I didn't say the argument isn't stupid, but in a court of "innocent until proven guilty" the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that he was targeting the individual instead of the vehicle.
Had the window not been there, would he have continued his assault?
Only the defendant can answer that, and he will obviously say that he wouldn't have attacked him directly with the bicycle and only lunged the wheel toward him because he knew the glass was in the way.
Prosecutors can't prove what he did or didn't know or think at the time, so they cannot show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended great bodily harm against the passenger.
Thems the rules, I didn't make them, and yes, I agree, they are stupid and don't account for proper context.
I didn't say the argument isn't stupid, but in a court of "innocent until proven guilty" the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that he was targeting the individual instead of the vehicle.
Had the window not been there, would he have continued his assault?
Only the defendant can answer that, and he will obviously say that he wouldn't have attacked him directly with the bicycle and only lunged the wheel toward him because he knew the glass was in the way.
Prosecutors can't prove what he did or didn't know or think at the time, so they cannot show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended great bodily harm against the passenger.
Thems the rules, I didn't make them, and yes, I agree, they are stupid and don't account for proper context.