Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:56:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
720 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > 8. The intruder is a woman who doesn't know that she's four weeks
> > pregnant; you shoot her in the gut to incapacitate her and thereby kill her
> > embryo; are you responsible for the death of her innocent child?
>
> As the child is under her care and if through her ill-advised actions she
> gets shot in self defence, I would say that the fault lies with her.
Okay, but let's extend it a little further.
Suppose we went with variation #3 from my previous post:
3. The "intruder" is your daughter who has sneaked down to the kitchen for a
glass of water during the night
If you killed your daughter in error, to what extent are you liable?
Depending on the circumstances, I would guess at least that you're guilty of
involuntary manslaughter.
Now, suppose that you stumble upon an intruder and shoot him, and the bullet
either misses him or passes through him, killing your daughter, whom neither you
nor the intruder knew to be standing there. Who is liable?
I think that, in this example, you'd have a tough time arguing that the
intruder is liable for your daughter's death. Admittedly you only fired the
weapon as a result of the intruder's presence, but you fired by your own will.
How, then, would this differ from my earlier example about an unknowingly
pregnant intruder?
Now that we've moved into the purely hypothetical, I find this debate
increasingly interesting!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
