Umm, it's generally murder even if there isn't a functioning judicial system, it's just authorities won't necessarily be doing anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Umm, it's generally murder even if there isn't a functioning judicial system, it's just authorities won't necessarily be doing anything about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ultimately, you need a functioning judicial system and a constitutional order to determine whether killing someone is against the law. And if a killing isn't against the law, it can't be murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
No, you just need a properly constituted authority *even if it's just honored in form and not reality* to declare what is lawful or what shouldn't be. In that respect the judicial system just comes along after a deed and affirms "yep, that done there was unlawful, it was." There really is a difference between adjudicating something and determining it. You might not find much practical meaning in the difference but it's there nevertheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's great argument in favor of death panels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Look, chickenhawk, I actually know what the hell I'm talking about here, and you clearly do not. I'm not generally one to argue from credentials, but when the fuck were you in the service? How much combat did you see? Were you ever attached to a special operations command? Ever go out on a covert op?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And since we all know what the answers to those questions are as they relate to you, maybe you should be exercising the better part of valor here and taking my word for it. You don't know a damned thing about black ops, and I do. Deal with it, and get over yourself already.
Operators murder people, by any reasonable definition of the word "murder," even by your less than reasonable definition, and that's all there is to it. Sorry for shoving a shade of grey into your black-and-white worldview, but that's how the real world is.
Credentials? :eek: You can't remain anonymous and argue credentials. :bulb: :haha: Carry on soldier. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I just realised that hate crime enhancement must be better (to Lewk) than no hate crime enhancement, given that we are apparently not sufficiently hard on murderers. I mean, letting some people get harsher punishments must be better than being lenient on all of them right?
Feel free to stop trying to out-dumbass yourself at any time, by the way. You've already set the bar so low you'd have to literally start flinging your own feces around as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
You'd think, but then again, that's kinda why I brought it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
His black and white worldviews have collided irreconcilably on the issue. "Fry all murderers" and his sickening patriotic fervor that causes him to idolize/worship American soldiers are simply mutually exclusive.
Is that why SCOTUS could say the death penalty was unconstitutional, but states could still dole out the death penalty? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And I think your lying as much as Tear was.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Not even a clever way to avoid answering the question of where your misinformation on the subject comes from, or why you think you have any clue about it.
You should just point out that he voted for Bush. :o
I find this more amusing... call me a sadist, or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're free to point out how Lewk's voting record makes him a liberal, though. Might be worth a chuckle or two, but I think we've been down that road before.
I think intentions and justifications should both be taken in, in court. In fact, if it wasn't so hard to pin down for sure, I'd say intention should be our most important signal when determining judgement. However, consequence is much easier,and usually fairly accurate to judge off. That said, the reason justification and intentions are important to consider is because if someone killed someone else because they thought their life was in danger, that's different that killing someone else for no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
They should be looked at. I don't see a meaningful diffference between a person killing someone becaues they're racist and a person killing someone because they don't like that person. Motivations should matter only so much that it offers some justification for doing it. (thought life in danger, or heat of the moment, or reflex, or whatever etc...) something to say they're not an outright killer, that many of us put in the same situation would reasonably do the same thing.