Hypothetical Death Scenario 10 25 2013
A. A man gets drunk and kills someone in a car accident. He is let off the hook because he was drunk. It really means he was let off the hook because he relinquished his legal capacity to act as a human being adult.
B. A man is drunk in his car and kills a person walking across the street. A person on the opposite corner pulls out his handgun and blows the drunken drivers head off with it before he can kill another pedestrian.
The question is in B what did that man kill? What can it be defined that he killed? He killed someone that opted to abandon their legal capacity to act as a responsible human being!
So when you weigh the impact of the two deaths above one can be said to be of lesser concern? Right when the driver was killed what can he be defined to be? There is an issue here that is very relevant to the discussion!
The driver opted to somehow transform himself into something that was a danger to the public safety by willfully consuming a chemical known to cause oxygen deprivation brain cell death!
Lets say a man is eating at a restaurant and not drinking alcohol because he doesn't. A group of people who sell alcohol put a bag over his head until his face turns blue and he flees from the restaurant and enters his car to get away. As he is driving he runs over a woman who has been drinking alcohol and she is walking across the street without regard to traffic. That man is not guilty of anything is he? No matter how far he drives his car away from that bar and how many people he runs over in order to get to safety he is not guilty is he? (For those new to the law it is always determined by a jury and or judge!)
Now lets say a child is born with a blue face and has a penchant for drinking alcohol as an adult because that was the source of its birth defect. That blue faced child likely to have brain damage too (right????:) even though the blue face went away, is going to do everything in his/her power so that he/she cannot be deprived of alcohol and in fact so that other people can be leveled down to his/her level by alcohol consumption! That would be a person that is very hard to convince of anything. And the inability to learn is in effect the inability to be convinced. And it is a sign of a defective hippo campus.
Contraindication:
Now what if the driver above was not drunk and it was the child of a lifetime drunk that was crossing the street without looking left and right?
Can you see why I might not be well liked?
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 10 25 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
A. A man gets drunk and kills someone in a car accident. He is let off the hook because he was drunk. It really means he was let off the hook because he relinquished his legal capacity to act as a human being adult.
B. A man is drunk in his car and kills a person walking across the street. A person on the opposite corner pulls out his handgun and blows the drunken drivers head off with it before he can kill another pedestrian.
The question is in B what did that man kill? What can it be defined that he killed? He killed someone that opted to abandon their legal capacity to act as a responsible human being!
So when you weigh the impact of the two deaths above one can be said to be of lesser concern? Right when the driver was killed what can he be defined to be? There is an issue here that is very relevant to the discussion!
The driver opted to somehow transform himself into something that was a danger to the public safety by willfully consuming a chemical known to cause oxygen deprivation brain cell death!
Lets say a man is eating at a restaurant and not drinking alcohol because he doesn't. A group of people who sell alcohol put a bag over his head until his face turns blue and he flees from the restaurant and enters his car to get away. As he is driving he runs over a woman who has been drinking alcohol and she is walking across the street without regard to traffic. That man is not guilty of anything is he? No matter how far he drives his car away from that bar and how many people he runs over in order to get to safety he is not guilty is he? (For those new to the law it is always determined by a jury and or judge!)
Now lets say a child is born with a blue face and has a penchant for drinking alcohol as an adult because that was the source of its birth defect. That blue faced child likely to have brain damage too (right????:) even though the blue face went away, is going to do everything in his/her power so that he/she cannot be deprived of alcohol and in fact so that other people can be leveled down to his/her level by alcohol consumption! That would be a person that is very hard to convince of anything. And the inability to learn is in effect the inability to be convinced. And it is a sign of a defective hippo campus.
Contraindication:
Now what if the driver above was not drunk and it was the child of a lifetime drunk that was crossing the street without looking left and right?
Can you see why I might not be well liked?
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 10 25 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment