By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 18 April 2010
Edit Thread
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

Additionally a condition not being reported to them, is in no way there fault.  It's like saying driving is wrong because there is always the risk somebody could have narcelpsy and the person who does the drivers liscense test wouldn't know that.  Did what they do have risks?  Yes.  Were those risks large or even signficiant?  No.  There are much larger risks with plenty of stuff we allow.

This situation is closer to a driver having a heart attack, and your punching them repeatedly to get them to "stop faking".

If you checked their vitals first and there was no sign of a heart attack and if truck drivers have had a history of faking heart attacks.

Though, if you include all of those qualifers, sure.

Only if the acceptable "treatment" for a truck driver faking a heart attack is beating them up.

Which I doubt.

Which is irrelevent.  Since he was referring to this as "An unknown health risk that could of lead to his death by punching."

Which it wasn't.

His death was in no way caused by said corporal punishment... like, at all.  In an odd way it probably led to a better chance of saving his life.

 

The death, and corporal punishment used against minors is two COMPLETLY different arguements.  Which is all that I am saying.  You need to seperate the two. 

Well that and said corporal punishment isn't risky.  Disagreements with corporal punishment against minors needs to be levied on something other then a worry of health arguement... since that isn't a substantial risk.

A better reason would be say "It's just wrong to hit anybody who's a prisoner unless they are activly fighting back against their guard."


Which is why I think said corproral punishment is wrong.  However it's important to treat this for what it really was.  Two completly unrelated cases.