There will be six discussions, each open for two weeks each. The discussion will have a prompt to which you will be asked to respond. Preparing your discussion posts will help you to study for your quizzes, midterm, and final exam. Your post must be between 200-300 words and you must note the word count after each of your posts. Your response may begin a new thread or respond to one of your colleague's posts. The post may be written somewhat informally, but good grammar and sentence mechanics are required. You must use course resources to support your reason

WW IUDSLFIVE The thin skull rule means that the accused must \"take their victim as they find them.\" This means that if Sam punches Bob, and Bob falls and dies from this injury because of a pre-existing condition, Sam is responsible for killing Bob. If Sam does not know about Bob's pre- existing condition, is it fair that he is held criminally responsible for killing him? It may be tempting to talk about intent and what ts going on in Sam's mind here, but when we look at the AR we are really only concerned with whether Sam's action legally caused the prohibited consequence. Do you think the thin skull rule holds Sam responsible for something that is not reasonably foreseeable? If so, do you think the law should change? Why or why not? Posting to Group 2