All things considered, a coathanger is safer

CFLarsen said:
You are not arguing that the woman was trying to commit suicide?
Click to expand...

Going only by Mycroft's quotes, he is not arguing that the woman tried to commit suicide, in my opinion.

It seems the discussion was aimed at figuring out the legal status of suicide, but I could be wrong.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Some people, to include the recently departed Hunter S Thompson, resort to suicide via a fairly rational (if unfortunately gloomy) assessment of the value of continued life.
Click to expand...

In general I think your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to. I disagree with you on this point, but perhaps we can save it for another day and another thread. :)
 
Mycroft said:
In general I think your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to. I disagree with you on this point, but perhaps we can save it for another day and another thread. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, another thread for another time.

DR
 
drkitten said:
To my naive reading, that's a direct violation of the prohibition on double jeopardy.

Perhaps one of the members of the bar can explain to me why the State of Virginia gets two bites at the cherry?
Click to expand...

It's kind of a complex area of law, but the short answer is that jeopardy doesn't attach until a jury is impaneled and sworn.
 
Mycroft said:
In general I think your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to. I disagree with you on this point, but perhaps we can save it for another day and another thread. :)
Click to expand...
Translation: "Sorry, DR, even though your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to, I can't discuss this with you right now. I'm too involved in another quicksand argument with CFL."

Now you recognize the high esteem Mycroft holds you in. :D
 
BPSCG said:
Translation: "Sorry, DR, even though your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to, I can't discuss this with you right now. I'm too involved in another quicksand argument with CFL."

Now you recognize the high esteem Mycroft holds you in. :D
Click to expand...

Lol!

Even without the pest, I think I would hold off on that for another time and thread. :)
 
Darth Rotor said:
Jesus Wept, Dodgers lose it in Six
Click to expand...


Or "Jesus wept; dodgers swept."






On topic: the judge's reading of the language appears to be very strained.

[on a point made by Katana (IIRC)]: Legilative intent is sometimes looked to, but I prefer the stricter school that says that the statutory language shoiuld stand on its own. The law says what it says, not what the Legislature might have meant it to say. I think it is especially dangerous to use legislative history now -- since it was first invoked, many legislators have attempted to game the system by making self-serving comments on the floor regarding legislative intent that are simply untrue, or at least questionable. IMO, it makes legislative history too untrustworthy to be used as a guide.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Or "Jesus wept; dodgers swept."
Click to expand...
Crisp. One Shiner Bock, in a mug, coming up. Well played. :)
On topic: the judge's reading of the language appears to be very strained.
Legislative intent is sometimes looked to, but I prefer the stricter school that says that the statutory language shoiuld stand on its own. The law says what it says, not what the Legislature might have meant it to say. I think it is especially dangerous to use legislative history now -- since it was first invoked, many legislators have attempted to game the system by making self-serving comments on the floor regarding legislative intent that are simply untrue, or at least questionable. IMO, it makes legislative history too untrustworthy to be used as a guide.
Click to expand...
*nods* Say what you mean, mean what you say, or be honest enough to admit that the statute was worded in a deliberately vague manner to get through the chamber.
Mycroft said:
In general I think your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to. I disagree with you on this point, but perhaps we can save it for another day and another thread.
Click to expand...
BPSCG said:
Translation: "Sorry, DR, even though your opinions are well though out and worth paying attention to, I can't discuss this with you right now. I'm too involved in another quicksand argument with CFL."

Now you recognize the high esteem Mycroft holds you in. :D
Click to expand...

Oh dear, do I need to become a better time bandit than Claus? I recognized, as Mycroft may have, where that derail could lead to: The great gnashing of teeth I first read on JREF forums.

DR
 
Isn't it illegal to endanger your own life in a parking lot on purpose?

At any rate, I didn't think much of it until reading that the child was due to be born that day. I'm of the opinion that once something is aware (at least as aware as an infant can be), it's murder. Before awareness, it's getting a wart removed. So yes, I'd say murder was committed here.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Some people, to include the recently departed Hunter S Thompson, resort to suicide via a fairly rational (if unfortunately gloomy) assessment of the value of continued life.
Click to expand...

