I’m not really talking about the legality/criminality of his acts. I’m taking about the extraneous or tangential matters relating to this case that everyone seems to have a legal opinion on. Even being an attorney, these are things I wouldn’t comment on without doing my due diligence/research, but people in this thread are speaking on these matters with reckless abandon.
For instance, the comments discussing whether or not the family can sue whoever served him alcohol. I doubt there is anyone on this sub with a good enough grasp of that state’s dram shop laws that their opinion means anything, but people are still arguing about it. That’s some Wikipedia School of Law stuff.