"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

Oops, sorry, what I just said was inaccurate--Greg didn't make that mistake.
Rather, he proposed a slightly different analogy, which I amended to make it
closer to the situation under discussion; then I addressed the *amended*
analogy.

--Gary