what about the ones who are equally wicked, but by luck happen not to kill or maim someone?
Is the crime "drink-driving" or is the crime "hitting someone"?
Is the crime "drink-driving" or is the crime "hitting someone"?
Sponsored Links
J
JMLanders
Drink-driving is the crime. It is an actual intent to cause harm.
If I, (like too many teenagers) leave the house with a knife or a gun, then it is my intention to use that tool should a certain situation arise. There is no other reason for me to carry them (apart from the crass ones of them being in-transit to the police station, for example
)Similarly, if I get into a car in anything other than a 100% sober state, my intention is to not be in full control of the car. Therefore, whether an subsequent accident occurs or not is as irrelevant as whether I actually ended up knifing or shooting someone.
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.
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.
J
JMLanders
You could almost call it an "assisted suicide"
Sponsored Links
Assisted Murder!
J
JMLanders
This is where our opinions diverge
L
Lincsbodger
South African drivign standards are non existant. There is not MOT, no road tax and no compulsory insurance.
The driving test consists of driving round a load of poles (Wooden, not East European), alley dockey, parallel parking, 3 point turn and a hill start. Then you have to slip the examiner his bribe, and your through.
The drink driving limits are high - 50Mg/100mL blood sample of 240 Mg/100mL breath
Apart from that, the actual standard of driving in South Africa is horrendous, its on par with the French on a good day.
L
Lincsbodger
Yes but its subjective. Ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Yes but its subjective. Ones mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
...ok, forget titles. One man's 'person who tries to kill innocent civilians' is another persons 'person who tries to kill innocent civilians'.
J
JMLanders
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.
J
JMLanders
Just playing Lucifer's proponent
, but isn't this what we refer to as necessary collateral damage?Just playing Lucifer's proponent
When aiming a weapon at an enemy, you should always bear in mind that the innocent may be caught up in the conflict. Depending on how necessary the fight needs to be brought to the enemy may, at least in the mind of the majority, justify it.
When aiming a weapon at the innocent and you are hoping that maybe the enemy will be caught up in it, I don't think there is ever justification.
Sponsored Links
