OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's involuntary manslaughter, not murder.you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs
That's involuntary manslaughter, not murder.you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs
'Intent' is central to way people view culpability, so nice paragraph harsh.
It certainly is when it's convenient for the point of view you wish to endorse, anyway.
As I submitted, I was being selective. Also as I submitted, I thought cheating and stealing were close enough to compare. Still do. Much closer than cheating and murder.you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs
True Sledge, you could. I obviously don't think the selectivity was that awful.Haha, yes, but being your manner of being "selective" in this instance was just nonsense. It was akin to just choosing all of the evidence that supported your view, and then just ignoring all of the other evidence that contradicted that which you cited.
I'm pretty sure I could make a very strong case about the demerits of a particular player if I chose to be "selective" in respect of the material I identified as valid grounds for my analysis. I expect I could quite easily argue that Tendulkar was not very good player if I "selectively" discounted all of his innings where he scored more than 10 runs.
Didn't expect him to get picked up."Bangladesh seamer Al-Amin Hossain has been reported for a suspect action following his team's ten-wicket loss to West Indies in the first Test in St Vincent "
No they're not, and you repeating it 75 times will not change that.Here lies the entire problem about the process. How are the deliveries selected? On which basis? Have it been tested against bowlers with clean actions using same selection protocol for selection of deliveries?
These are questions needed to be answered.
I thought it was just an apologist trying to make excuses personally.A reasonable piece I thought;
I hope have a really uncomfortable itch on the bottom of your foot you can never scratch.I'd like them to test and ban Jeets next, just to crush Athlai, Hendrix and Maximas.
I doubt they can do that considering they were the ones who cleared him in the first place.So, he's banned, but does it mean anything? He was probably retiring after the world cup anyway, seems irrelevant unless they strip his record or some ****.
Hey hey hey. His arm hair prevented him chucking. Everyone knows that,I think they should retroactively test Dennis Lillee, declare his action illegal, and bring crashing down the entire Aussie cricket pantheon overnight. Nothing will be left.
Wow, to hell with the super-slomo and all the contraptions, that chuck at 3:17 was an absolute shocker.3:17
As long as they take down Narine too. Yep sure.Accepting Kane's ban now then, Howsie?
Not playing tests has allowed him to slip under the radar. If he gets collared for a suspect action, I bet he'll announce his retirement 5 minutes later.Kyle Mills must surely be the next bowler picked up, biggest fast bowling chucker I've ever seen. A ban right before the World Cup starts would be nice.
No it isn't. You can be recklessly indifferent to human life and be convicted of murder.That's involuntary manslaughter, not murder.
Mens rea bitch.you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs