<strong>Sober people kill others all the time. Sober people even get in car wrecks or slam into pedestrians.
Point being: Unless King did run someone over talking about it in regards to the ass-whooping he received makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sober people can accidently kill someone. That's why it's called an accident. When you're souped up on PCP you know you shouldn't be driving anyway. If you do, you willingly accept that you are not able to drive and that you take a big chance of killing someone. That's attempted murder.
That's why DUI is against the law and driving around sober isn't.
You do very well at rhetoric Groverat, not too well at logic though.
Do you think the guy that failed to kill Chiraq the other day is less of criminal than the guy that killed Fortuyn in the Netherlands just because he failed? Is it therefore less of an assault on the democracy?
Do you think the terrorists that flew in to the Twin Towers are more criminal than the guys that got overpowered in the plane that crashed on it's way to Camp David?
Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald (let's assume he did it for arguments sake) is more of an assassin than John Hinckley JR?
So all DUI cases really should've also been charged with attempted murder? Hell, if you're caught with any kind of mind/mood-altering drug w/out doctor's written approval, why not charge them with attempted murder as well?
[quote]You do very well at rhetoric Groverat, not too well at logic though.<hr></blockquote>
Am I the one saying DUI is attempted murder?
[quote]Do you think the guy that failed to kill Chiraq the other day is less of criminal than the guy that killed Fortuyn in the Netherlands just because he failed? Is it therefore less of an assault on the democracy?<hr></blockquote>
Yes.
No, I don't know how that has anything at all to do with democracy.
[quote]Do you think the terrorists that flew in to the Twin Towers are more criminal than the guys that got overpowered in the plane that crashed on it's way to Camp David?<hr></blockquote>
Well, they both hijacked planes and took lives while doing it... so no, they're the same.
But the WTC guys' actions were worse since they took more lives.
[quote]Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald (let's assume he did it for arguments sake) is more of an assassin than John Hinckley JR?<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, because Hinckley isn't even, by definition, an assassin.
Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree then. To me there is no difference between failing to kill someone and actually killing someone as long as both attempts show intent.
the boy has a learning disability that makes it difficult to understand instructions....so he doesn't react to the cop, so the cop gets mad and beats him....
Again you need to turn off the television. Non-compliance was not the issue, resisting arrest was the issue. The officer suffered cuts to his head, elbow and knee. It took 4 officers to cuff the boy. On the tape we saw the officer strike the boy one time... not 4 guys with clubs swinging for the fences.(ala Rodney King)
And again the boy's auditory issue was stated (at least initially, it has probably conveniently changed by now) as causing issues with regard to processing a stream of commands. It is easy to see how in school this could cause a problem. Example
Take out a piece of paper
Put your name, date, teacher and period on it
Open your book to page 100
Answer questions 1-20
Now compare this with...
Sit in the back of the squad car
Sit in the back of the squad car
Sit in the back of the squad car
Sit in the back of the squad car
They were not issuing multiple commands at once. They were asking the same thing over and over. When they had complete non-compliance, they would escalate and issue the escalated command over and over.
Your analogy with your wife isn't even close. First of all she had nothing but compliance. If your daughter had refused to answer the question, and if your wife had refused to turn off the car or take it out of drive, well then you would have had a very dangerous situation.
<strong>Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree then. To me there is no difference between failing to kill someone and actually killing someone as long as both attempts show intent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, to answer my question, you'd say that those pulled over for DUI should be charged with attempted murder?
Again you need to turn off the television. Non-compliance was not the issue, resisting arrest was the issue.
<hr></blockquote>
good to see we have the boys physican here who understands his condition completely...
non-compliance vs resisting arrest
chicken vs egg
non-compliance is the eyes of the cops, and maybe even just non-compliance "fast" enough, could equal resisting arrest, which then leads to placing cuffs on kid, kid doesn't understand why he is being cuffed, so he struggles... then kid is thrown face first into car... with hands cuffed behind his back he tries to defend himself in the only way he can, which is to squeeze hands on any part of his attacker, which happens to be cop's privates, which earns him a punch in the face....lots of ways to look at it...we will never really know unless one of the parties tells the truth and sez "my bad"...probably won't happen...which is too bad....g
So, to answer my question, you'd say that those pulled over for DUI should be charged with attempted murder?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might not be a bad idea. It may make people think twice before getting in to a car while drunk or doped up. Of course whether someone has broken the law before or how intoxicated someone is should be reflected in the ultimate punishment.
Manslaughter or GBH would be good enough too. People will think twice once they take a chance of going inside for a few years.
[quote]It might not be a bad idea. It may make people think twice before getting in to a car while drunk or doped up. Of course whether someone has broken the law before or how intoxicated someone is should be reflected in the ultimate punishment.
Manslaughter or GBH would be good enough too. People will think twice once they take a chance of going inside for a few years.<hr></blockquote>
That's great logic.
I bet if you cut off someone's hand for stealing something they'd never do it again, either.
Comments
<strong>Sober people kill others all the time. Sober people even get in car wrecks or slam into pedestrians.
Point being: Unless King did run someone over talking about it in regards to the ass-whooping he received makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sober people can accidently kill someone. That's why it's called an accident. When you're souped up on PCP you know you shouldn't be driving anyway. If you do, you willingly accept that you are not able to drive and that you take a big chance of killing someone. That's attempted murder.
That's why DUI is against the law and driving around sober isn't.
You do very well at rhetoric Groverat, not too well at logic though.
Do you think the guy that failed to kill Chiraq the other day is less of criminal than the guy that killed Fortuyn in the Netherlands just because he failed? Is it therefore less of an assault on the democracy?
Do you think the terrorists that flew in to the Twin Towers are more criminal than the guys that got overpowered in the plane that crashed on it's way to Camp David?
Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald (let's assume he did it for arguments sake) is more of an assassin than John Hinckley JR?
So all DUI cases really should've also been charged with attempted murder? Hell, if you're caught with any kind of mind/mood-altering drug w/out doctor's written approval, why not charge them with attempted murder as well?
[quote]You do very well at rhetoric Groverat, not too well at logic though.<hr></blockquote>
Am I the one saying DUI is attempted murder?
[quote]Do you think the guy that failed to kill Chiraq the other day is less of criminal than the guy that killed Fortuyn in the Netherlands just because he failed? Is it therefore less of an assault on the democracy?<hr></blockquote>
Yes.
No, I don't know how that has anything at all to do with democracy.
[quote]Do you think the terrorists that flew in to the Twin Towers are more criminal than the guys that got overpowered in the plane that crashed on it's way to Camp David?<hr></blockquote>
Well, they both hijacked planes and took lives while doing it... so no, they're the same.
But the WTC guys' actions were worse since they took more lives.
[quote]Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald (let's assume he did it for arguments sake) is more of an assassin than John Hinckley JR?<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, because Hinckley isn't even, by definition, an assassin.
<strong>
the boy has a learning disability that makes it difficult to understand instructions....so he doesn't react to the cop, so the cop gets mad and beats him....
[ 07-15-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Again you need to turn off the television. Non-compliance was not the issue, resisting arrest was the issue. The officer suffered cuts to his head, elbow and knee. It took 4 officers to cuff the boy. On the tape we saw the officer strike the boy one time... not 4 guys with clubs swinging for the fences.(ala Rodney King)
And again the boy's auditory issue was stated (at least initially, it has probably conveniently changed by now) as causing issues with regard to processing a stream of commands. It is easy to see how in school this could cause a problem. Example
Take out a piece of paper
Put your name, date, teacher and period on it
Open your book to page 100
Answer questions 1-20
Now compare this with...
Sit in the back of the squad car
Sit in the back of the squad car
Sit in the back of the squad car
Sit in the back of the squad car
They were not issuing multiple commands at once. They were asking the same thing over and over. When they had complete non-compliance, they would escalate and issue the escalated command over and over.
Your analogy with your wife isn't even close. First of all she had nothing but compliance. If your daughter had refused to answer the question, and if your wife had refused to turn off the car or take it out of drive, well then you would have had a very dangerous situation.
Nick
<strong>Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree then. To me there is no difference between failing to kill someone and actually killing someone as long as both attempts show intent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, to answer my question, you'd say that those pulled over for DUI should be charged with attempted murder?
Again you need to turn off the television. Non-compliance was not the issue, resisting arrest was the issue.
<hr></blockquote>
good to see we have the boys physican here who understands his condition completely...
non-compliance vs resisting arrest
chicken vs egg
non-compliance is the eyes of the cops, and maybe even just non-compliance "fast" enough, could equal resisting arrest, which then leads to placing cuffs on kid, kid doesn't understand why he is being cuffed, so he struggles... then kid is thrown face first into car... with hands cuffed behind his back he tries to defend himself in the only way he can, which is to squeeze hands on any part of his attacker, which happens to be cop's privates, which earns him a punch in the face....lots of ways to look at it...we will never really know unless one of the parties tells the truth and sez "my bad"...probably won't happen...which is too bad....g
<strong>
So, to answer my question, you'd say that those pulled over for DUI should be charged with attempted murder?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might not be a bad idea. It may make people think twice before getting in to a car while drunk or doped up. Of course whether someone has broken the law before or how intoxicated someone is should be reflected in the ultimate punishment.
Manslaughter or GBH would be good enough too. People will think twice once they take a chance of going inside for a few years.
[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: macfenian ]</p>
Manslaughter or GBH would be good enough too. People will think twice once they take a chance of going inside for a few years.<hr></blockquote>
That's great logic.
I bet if you cut off someone's hand for stealing something they'd never do it again, either.
You'd be popular in Iran.
<strong>You'd be popular in Iran.
Er...er...LIBERAL!