Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tzarevitch" data-source="post: 88911" data-attributes="member: 1792">Whether or not the person remains dead has nothing to do with the fact that he was killed. Manslaughter is the act of killing someone (i.e. rendering someone dead.) You are confusing an action and an outcome. The crime is in the action not the outcome of the action. 1. Action: Rendering someone dead.2. Outcome: Person is dead. #1 is a crime, #2 is not. The argument, &quot;But I resurrected him,&quot; would negate the outcome. It does not negate the original action, the act of killing a person in the first place. The person was killed she is simply now no longer dead. That does not cause her to be unkilled, it causes her to not be dead right now. There is a big difference. A good analogy is the argument, &quot;Yes I stole it . . . but I gave it back later.&quot; The fact that you gave it back does not mean that you did not steal it, it just means that you gave it back. Giving it back might earn you a lesser penalty for theft, but you are still a thief. In the original story the rogue IS guilty of manslaughter regardless of the fact that the girl is no longer dead. The fact that he took action to try and make up for what he had done (by raising her) would help mitigate possible penalties by producing a more acceptable outcome to the slain party, but it does not mitigate the underlying action (the fact that he slew her in the first place). Tzarevitch</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tzarevitch, post: 88911, member: 1792"] Whether or not the person remains dead has nothing to do with the fact that he was killed. Manslaughter is the act of killing someone (i.e. rendering someone dead.) You are confusing an action and an outcome. The crime is in the action not the outcome of the action. 1. Action: Rendering someone dead. 2. Outcome: Person is dead. #1 is a crime, #2 is not. The argument, "But I resurrected him," would negate the outcome. It does not negate the original action, the act of killing a person in the first place. The person was killed she is simply now no longer dead. That does not cause her to be unkilled, it causes her to not be dead right now. There is a big difference. A good analogy is the argument, "Yes I stole it . . . but I gave it back later." The fact that you gave it back does not mean that you did not steal it, it just means that you gave it back. Giving it back might earn you a lesser penalty for theft, but you are still a thief. In the original story the rogue IS guilty of manslaughter regardless of the fact that the girl is no longer dead. The fact that he took action to try and make up for what he had done (by raising her) would help mitigate possible penalties by producing a more acceptable outcome to the slain party, but it does not mitigate the underlying action (the fact that he slew her in the first place). Tzarevitch [/QUOTE]

Verification