Yes...or he is all too well aware of his capabilities.Originally Posted by Sir C
"Yes. But what about the man who unsuccessfully punches someone with intent to kill and the man who punches someone without intent but kills them anyway?"
The formers 'failure' gets him off the hook
The latter is (is he ?) less of a danger to a population which he has reduced by 1 and is malleable enough to have learnt a tragic lesson
What if the former has a history of failures (the 2nd time) ?
One 'free strike' and you are out (or 'In') ?
10 characters? Pile of cund.
What if the person you intend to kill is a baddie?
"What would you do if a German soldier was raping you sister?"
"I cootn't do nuffink sarge, could I, 'cos she's in Peckham and I'm stuck out 'ere in the bleedin' desert."
Dear Spike.
It's quite the gutter when they take your best shot and then get up again.The BEST punch I ever threw in my whole life was during a football fracas.I didn't mean to kill him but I deffo wanted to hurt him.I swear to wee baby Jebus it was a real beaut.Caught the **** right on the chin and down he wentroud:
Only problem was the fúcker got up again
Mitigation can certainly reduce moral graveness, yes.
On a more serious note, what is intent? On a purely primal level, if you punch someone in anger, in the moment of doing it, theres every chance you do want them dead - on at least a notional level. Is that 'intent to kill'? How do we make windows into men's souls to make such a fine judgment?
Indeed. But by punching them rather than, say, grabbing a nearby implement and stabbing them in the neck, you are showing a level of restraint that should reflect favourably on your moral judgement.
Ok, so that is your moral stance. How should it be punished?
You can see why the whole Stokes situation hasn't been resolve yet
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote