I
think most legal professionals would say something like the following. Being guilty of a specific offence is what one is (or is not) declared at the termination of a specific legal process. It is not a property one might have (or not) independent of those processes.
Once Again: In my examples (those which started all this ... talk about law !!) the declaration of guilt (legally relevant "guilty" conduct) would be a consequence of causality. It is really a "property" of the process of unlawfully killing someone, as you might have justifiably killed for your protection, then not being "guilty" despite still having killed someone.
Why did I give those examples ? (so that we don't lose our main point here): Because PBL tends to "equalize" every factor that contributes to an event - If you use it (PBL: I am not saying you are using it) in a legal context, you tend to eliminate legal liability in several civil and criminal cases - Then turning many legal rules absolutelly void.
This is to show the incongruence of his thoughts on the matter of causality.
Now the countdown for deletion: ten, nine, eight...
