re: #255 Islamo-Masonic Conspirator

Logical, but again, this is a philosophical issue, and these can be looked at from various angles.

It’s just interesting to explore various hypotheticals, as philosophers (as well as jurists) are wont to do. For instance: whether the owner of a theoretical plant that was emitting carcinogenic pollutants some time ago, thus causing n provable cancer deaths m years later, is guilty of homicide in the same a) legal, b) philosophical sense (provided he knew he was going above the norm). (I would argue yes, but I don’t know whether the law agrees.) Or whether a president starting an unnecessary war under false pretenses, the murderous results of which were easily predictable, is guilty of mass homicide.

Those are all statistical matters or the result of indirect actions. It is irrefutably established that Hinckley shot Brady.