nightwind1
Explorer
It was cold blood. The bouncer was unarmed and surrendering.
Not in my opinion, at least.cold–blood·ed
Pronunciation: \ˈkōl(d)-ˈblə-dəd\
Function: adjective
1 a: done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency <cold–blooded murder> b: matter-of-fact, emotionless <a cold–blooded assessment>
Ok, sure, but then that just transforms the question to, "Do you have a moral obligation to accept someone's surrender, or can you just kill someone in cold blood?"
I appreciate you continuing to give me these permissions. And I will take you up on it. I do disagree. And I guarantee I'm not the only one. I know this because we have countless pages of people saying as much. We are talking about a rash decision made in the moments following a heated battle where the bouncer pulled a deadly weapon. No. Your definition of cold-blooded is overly broad as far as I'm concerned. And ill applied.Update- saw your post- even with your added definition, it is still cold blooded. It was an act without compunction or clemency; pretty much the definition of it (I surrender! No, you die.) But you're free to disagree.
Actually if it was a dagger the bouncer had used, a weapon which is designed only to kill, I think the situation is different. He had a sword. A sword can be used to parry. A sword can be wielded like a club using only the flat of the blade to strike. While I do think that an actual club is a far better weapon for a bouncer I don't think that just because he used a sword means deadly intent.
Voldemort, Davy Jones, and the Red Skull all find your comment insensitive.But, opinions are like ... noses. Everyone has one.
The original topic has been exhausted.