what about the ones who are equally wicked, but by luck happen not to kill or maim someone?Ok Drink drivers who actually kill or maim someone, deserve prison,
Is the crime "drink-driving" or is the crime "hitting someone"?
what about the ones who are equally wicked, but by luck happen not to kill or maim someone?Ok Drink drivers who actually kill or maim someone, deserve prison,
Drink-driving is the crime. It is an actual intent to cause harm.what about the ones who are equally wicked, but by luck happen not to kill or maim someone?Ok Drink drivers who actually kill or maim someone, deserve prison,
Is the crime "drink-driving" or is the crime "hitting someone"?
Assisted Murder!You could almost call it an "assisted suicide"
This is where our opinions divergeAssisted Murder!You could almost call it an "assisted suicide"
I think I heard on the news yesterday that something like 42 people are killed in road accidents a day, in South Africa.
I don't think they were all drink induced, three young English students were killed in coach crash the day before.
Some of them foreign travel coach trips are like white knuckle rides, so are taxi trips to and from the airport.
Could be the fact that they have no road sense and are incompetent of driving safely.
But I have to agree that a total ban on drinking whist driving, would be the safest and simplest route to take.
People have different tolerance levels and it simply does not make sense that drinking any volumes of alcohol is allowed.
In general I would consider the death penalty, for any reckless actions taken that was directly link to a someone being killed.
The drink driving limits are high - 50Mg/100mL blood sample of 240 Mg/100mL breath
What a shame, hes a really nice guy and after all hes been through and done, it was a cruel blow.
What a shame, hes a really nice guy and after all hes been through and done, it was a cruel blow.
Really nice guy, who used to be a terrorist planting bombs on train tracks.
What a shame, hes a really nice guy and after all hes been through and done, it was a cruel blow.
Really nice guy, who used to be a terrorist planting bombs on train tracks.
Yes but its subjective. Ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Is an civilian "innocent" if he/she is complicit in the ruling government's ideologies and methods?...ok, forget titles. One man's 'person who tries to kill innocent civilians' is another persons 'person who tries to kill innocent civilians'.
Is an civilian "innocent" if he/she is complicit in the ruling government's ideologies and methods?...ok, forget titles. One man's 'person who tries to kill innocent civilians' is another persons 'person who tries to kill innocent civilians'.
Just playing Lucifer's proponent , but isn't this what we refer to as necessary collateral damage?Is an civilian "innocent" if he/she is complicit in the ruling government's ideologies and methods?
..and if it was an 'activist-seeking' bomb, i would agree with you. However, it could have been children, or people working for change in a political,non violent way that were maimed, even if we count the 'people who willfully do nothing' as the enemy, the bomb is still likely to maim innocents.
Just playing Lucifer's proponent , but isn't this what we refer to as necessary collateral damage?Is an civilian "innocent" if he/she is complicit in the ruling government's ideologies and methods?
..and if it was an 'activist-seeking' bomb, i would agree with you. However, it could have been children, or people working for change in a political,non violent way that were maimed, even if we count the 'people who willfully do nothing' as the enemy, the bomb is still likely to maim innocents.