I’m splitting hairs, but this depends on the range between the gun and the target … for example, a sniper has to aim not directly at their target in order to hit them depending on the wind, and taking into account gravity, rotation and curvature of the earth … but for your point, yes.
2 Likes
Not a bad point. That being said, if a parent attempts to stop a threat to their child’s life via a long range sniper shot, I hold them 10x as responsible for missing and sniping their own child.
It’s only fair
So it seems that we all agree that if a person takes actions that are criminal, malicious, or reckless and a life is lost as a result, then the person has some culpability. At this point it’s just squabbling about the exact level of reckless that is reached in various hypotheticals.
Of note is that in the original story the person who fired the gun was also held responsible. It’s not an either/or situation.
Charges have already been dropped against the woman who shot the pregnant woman. She was defending her life.
We have one pub that periodically sells it on tap, and I can find it in liquor stores. So good.
1 Like
Indeed, every specific case has details that make it go one way or the other. The principle is that people have a responsibility to not be reckless and a jury rules on the specifics of the case.
A candidate on last night’s debate said “we’re in a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history".
Putting aside the time we actually HAD nuclear war, this day and age is probly below average risk wise if you look at the entire nuclear age.
1 Like
By track record, we’re the biggest threat of nuclear war on earth.
1 Like
If you’re referencing Japan, well, they did have it coming . . . think you know me well enough to recognize the sarcasm.
Well, we do have the most…or does Russia have more?
Either way, it’s comforting to know that the bulk of warheads are a button away from Putin and Trump.
Yikes!
3 Likes
We also think no one should have nukes but us.
Which of course would be just fine with me by the way. Preferably I would be the only one with a nuke. Let’s see my wife tell me to take the trash out now!
Depending on size I probably need to get at least to the backdoor shed if I launch it to hit the kitchen.
4 Likes
You’re going a bit overboard here on the slippery slope argument.
In order for the assault victim to be justified in using deadly force that means preggers was engaged in aggravated assault with or w/o a weapon or attempted murder. Those are felonies.
If you get other people hurt in the commission of a felony then it’s pretty standard to hold you responsible.
A woman going 1mph over the speed limit is a summary offense. A woman going 25mph over the speed limit is felony reckless driving in some states.
If women don’t want to worry about this, just don’t commit felonies.
1 Like
At what point is what is inside the woman a person?
Or don’t get pregnant.
Uh, that’s the shit going on in Alabamistan. If you have an answer, please share.
1 Like
Well yeah. Not breaking the law is always a good idea. But if a woman punches another woman and then gets shot she should face manslaughter charges because she’s pregnant? Seems excessive to me.
Since the beginning of time. Is it a mule? An elephant? Or a human?
If you shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus and mother die, you get charged with double homicide. Even in New York.
Only when the mother wants it dead is it not a person.
1 Like
Yep! That’s something that definitely needs to change if people want legal abortion. Have some consistency anyway.
1 Like
The irony of the situation is it’s only illegal to kill your own child if you aren’t trying to.
2 Likes
That really doesn’t answer the question.