Crosswords3 mins ago
Which Verdict Will Cause The Most Looting?
97 Answers
https:/
Jury retires today, get ready for the riots.
Jury retires today, get ready for the riots.
Answers
AH, //naomi - // I think ‘poor sod’ too. // Why do you think that?// Because he got out of bed that morning and prepared in the normal way for a day at work - shower, breakfast, a bit of interaction with his family perhaps - completely unaware that his life was about to change forever. Poor sod.
23:23 Mon 19th Apr 2021
pixie - // I agree to a point, Andy. I just don't see it as one is "bad" so that makes the other "good". Maybe neither are publicly useful. Even if you consider Floyd got his "comeuppance" (I don't), that doesn't actually make Chauvin's actions any more acceptable.
If I went out and murdered a stranger...(I know this wasn't), and it turned out they were a serial killer, that might seem a "good result", but still, that doesn't change what I also did. //
And that is exactly my point.
If you start giving a free to someone who kills someone based on a sliding scale of how much worth the victim was, and how much he or she would benefit society by continuing to exist, then we face a rather difficult question -
Who sets the rules?
Who makes the judgements?
Who decides who is worthy of living, and who should be punished for their death, and if at all, then how much?
These are complex moral arguments which cannot simply be summed up by the fatuous scenario that the ex-officer had his day ruined through no fault of his own, and that makes him deserving of our sympathy - to say nothing of exemption from our laws and statutes
If I went out and murdered a stranger...(I know this wasn't), and it turned out they were a serial killer, that might seem a "good result", but still, that doesn't change what I also did. //
And that is exactly my point.
If you start giving a free to someone who kills someone based on a sliding scale of how much worth the victim was, and how much he or she would benefit society by continuing to exist, then we face a rather difficult question -
Who sets the rules?
Who makes the judgements?
Who decides who is worthy of living, and who should be punished for their death, and if at all, then how much?
These are complex moral arguments which cannot simply be summed up by the fatuous scenario that the ex-officer had his day ruined through no fault of his own, and that makes him deserving of our sympathy - to say nothing of exemption from our laws and statutes
"In my view, that is presuming to a ludicrous degree, that criminals are bright enough to make a risk assessment before they embark on criminal activity,"
Maybe the cops are as thick as the robbers and don't do a risk assessment when restraining a violent criminal in a stressful situation. I don't think DC was thinking - if I kill this guy I will end in prison for a long time!
Maybe the cops are as thick as the robbers and don't do a risk assessment when restraining a violent criminal in a stressful situation. I don't think DC was thinking - if I kill this guy I will end in prison for a long time!
davebro - // "In my view, that is presuming to a ludicrous degree, that criminals are bright enough to make a risk assessment before they embark on criminal activity,"
Maybe the cops are as thick as the robbers and don't do a risk assessment when restraining a violent criminal in a stressful situation. I don't think DC was thinking - if I kill this guy I will end in prison for a long time! //
I think we can take as read that in general terms, police officers are brighter than criminals - regular hours, pension, meal subsidies, that kind of thing - with obviously exceptions on both sides.
But you are quite right - the notion of possible anticipation of actions and consequences is something neither side can factor into their chosen career path, because, put simply, life isn't like that.
Laws are for everyone, or they are pointless, and the moment you start saying that criminals deserve to die because they are criminals, and police officers deserve to escape punishment because they are police officers, then you are looking at the end of the law, and the end of society as we know it.
Maybe the cops are as thick as the robbers and don't do a risk assessment when restraining a violent criminal in a stressful situation. I don't think DC was thinking - if I kill this guy I will end in prison for a long time! //
I think we can take as read that in general terms, police officers are brighter than criminals - regular hours, pension, meal subsidies, that kind of thing - with obviously exceptions on both sides.
But you are quite right - the notion of possible anticipation of actions and consequences is something neither side can factor into their chosen career path, because, put simply, life isn't like that.
Laws are for everyone, or they are pointless, and the moment you start saying that criminals deserve to die because they are criminals, and police officers deserve to escape punishment because they are police officers, then you are looking at the end of the law, and the end of society as we know it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.