Those are not facts, just your interpretation.

He killed a man. That is a crime and in general a no-no in certain faiths.

Whether he was justified in the act is a matter for the courts. And until that is determined he is a criminal.

IG

 

 

Not always. He does not give the circumstances, and there are many where it would not be a crime.

Not all homicides are crimes. How many cops go to court for killing a suspect? How many GIs end up in court when engaged in a fire fight? And on and on.

As I said, he did not give the circumstances. You just assumed what you call facts, but since there is insufficient data to corroborate your assumptions, they are just your opinion, not facts.

True, but even if cop shoots someone there is an investigation and the coip, while not arrested is under some suspicion until the investigation is taken place.

Without an investigation, juistified or not the assault onthe man alone is a crime.

 

 

He did not say there was no investigation. That was part of the point. The lack of details. We are left to then take it on face value (and leave the questions unanswered) or to assume details not stated, or provide our own conditions. many did.

I chose to look at it as a universal question. And answered that way. Just as the question was not a blanket amnesty to all who had committed homicide, neither was my answer a blanket condoning of all who had. Only that yes, I can see where a man who has killed another, is 1 - not condemned by that one action as an absolute, and 2 - that what a man did 40 years ago is no indication of who he is today.

We need more information then.. as how can you have respect for G-d's law when you violate it (if he did) and have no remorse.. even if justified, the good mman would feel some pity or regret of action.

Even the death of a vile man, shold evoke some sort of pity, itf not for the man for his family.

 

 

He did not say whether he felt any pity or remorse. You are looking for an exact situation, and he has given you a general question. For what you seek, yes, more information is necessary. For me, I only know that not all men that kill are bad, and not all men that dont kill are good. And I can see a good man killing (not under any circumstances, but under some).

Maybe, and this just hit me reading my response, you see the question as seeking affirmation of his past actions. While I only see the question as who the man is today, not what he did 40 years ago, and not seeking forgiveness, understanding, or justification.

Obviously you skipped the part where I said he served 1o years in prison.

Doing ten years is "not escaping justice" by any means.

You have made the classic mistake of filling in facts to suit your arguement, no such "facts were presented.

You're still alive?  Wow.  Anyway, you seem not to have figured out right from wrong yet at your advanced age; shouldn't you be dispensing wisdom to us young folk, rather than the other way around?

Who the hell are you? What the fuck are you talking about?

Answer the fucking question:  why are you asking kids young enough to be your grandchildren what is right and wrong?  YOU should be dispensing wisdom to US.

You stated he killed a man... generally that is a crime, unless there are other factors at play.

That was not part of the original post and no I did not see it... can yo uput the quesiton again but with anything you added after the fact?

 

 

 

I see you are new.. so welcome to my B.L.