I don't think getting shot and killed would really be all that bad (assuming it were a clean shot; getting gut-shot and dying hours later would be pretty bad). Getting shot and not killed is what I'd be concerned about.
Maybe she was a gambler? It seems to be the case that very few people can actually shoot another person who they're looking in the face, so, usually, daring your attacker is a good move. Of course, gambler's logic is based on being able to play the game more than once.
This reminds me of how I've always wanted to say "What are you going to do? Fire me?" after giving my 2 week's notice ... but the stakes seem a bit higher here.
Guess you never know just what you'll do in the moment, though. Probably not much time to consider.
Well... to the defense of the deceased, it was 3:00 a.m. and they were on their way home after a night of drinking. I presume, had she been sobber, she would not have dared the attackers. Although, in the case of the Cretin in Chief, he was not drunk when he did his daring number... But that's another story.
Mr. Sparks said Ms. duFresne was strongly against capital punishment, and would have felt some sympathy for her young attacker. "This isn't about some bad, murdering criminal," he said. "It's about a culture that makes it so easy for kids to have guns."
It is about a bad criminal, though. Didn't we just have the Fisk discussion?
It's about a guy who oughta fry. Color me Kant via Van Den Haag on this topic. If you deny that a criminal deserves punishment, you have denied his humanity.
I didn't think Michael was necessary speaking in propria persona. I believe we're also all agreed that one can also deny the Sparks position without supporting capital punishment except insofar as Pure Reason tells us to.
I don't think getting shot and killed would really be all that bad (assuming it were a clean shot; getting gut-shot and dying hours later would be pretty bad). Getting shot and not killed is what I'd be concerned about.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-28-05 5:34 PM
Maybe she was a gambler? It seems to be the case that very few people can actually shoot another person who they're looking in the face, so, usually, daring your attacker is a good move. Of course, gambler's logic is based on being able to play the game more than once.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-28-05 6:21 PM
This reminds me of how I've always wanted to say "What are you going to do? Fire me?" after giving my 2 week's notice ... but the stakes seem a bit higher here.
Guess you never know just what you'll do in the moment, though. Probably not much time to consider.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 01-28-05 6:26 PM
Maybe she learned the technique from GW "Bring it on" Bush?
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 01-28-05 11:40 PM
Well... to the defense of the deceased, it was 3:00 a.m. and they were on their way home after a night of drinking. I presume, had she been sobber, she would not have dared the attackers. Although, in the case of the Cretin in Chief, he was not drunk when he did his daring number... But that's another story.
Posted by Leuf | Link to this comment | 01-29-05 9:41 AM
Her fiancee:
It is about a bad criminal, though. Didn't we just have the Fisk discussion?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-29-05 11:22 AM
It's about a bad society which produces bad criminals!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01-29-05 11:56 AM
It's about a guy who oughta fry. Color me Kant via Van Den Haag on this topic. If you deny that a criminal deserves punishment, you have denied his humanity.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-31-05 9:57 AM
Not to mention denying yourself the great pleasure of punishing the bastard.
I assume we're all agreed that Michael's positon and the Labs/baa position are compatible?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-31-05 10:00 AM
yeah, i was just being difficult.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01-31-05 10:44 AM
I didn't think Michael was necessary speaking in propria persona. I believe we're also all agreed that one can also deny the Sparks position without supporting capital punishment except insofar as Pure Reason tells us to.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-31-05 12:09 PM