drop a clause there to make this work right? Yeah, there's a reason for that. It's kind of important. If he succeeds in doing what he intends, people die. That's pretty straightforward; in his mind, he performed an action that would kill someone.
I don't think you could ever use that in legal proceedings because you'd have to definitely prove that he was SURE he could indeed summon that demon and obviously the defense would argue that either
a) He doesn't believe that, therefore he didn't commit attempted murder (just a bad practical joke)
or
b) He does believe it in which case he'd nuts, send him for treatment
I'm also wondering how you would treat something like a voodoo curse which is both utterly bullshit and occasionally fatal, supposedly. There's also this follow up, since that's 60 years old, saying basically that's it's at least plausible. Would there be culpability for attempted murder for something like that, which has a disputed but possibly non-zero chance of actual success? Is there a lower limit other than zero chance for 'might actually work' here, and if so where's it at?
If a person dies from voodoo, then that person either had some underlying health condition that was aggravated by stress, or actually managed to placebo themselves dead. Sure, it happens, and if you manage to stress someone to the point of death then it's murder. But if I have a voodoo doll of you, that I stick pins into every day, but you are not aware of? There is no way for you to be negatively impacted, since voodoo does not exist.
This case needs a restraining order, not an electric chair.
If a guy wills me to die and makes some hand motion and says some curse, he's crazy. he's not guilty of attempted murder. If he actually believes in it, which would make him believe he's attempting murder, then he's just insane and needs to be committed.
And of course this means that if someone can convince you that they thought that they were genuinely possessed by a Japanese fox spirit you cannot blame them for their actions.
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is not a declaration of innocence. The person is remanded to psychiatric care indefinitely, until they are judged fit to reintegrate with society.
Going to jail for attempted murder would probably result in you getting back into society faster, and with less restrictions, then being sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
I mean, shit. You guys are basically requiring the government to inhabit the world of an insane person. Because by HIS definition, he's attempting murder.
But that's preposterous. By any reasonable definition, he's just saying words that won't summon anything or do anything. And the law, enforced by the government, attempts to be the hand of reason. That's the whole fucking point.
And of course this means that if someone can convince you that they thought that they were genuinely possessed by a Japanese fox spirit you cannot blame them for their actions.
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is not a declaration of innocence. The person is remanded to psychiatric care indefinitely, until they are judged fit to reintegrate with society.
Going to jail for attempted murder would probably result in you getting back into society faster, and with less restrictions, then being sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
No, but this was a Fox Spirit. The criminal is the Fox, the possessed person is also a victim.
If a guy wills me to die and makes some hand motion and says some curse, he's crazy. he's not guilty of attempted murder. If he actually believes in it, which would make him believe he's attempting murder, then he's just insane and needs to be committed.
We aren't arguing that this man is criminally responsible for attempted murder - he either is guilty of harassing the church goers, or he needs help. An attempted murder charge with a successful insanity defence is the most logical path for him being committed.
Robman on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I'm suing my electric company because they shut the power off. They said I never paid my bill, but I definitely performed a ritual under the light of a full moon with the blood of a salamander, so they should have received silver and gold well in excess of my debt.
And of course this means that if someone can convince you that they thought that they were genuinely possessed by a Japanese fox spirit you cannot blame them for their actions.
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is not a declaration of innocence. The person is remanded to psychiatric care indefinitely, until they are judged fit to reintegrate with society.
Going to jail for attempted murder would probably result in you getting back into society faster, and with less restrictions, then being sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
No, but this was a Fox Spirit. The criminal is the Fox, the possessed person is also a victim.
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If a guy wills me to die and makes some hand motion and says some curse, he's crazy. he's not guilty of attempted murder. If he actually believes in it, which would make him believe he's attempting murder, then he's just insane and needs to be committed.
That's what I'm getting at. If he doesn't believe it, it's not attempted murder. If he does he's probably guilty of attempted murder but not legally culpable due to some mental illness that needs treatment.
The fact that he chose a mythical and nonexistant weapon doesn't just make it OK that he, you know, tried to kill people. I don't think that's the case in this particular example, though. No way did that 'warlock' think he actually was going to succeed in summoning a demon.
I'm suing my electric company because they shut the power off. They said I never paid my bill, but I definitely performed a ritual under the light of a full moon with the blood of a salamander, so they should have received silver and gold well in excess of my debt.