I meant to say something on this earlier.

There are rational arguments for suicide under certian circumstsnces. At the same time, a law to criminalize attempted suicide (to allow police intervention) with the idea that some percentage of those people are irrational and need such intervention is not a bad idea. Yes, you may have individuals who are rational, but if you have a chance to counsel or medicate someone who isn't thinking straight and thereby save their life, then the idea behind the law is still non-trivial.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I meant to say something on this earlier.

There are rational arguments for suicide under certian circumstsnces. At the same time, a law to criminalize attempted suicide (to allow police intervention) with the idea that some percentage of those people are irrational and need such intervention is not a bad idea. Yes, you may have individuals who are rational, but if you have a chance to counsel or medicate someone who isn't thinking straight and thereby save their life, then the idea behind the law is still non-trivial.
Click to expand...
I think it goes to the core definitions of freedom and liberty. I was an advocate of Dr Jack's merciful approach to dealing with terminal disease. I think the state should stay out of such decisions. That in now way changes my belief that most potential suicides are people who, if reached, can be shown a window into hope, and with hope another attempt a getting up each succeeding morning.

DR
 
I agree with Darth Rotor. Attempted suicide should not be illegal. While I will agree that if you know someone is going to attempt suicide, you should try and talk them out of it, if that person is gung-ho to end their life, that is their choice. We have no more right as a society to force someone to live who doesn't want to then we have to force a woman to reproduce who doesn't want to.

Marc
 
Marc L said:
I agree with Darth Rotor. Attempted suicide should not be illegal. While I will agree that if you know someone is going to attempt suicide, you should try and talk them out of it, if that person is gung-ho to end their life, that is their choice. We have no more right as a society to force someone to live who doesn't want to then we have to force a woman to reproduce who doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

If the person is truly not rational and not capable of makingthat decision, however, I am not sure then anyone has actually infringed on their freedom. In short, that cannot really "want" to end their life if they aren't competent to actually think about anything.
 
Marc L said:
I agree with Darth Rotor. Attempted suicide should not be illegal. While I will agree that if you know someone is going to attempt suicide, you should try and talk them out of it, if that person is gung-ho to end their life, that is their choice. We have no more right as a society to force someone to live who doesn't want to then we have to force a woman to reproduce who doesn't want to.

Marc
Click to expand...

I can understand the suicide (euthanasia) of someone with a terminal illness who is in a lot of pain, but the vast majority of suicides are people suffering depression. A mental illness that can be treated.
 
Mycroft said:
I can understand the suicide (euthanasia) of someone with a terminal illness who is in a lot of pain, but the vast majority of suicides are people suffering depression. A mental illness that can be treated.
Click to expand...
I agree. A cold indifferent view of those who want to kill themselves but are simply suffering depression is very disturbing. I've been there and I'm glad that there were those who cared.
 
Mycroft said:
I can understand the suicide (euthanasia) of someone with a terminal illness who is in a lot of pain, but the vast majority of suicides are people suffering depression. A mental illness that can be treated.
Click to expand...
The few actual suicides that I am personally familiar with (all but three of which involved service members) do not match that descriptive. I understand that my experience fits the "anecdotal" category of understanding.

Depression: clinical or transitory? "Mental illness" is a rather broad descriptive, don't you think?

DR
 
NoZed Avenger said:
If the person is truly not rational and not capable of makingthat decision, however, I am not sure then anyone has actually infringed on their freedom. In short, that cannot really "want" to end their life if they aren't competent to actually think about anything.
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
I can understand the suicide (euthanasia) of someone with a terminal illness who is in a lot of pain, but the vast majority of suicides are people suffering depression. A mental illness that can be treated.
Click to expand...

In both cases, I agree with you. The person involved is making an irrational decision. On the other hand, that's their decision to make. Yes, I think they should be encouraged to seek help, but it doesn't negate the fact that it's still their life to live or not live as they choose.

If we truly want to go along the path of keeping people from making irrational decisions, we should outlaw religion, psychic readings, etc.

Marc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom