Most of your post is agreeing with the op.Nope - your argument is flawed. With hindsight there is always a point on the timeline when every murder or accidental death could have been avoided if someone had made a different decision or taken personal responsibility. Say a dead prostitute is found floating in a river. Obviously she wasn't expecting that to happen and has met up with a murderer instead of a usual business transaction. Had she made a better decision earlier or made the rational decision that being a prostitute is hazardous then the murder might not have happened. That's not a defence for murder much like provocation isn't because we don't have 'degrees of murder' in NZ its a pretty binary decision.
If you are driving a truck and someone does a you turn (or something equally mental) in front of you at a distance where you could easily stop in time or avoid them but instead you decide to teach them a lesson and speed up and run them down and kill them they you have effectively murdered that person. Yes they did something silly but you took advantage of that. The same applies for say a scam - the scammer cannot use 'oh they should have known better so its the victims fault' as a defence.
Yes she placed herself in a dangerous situation. But she had reasonable hope that it would be safe if the other party acted in a reasonable fashion. My belief is that he took advantage of the situation and went way too far. His subsequent actions show a staggering lack of empathy and its 100% reasonable to consider that as a factor leading to her death.
Hes taken advantage of a lapse in her part to commit this crime albeit he might not have a preformed intention to commit murder. I 100% believe he knew what he was doing and he would do it again in a flash if given the same chance.
Bookmarks