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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (718)	2/26/2001 9:16:10 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 948

Peter, To be honest with you, I might actually rip the guys heart out and watch him bleed to death while stomping on his throat. But, your question was one of justifiable ethics. In fact, if I did react so poorly I could not justify it and would not want my little daughter to even know about it. brees

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (718)	2/26/2001 10:24:36 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 948

You misunderstood. It would be the criminal who gave rise to the police chase, not the policeman, who would be liable. That you could even imagine I would have meant the policeman amazes me. There are many distinctions between the attacker and the victim, but none of them support the system you are proposing. Situational ethics are inescapable for individuals, but they don't make good codified law. Your hypothetical was compelling- but implementing what you wish to do would be a nightmare. Emotions and wishes are not good bases for law. The distinctions I am interested in are not "fine" at all. You simply have not thought out your proposal at all.