Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Pro Choice Action Team -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (715)	2/26/2001 8:41:32 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 948

Yes, I can see making a drunk driver donate... He intentionally committed an act (driving drunk) that created a higher-than-normal risk of hitting someone. A fleeing criminal who fails to stop and hits someone would be a forced donor for the same reason. Of course, please remember my other restrictions. The donation has to be absolutely necessary to save the life of the victim, and the drunk driver (or fleeing criminal) has to be the only feasible donor. [If the blood-alcohol-level of the drunk driver is too high, he might not even be a feasible donor, and it would be a moot point! <grin>] The police chasing the criminal would not be a forced donor, unless the high-speed chase violated any standard operating procedures about when such chases are permissible. (Although I suspect that most police officers in this situation would be a "Good Samaritan" and make the donation regardless). I must say, for someone who just answers "Yup" to assert that there is NO DISTINCTION between "attacker" and "victim", you certainly seem to be interested in rather fine distinctions... In other words, for someone who doesn't even acknowledge the concept of "attacker", you are now arguing about various shades of an "attacker"!