- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If any of Penny’s potential lawyers happen upon this, consider it a rhetorical post. Was it the chokehold / or the jerking train / which actually was the final clincher that killed Neely? Has this been discussed yet?
In Jewish law isn’t it the one responsible for the final-clincher who’s held liable, even if the final person just happened to be in the way (with no intent to harm)? Of course, I don’t mean that Penny’s intent was to harm. Rather i’m just citing Jewish law from the bowels of murky memory.
If you take that approach, then the liberal mob will assert that the transit system is racist and should pay reparations.
I think a very worthy argument (which I have not heard on the news) is “What would you have done if you were on the train?” Would you allow neely to harm others? Do you know of a better way to restrain a violent man threatening others? If so, do you think your reflexes would have sprung into action and done that?
The concept of spinning an argument can be a very powerful one and should be used more often to defeat stupid points of view. For example, when Hamas Islamic Jihad etc , launches 1,000 rockets at Israeli citizens and Israel responds with airstrikes, they should ask the brain-dead liberal who complains “So what do recommend Israel should do?” then just sit quietly.
Dear Judy,
Your memory is incorrect.
Holding someone down in a fatal sequence is liable for the death penalty.
Even without the Torah criteria for the death penalty, it’s still murder.
I’m not commenting on this specific instance.
Though it is worth remembering that this not a unique occurrence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.