Vexcalibur wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
D.G.U.: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE
Vexcalibur wrote:
http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/02/28/veto_the_minnesota_shoot_first_law
"He was black and obviously a threat"
"I felt Jehova witnesses were a threat to my tranquility"
"He is a democrat, makes me feel threatened".
"I felt threatened by her, that's why I killed her just after we had sex".
Hi Vexcalibur,
Flood practicalities with technicalities for:
Vexcalibur wrote:
By definition, murder can't be legal. Murder is illegal homicide. All places have situations in which it is legal to commit homicide. I guess Florida just added new ones and you don't agree with the change, but some context is needed.
Tadzio
I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make with that double quote (or if there is a point at all). But I suspect you are being incapable of correctly understanding my post made in the other thread and somehow buy it as an endorsement or some lame idea. I was just saying, when killing people is legal, it is not murder, that does not necessarily mean I'd agree that it is an ethical homicide. In fact, I was criticizing the concept.
Hi Vexcalibur,
In the sense of what can be experienced, murder can be legal. That includes the "practical" instances in reality being technically denied using abstract codifications of less than real rules. For instance, I have often heard that Cain murdered Abel, and, at times, "thou shall not kill" as restricted to "thou shall not murder", as if all other homicides are A-OK (I've also heard "thou" is singular, and as a group, A-OK again!!).
The other thread about much the same as here of the modified Castle Doctrine, but in Florida, has cited court cases with the same type of paradox noted by some judges, and the problems of "immunity" from being prosecuted for crimes, such as murder in self-defense, versus crimes justifiable in self-defense, again, such as murder in self-defense, and, versus, justifiable acts that would otherwise be crimes but for beliefs of justifiable acts of self-defense, including justifiable homicide, instead of "justifiable murder" or immunity from prosecution for the act of murder in self-defense. The labeling quandary being dismissed as "harmless error" involving previous actions, actions resulting in a dead person, seems much more than any "harmless error".
The cited "I felt threatened by her, that's why I killed her just after we had sex", is technically similar to "First, the Third District noted that the numerous injuries to the victim (which included a stab wound to the back that punctured her lung) and the relatively minor injury to Martinez (a 1/4-inch cut to his pinky finger) were inconsistent with a theory of self-defense," with practicality seemingly given more weight in both instances, over the technicality of a genuine perceived "threat".
Didn't Peter Singer kill practical ethics?
Tadzio
26 Mar 2012, 3:14 am
