414
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
414 points (96.0% liked)
News
35714 readers
867 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It was classed by the court as first degree manslaughter. She got angry, threw food, was "storming" down the street, saw an old lady on the other side of the street, called her a bitch, crossed the street and killed her, to placate her own rage. Yes, I would call that sport killing. It would be slightly different if the woman just happened to be in her way, but she wasn't. She saw a target, made a decision, changed course, and killed her to meet her own emotional need. If she had been in a car and done this there wouldn't be a question (unless of course the lady had been protesting something at the time, then game on!).
Thats.... a wealth of assumptions. What youve detailed assumes a ton about the motive, but you didnt even detail a sport killing. Killing someone "to meet an emotional need" isnt killing for sport.
Youre also assuming that she knew pushing the lady over would be lethal, and that she started an argument with the express intent of justifying lethally shoving her.
She was drunk, bud. A drunk person incorrectly assuming a passer by is insulting them in some way and starting a fight over that assumption is so common its a writing stereotype.
Angrily starting a drunken argument on the street and then getting violent isnt killing for sport.
And, like.... yeah if she had a murder weapon it sure would be different. If she had done it sober at 8 in the morning it would be different too.
E: it feels kinda dumb the say "thats not killing for sport" without saying why. Sport killing is killing for the fun of it. Like, intentionally hunting someone down and killing because you enjoy making someone die. Theres no evidence publicly available that she shoved the victim because she wanted to kill her, for the purpose of personal enjoyment.
Oh honey. I'm not your bud. Being drunk doesn't make it ok to hurt or kill vulnerable people. Just because it's a trope doesn't make it ok... you.. you know that, right? I'm worried that you don't know that.
I kinda thought this was an ordinary conversation, but pretending youre insulted by bud and playing stupid that you think that knowing what killing for sport means must mean I think that this was a justified act.... are you okay? Did you take a few hits of something in the past hour?
You understand that wrongful death is still a crime even when its not killing for sport, yes? Do I need to, like, walk you through every way a person can kill another person, and reassure you that each one is also bad?
Or are you gonna make up more baseless nonsense about how this lady secretly plotted and hunted a total stranger who she machiavellian-esquely knew would be outside the bar, just for the thrill?
That's.... a lot of assumptions, bud.
Kinda ironic, I guess.
Were you ever gonna elaborate on how you are so sure she killed out of premeditated glee, or are you hoping that just goes under the rug
My least favorite thing about forum users is when they think they have some entitlement to having their bad faith questions answered. It's just gross. It's a gross feeling. You know perfectly well that there isn't a legal definition of "sport killing humans." So you're here to provide your own definition, that is different to mine and waggle your cock around pronouncing yourself the king of correctness. Gross.
Notice how you had to add "humans" to that? Since there is a definition for "sport killing," which is "to kill for pleasure"?
Is it gross that you claimed a woman intentionally killed someone for fun, despite you having zero reason to even suspect that? Yeah, its gross as hell.
Is it gross that when you were questioned on your insane theory that this was a pleasure driven intentional murder, you pretended that I must think the death was justified and not a crime? Yeah, its fucking disgusting.
You are attributing cruel intent to a human beings death. Thats very very very fucked up. And it solidifies my point of system reform, because you want to make up stories about a stranger to justify punishing her more. And when questioned, you freak the fuck out, rather than stopping and asking yourself " huh, why did I make up a motive that justified more punishment?"
But Im gross? Thats a riot. Get your priorities straight.
You are just all frothy about this aren't you? (Also gross)
Its fascinating how immediately you begin doing the things you accused me of.
So froth. Very rage.