#I am not defending anakin's actions I'm just like: please hate him correctly

[mirrorofliterature]

whenever someone says 'oh but anakin murdered padme' I'm like: words have meanings

legally speaking, no

anakin clearly lacks the necessary mens rea - the mental element - for murder. he did not intend to kill padme. at most, he was reckless and could be guilty of manslaughter through recklessness, however

the actus reus (physical element) is iffy; I think there is an argument to be made that there was an intervening event (i.e. the child birth/heartbreak/whatever padme's death theory you ascribe to) that contributed to padme's death more

anyway did anakin contribute to padme's death? yes BUT he would not be criminally liable for it, at most he would be liable for battery/assault/causing injury but that's not the same thing as murder, I'm begging you these legal concepts have specific meanings you shouldn't just throw them around