Mise said:
True, as am I. I won't know for sure whether I am able to hold on to those principles or not if I end up with a difficult choice, so that's all I can say at this point. Unlike this situation. Where the act was very minimal, it was done with minors who committed serious crimes and violated probation, with the goal to make sure these people don't screw up their lives as adults.
You can have the best intentions (those are what the road to hell is paved with) and still end up making things far worse with your methods. I'm not a believer of the "ends justify the means" - line of thinking, at least not in this case. The comparison you draw is quite drastically different. "As you don't eat men their is no point in butchering them."
The scale might be, but the core issue is the same - whether people would or could do something that's against their beliefs when coerced by the current authority. Most people do, some don't. Here there was a point, and it's something that wasn't fatal, and really should never be fatal... hence the nurse being on hand.
But it is, and it always can be. A single punch can kill a human being when the circumstances are right, and you don't have to be a martial arts expert or to attack a dying human being to do it. |
1) It doesn't really change the point
2) The core issue isn't the same... the scale makes it not so. One involves the death. The other involves bruises.
3) No, but being a county sheriff, you are in fact trained and know what kind of attack can and would hurt somebody.... these were in fact... trained proffesionals... and they actually had the nurse there to diagnose any problems. That's why they actually did cause the ambulence when significant problems arose.