The electic company doesn't care about attempts to pay the bill. The law does care about attempts to break it. Your example is still much more sane than the excuses tax protesters use to claim that they didn't know they were breaking the law because they thought salary wasn't income.
I'm suing my electric company because they shut the power off. They said I never paid my bill, but I definitely performed a ritual under the light of a full moon with the blood of a salamander, so they should have received silver and gold well in excess of my debt.
I love this picture, it demonstrates in clear terms the breakdown in logic.
Robman, do you believe people who pray to God to enact the end times are suffering from mental illnesses and should be charged with attempted murder to expedite their being committed?
You never actually answered the question. You did try to sweep it under the rug by calling it a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, which it's not.
If a guy wills me to die and makes some hand motion and says some curse, he's crazy. he's not guilty of attempted murder. If he actually believes in it, which would make him believe he's attempting murder, then he's just insane and needs to be committed.
That's what I'm getting at. If he doesn't believe it, it's not attempted murder. If he does he's probably guilty of attempted murder but not legally culpable due to some mental illness that needs treatment.
The fact that he chose a mythical and nonexistant weapon doesn't just make it OK that he, you know, tried to kill people. I don't think that's the case in this particular example, though. No way did that 'warlock' think he actually was going to succeed in summoning a demon.
No, he's not guilty of attempted murder. He's crazy, but it's not attempted murder just because he says it is.
I'm going to go back to the example of me saying I'll eat a sandwich hard enough to kill you. That's not attempted murder.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
If someone tries to plant a bomb that doesn't go off, then there is a public interest in preventing this person from trying again. If a person tries to summon a demon, I would argue that the tactic is so off-base that unless the person displays a willingness to perform actual violence that is actually illegal, the police have no business even thinking the phrase "attempted murder"
If a guy wills me to die and makes some hand motion and says some curse, he's crazy. he's not guilty of attempted murder. If he actually believes in it, which would make him believe he's attempting murder, then he's just insane and needs to be committed.
That's what I'm getting at. If he doesn't believe it, it's not attempted murder. If he does he's probably guilty of attempted murder but not legally culpable due to some mental illness that needs treatment.
The fact that he chose a mythical and nonexistant weapon doesn't just make it OK that he, you know, tried to kill people. I don't think that's the case in this particular example, though. No way did that 'warlock' think he actually was going to succeed in summoning a demon.
No, he's not guilty of attempted murder. He's crazy, but it's not attempted murder just because he says it is.
I'm going to go back to the example of me saying I'll eat a sandwich hard enough to kill you. That's not attempted murder.
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
So every time a preacher asks God to strike me down with lightning, I have a right to shoot them in self-defense?
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
So every time a preacher asks God to strike me down with lightning, I have a right to shoot them in self-defense?
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
What crime?
"Causing an evil spirit to end the life of a human being" is not a crime, last time I checked. It can't even be called murder because murder is causing the death of a human being intentionally. Who even gets the credit for the kill on the leaderboards in the case of a demon summoning? The guy? Or the demon? Presumably demons are entities capable of choosing their victims. Or is the demon bound to the guy's will? Is that why it's murder?
The whole thing is so fucking idiotic I'm having a hard time believing you're not trolling me right now.
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
yes, it does negate the fact that they attempted the crime. There's no crime, because they didn't do anything illegal.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
So every time a preacher asks God to strike me down with lightning, I have a right to shoot them in self-defense?
Rules for self defense are different from rules for murder so no. The threat needs to be immediate. God is obviously a lazy son of a bitch who takes his time so you obviously have time to call the police in order to protect yourself against God.
Posts
:P
that is retarded
if i thought that staring at you very hard would give you a nosebleed, should i be arrested for looking at you?
this case is incredibly clear-cut and it's only getting muddled because some people have asinine interpretations of justice
If you were attempting to cause my nose to bleed. Being a shithead doesn't mean a person isn't attempting the crime. It means the person is an idiot. There are reasons other than the apparent possibility of the harm actually occurring for attempted crimes being punishable.
you are literally advocating for thoughtcrime here, you know that right
I see Mr Sum of All Legal Knowledge
Some of us are noting intent and act, and that this person needs help. Some people argue that the ritual was inherently impossible, whereas other similar cases relied on a theoretically possible situation grossly misinterpreted by the criminals. Some people don't accept the harassment to suicide linkage to murder. Some people are employing reductio ad absurdum in droves and are generally dragging the discussion into the gutter. I don't really care for that last group.
