Crazy Homicide Questions

[jross]

The purpose of this post is to explore context and nuances of homicide.  The questions are Jimmy Whelcher style and they will be sewn together in the end for relevancy to some non wrestling topics in this forum.

Interesting.  A person who kills another person in self-defense may not be charged with homicide. In order to claim self-defense, a person must reasonably believe that they are in immediate danger of being harmed and that the use of deadly force is necessary to protect themselves.

Drinking and driving can pose serious health risks to other drivers on the road.  Is or should it be legal to homicide a person leaving the bar drunk when they start up their car to drive to their next place?

Edited April 7, 2023 by jross

[Wrestleknownothing]

No

[LJB]

this is a joke, right?

 

[Plasmodium]

You won't get any pushback for slashing tires.

[VakAttack]

Homicide is, definitionally, a neutral term that just means a person has killed another person.  Whether or not that homicide meets the elements of the charge of murder is a different thing.

 

No, it is not nor should it be legal to murder someone for what you think they might do.

[Bigbrog]

Ahhh...deep thoughts by jross...you should do a daily thread like this.

[LJB]

what if C-A-T really spelled dog?????

[Bigbrog]

Here's one...what if climate change was responsible for more homers in baseball??  Oh wait, "scientists" are making that claim...

[LJB]

my favorite was climate change (remember when it used to be called something else) was responsible for childhood obesity because it is too hot to go outside and play...

that was a real live article...

[jross]

About 30% of all traffic crash fatalities in the United States involve drunk drivers (with BACs of .08 g/dL or higher). In 2020, there were 11,654 people killed in these preventable crashes. In every state, it’s illegal to drive drunk, yet one person was killed in a drunk-driving crash every 45 minutes in the United States in 2020.  https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

Kansas finally has something to brag about on a wrestling forum.

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesAlcohol.aspx

[jross]

56 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Homicide is, definitionally, a neutral term that just means a person has killed another person.  Whether or not that homicide meets the elements of the charge of murder is a different thing.

No, it is not nor should it be legal to murder someone for what you think they might do.

What makes homicide for self-defense murder? 

I feel very threatened and reasonable believe that drunk drivers on the road are going to harm me, just like they did my aunt, great-grandmother, and my friend's sister.  

[Bigbrog]

32 minutes ago, jross said:

What makes homicide for self-defense murder? 

I feel very threatened and reasonable believe that drunk drivers on the road are going to harm me, just like they did my aunt, great-grandmother, and my friend's sister.  

UGH!  My condolences jross!!  

[El Luchador]

I think the best solution is to allow only drunk drivers on the road from 1am to 3 am.

[Bigbrog]

25 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

I think the best solution is to allow only drunk drivers on the road from 1am to 3 am.

Darwinism at its best

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, jross said:

What makes homicide for self-defense murder? 

I feel very threatened and reasonable believe that drunk drivers on the road are going to harm me, just like they did my aunt, great-grandmother, and my friend's sister.  

Actual imminent danger vs. perceived potential danger.  If you drive while drunk, there is a penalty for that.  It is not death.

[El Luchador]

6 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Actual imminent danger vs. perceived potential danger.  If you drive while drunk, there is a penalty for that.  It is not death.

Also in most states you need to have no other reasonable options. 

[jross]

Question #2

Food, Shelter, Health, Transport, Education, and Entertainment can be expensive.  Family providers may be concerned that they do not have the financial resources to support their family members. In this case of concern, should the provider have the legal right to choose to homicide their family to avoid the financial burden?

Edited April 7, 2023 by jross

[Plasmodium]

Obvious solution is to suspend the use of powered vehicles until AI is reliable.  For now, we should only ride horses as they don't drink and they aren't fond of running into each other.

[El Luchador]

25 minutes ago, jross said:

Question #2

Food, Shelter, Health, Transport, Education, and Entertainment can be expensive.  Family providers may be concerned that they do not have the financial resources to support their family members. In this case of concern, should the provider have the legal right to choose to homicide their family to avoid the financial burden?

This is a power reserved for the government. 

[Plasmodium]

24 minutes ago, jross said:

Question #2

Food, Shelter, Health, Transport, Education, and Entertainment can be expensive.  Family providers may be concerned that they do not have the financial resources to support their family members. In this case of concern, should the provider have the legal right to choose to homicide their family to avoid the financial burden?

I think so, but only under specific circumstances.   One circumstance is if they are young and unwilling to do homework. Those people are destined to be a burden on society.

[El Luchador]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I think so, but only under specific circumstances.   One circumstance is if they are young and unwilling to do homework. Those people are destined to be a burden on society.

Kinda like a retroactive abortion?  Maybe out to the 100th trimester? 

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Kinda like a retroactive abortion?  Maybe out to the 100th trimester? 

Exactly, but with some restrictions.  I feel like they have to make the final selection on their gender.  And the decision maker can only be a parent who identifies as a mother.

[El Luchador]

9 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Exactly, but with some restrictions.  I feel like they have to make the final selection on their gender.  And the decision maker can only be a parent who identifies as a mother.

You mean the gestational parent? I'm not sure what this mother term is.

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

You mean the gestational parent? I'm not sure what this mother term is.

No, absolutely not.  It is up to the mother to decide what it means to be a mother.  That is why she/he/they/xi have the decision making capacity.

[LJB]

i literally can not tell if this parody or not...