To everyone chiming in with "should be attempted murder" comments, let me help clarify the legal position.
For the prosecution to secure a conviction for attempted murder, one element that must be proved is an INTENT to kill someone.
I've seen the video and, without further evidence, I can't see that such intent is provable 'beyond reasonable doubt'. What these animals did was dangerous and senseless, but you'd have a hard time to prove they were intending to kill someone, even though, objectivly, their actions obviously could have. I genuinely suspect they are too fucking stupid to appreciate what could've happened.
In any case, Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971 relates to three types of criminal damage. One of these is what is known colloquially as 'aggrevated criminal damage' (even though the statute doesn't use this phrasing).
Aggrevated criminal damage is a very serious offence and is potentially punishable by life imprisonment.
In this particular case, the applicable sentencing guidelines are here - https://t.co/aKglKATRRv
In my view this would be a 'culpability B, category 1' sentence - starting point 6 years (range 4-10 years), some may disagree. Also, the sentence would be subject to other mitigating / aggrevating factors.
So, although the tweet sounds bad - 'oh they're only being charged with smashing up a cushion' - the reality is aggrevated criminal damage can potentially lead to a lot of prison time...
I read the study and came to the objectivly correct solution. I filtered the study through GPT and this confirmed I was right.
You were the first to use perjoratives. You attempted to derail the arguement by flagging inconsequentials.
No amount of detraction changes this. Give up.
> wrongly assumes I pay for the app (also irrelevant, but I get it you need to save face)
> cannot differentiate between the functions of a search engine and a LLM, utulised through uploading the disputed study and supplemental documents, to verify the objectivly clear (for non-retards) results
> instead of conceding the point, continues to argue in bad faith and subvert arguement with inconsequential issues because of complete lack of integrity
You may hate me, but I hate you AND have the pleasure of knowing you are a disingenious mid-wit (as confirmed by AI)
@jabalke@Dbl_R_Diner@esjesjesj Jesus Christ you retard, you can't even acknowledge your shortcoming when a LLM explicitly spells it out for you. Cretinous - fuck you and your sub-standard verbal IQ.