Notice how you had to drop a clause there to make this work right? Yeah, there's a reason for that. It's kind of important. If he succeeds in doing what he intends, people die. That's pretty straightforward; in his mind, he performed an action that would kill someone.
I don't think you could ever use that in legal proceedings because you'd have to definitely prove that he was SURE he could indeed summon that demon and obviously the defense would argue that either
a) He doesn't believe that, therefore he didn't commit attempted murder (just a bad practical joke)
or
b) He does believe it in which case he'd nuts, send him for treatment
I'm also wondering how you would treat something like a voodoo curse which is both utterly bullshit and occasionally fatal, supposedly. There's also this follow up, since that's 60 years old, saying basically that's it's at least plausible. Would there be culpability for attempted murder for something like that, which has a disputed but possibly non-zero chance of actual success? Is there a lower limit other than zero chance for 'might actually work' here, and if so where's it at?
you only don't care for it because common sense keeps butting heads against meaningless legal wonkery
If a person dies from voodoo, then that person either had some underlying health condition that was aggravated by stress, or actually managed to placebo themselves dead. Sure, it happens, and if you manage to stress someone to the point of death then it's murder. But if I have a voodoo doll of you, that I stick pins into every day, but you are not aware of? There is no way for you to be negatively impacted, since voodoo does not exist.
This case needs a restraining order, not an electric chair.
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is not a declaration of innocence. The person is remanded to psychiatric care indefinitely, until they are judged fit to reintegrate with society.
Going to jail for attempted murder would probably result in you getting back into society faster, and with less restrictions, then being sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
But that's preposterous. By any reasonable definition, he's just saying words that won't summon anything or do anything. And the law, enforced by the government, attempts to be the hand of reason. That's the whole fucking point.
No, but this was a Fox Spirit. The criminal is the Fox, the possessed person is also a victim.
We aren't arguing that this man is criminally responsible for attempted murder - he either is guilty of harassing the church goers, or he needs help. An attempted murder charge with a successful insanity defence is the most logical path for him being committed.
My argument includes the perspective of someone suffering mental illness as a factor in the legal system. You're introducing the supernatural as a "real" factor. There's a critical difference there.
The fact that he chose a mythical and nonexistant weapon doesn't just make it OK that he, you know, tried to kill people. I don't think that's the case in this particular example, though. No way did that 'warlock' think he actually was going to succeed in summoning a demon.
Raising your arm at a building and yelling "Firaga" does not mean you should be prosecuted for attempted arson.
The electic company doesn't care about attempts to pay the bill. The law does care about attempts to break it. Your example is still much more sane than the excuses tax protesters use to claim that they didn't know they were breaking the law because they thought salary wasn't income.
I love this picture, it demonstrates in clear terms the breakdown in logic.
how about we forcibly commit people when they cause harm or destruction to people in our society
not when they fucking play D&D in a church
You never actually answered the question. You did try to sweep it under the rug by calling it a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, which it's not.
No, he's not guilty of attempted murder. He's crazy, but it's not attempted murder just because he says it is.
I'm going to go back to the example of me saying I'll eat a sandwich hard enough to kill you. That's not attempted murder.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
attempted arson by yelling firaga, etc
this whole conversation is surreal
like, are you guys listening to yourselves?
If we're going to lock people up for summoning forth the supernatural, why can't we free them for the same reason?
The use of the supernatural/impossible does not negate the fact that they attempted the crime, but it doesn't mean the jury needs to believe what they say is correct. If the person could prove he was possessed by a fox spirit, I'm sure the jury would be willing to allow it.
So every time a preacher asks God to strike me down with lightning, I have a right to shoot them in self-defense?
In Texas.
"Causing an evil spirit to end the life of a human being" is not a crime, last time I checked. It can't even be called murder because murder is causing the death of a human being intentionally. Who even gets the credit for the kill on the leaderboards in the case of a demon summoning? The guy? Or the demon? Presumably demons are entities capable of choosing their victims. Or is the demon bound to the guy's will? Is that why it's murder?
The whole thing is so fucking idiotic I'm having a hard time believing you're not trolling me right now.
yes, it does negate the fact that they attempted the crime. There's no crime, because they didn't do anything illegal.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Rules for self defense are different from rules for murder so no. The threat needs to be immediate. God is obviously a lazy son of a bitch who takes his time so you obviously have time to call the police in order to protect yourself against God.