Quote:
tesco samoa said:
Most convential attacks with missles / bombs / troops etc... are based on a grid location. What happens to be located there or beside it is intentionaly included in estimates for colleratal damage.
I do not understand what your saying with the pistol and death penalty.
There is intent in every action. It is the outcomes and results that vary.
|
It is not, however, intentionally targeted. Collateral damage is just that; its damage that is done in the process of destroying a target. It would certainly help if people would stop putting military installations next to (or in certain cases, ON) schools, holy sites, and the like..
There is not intent in every action. Under our legal system, to explain the pistol action better, there are three types of murder:
Third-degree (or manslaughter): You killed someone, but it wasn't intentional.
Second-degree: you killed them but didn't plan their death ahead of time, it wasn't in cold blood
First degree: You not only killed them intentionally, you planned it out ahead of time.
The difference between third and second is the difference between a 5 year prison sentence and 20 years to life; the difference between second and first is the difference between 20 years to life and the death penalty.
That's where the pistol comes in, for your view there doesn't seem to be any difference between them. The act in all cases is the same..so a third degree murderer still deserves the death penalty.
I'm not saying this fine distinction appeals all that much to people who've been hurt unjustly by US attacks, but it doesn't appeal much to families of murder victims either..
EDIT: as for your other comment I haven't read the rest of the thread yet.