Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 94

Thread: There are lot of people this morning saying that one of Jamie Bulger's killers being

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.
    Yes...or he is all too well aware of his capabilities.

  2. #82
    "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.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    Intent to kill is morally worse than no intent to kill, regardless of consequences.
    What if the person you intend to kill is a baddie?

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurly View Post
    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 went roud:
    Only problem was the fúcker got up again
    It's quite the gutter when they take your best shot and then get up again.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    What if the person you intend to kill is a baddie?
    Mitigation can certainly reduce moral graveness, yes.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    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?

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    Intent to kill is morally worse than no intent to kill, regardless of consequences.
    Ok, so that is your moral stance. How should it be punished?

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    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?
    You can see why the whole Stokes situation hasn't been resolve yet

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •