So you therefore state that you will never knowingly kill a town player? Unless tgat is true, there may be no immediate benefit, but in the long run will be more than worth it
That's obviously not what I'm saying, insofar as I won't knowingly kill a town player that isn't a target of mine. And no, your premise is incorrect, because 1 town player is not equivalent to one scum player - town are the majority, scum are the minority. If my targets end up being two scum and one town, then ultimately I've favoured town considerably. If my targets end up being 2 town and 1 scum, then I've favoured them just barely over scum. The only way I straight up prove to be a disadvantage to Town is if all three targets were Town, but unless you suspect Prof's killer to be Town, we can dismiss this out of hand.
And we can already dismiss it anyway, because one scum is dead through me, even if they wasn't my target, so no matter what happens from here I will have at least benefitting town somewhat (and like by the end of it, more than I've beneftted scum, which is the real measuring stick here). I don't understand why you people seem to operate under lines of reasoning that amount to "if you're not 100% favourable to us results wise, you are harmful and must be treated as a priority to remove", when said priority puts me above players who aim to be 100% harmful. It's such a bizarre line of reasoning.