On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:31:23 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>John Schilling wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:19:29 GMT, Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>> > The *law* might well hold him liable for a death caused as a
>> >consequence of a felony, but that is not the same as murder. (Any
>> >argument that sees no light between murder and surrender is flawed.)
>> Uh, I think the implied subject and object got reversed in that last
>> bit there. When did Dexter surrender, exactly?
> Poor choice of words there. My intent was to point out that any
>option that Dexter pursued outside of outright surrender to D. might
>have resulted in the same outcome.
I believe that he could have safely fled. Would have meant giving up
his safe, cozy lifestyle and becoming a fugitive, but compared to
killing innocent people...
And for that matter, why not surrender? If your whole deal is, "I'm
the good guy because I don't kill innocent people", and the only
not-surrender options involve substantial risk of killing innocent
people, you surrender. Worst case, the judge doesn't buy your whole
"I'm the good guy..." speech, and sends you to prison. Where there
are a whole lot of guilty people that Dexter can go about killing
with a clear conscience.
So, apparently, Dexter cares rather more about personal comfort and
rather less about innocent life than he'd have us believe.
>It's not murder in my mind if Dexter ultimately had no intent to harm D.
So if I drive past the local school at a hundred fifty miles per hour
just as class is getting out, *intending* to neatly slalom around all
the kiddies, I'm not a murderer even if one of them zigs when I was
expecting him to zag?
>Dexter is *responsible* for D.'s death, yes, but that's not the same
>thing as murder.
It is according to my dictionary, and the statutes of I believe every
state in the Union, and common law, and in common usage. It isn't
necessary to *intend* that someone die for an act to constitute
murder. It is sufficient to simply not care.
> Is that clearer?
Yes, but it's also clearly wrong. You're using an idiosyncratic personal
definition of "murder" that does not foster effective communication, and
you're trying to make a moral distinction that simply isn't there.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
|
