Originally Posted by traderumor
RBA, it is tragic.
However, (not directed at you RBA, but anyone) at the risk of stating the obvious, I'm not sure how this boy can be charged with a crime based on our current legal view of this issue. Beat with a bat, sucked out with a vaccuum, or whatever the method used, what makes the difference? They both made the choice, I might add. Could someone please attempt to reconcile this for me?
Um, by that argument getting whacked in the mouth with a baseball bat would be the same as dentistry. Being eviscerated by a switchblade would be surgery.
If you cannot see the difference between an act of violence committed by a thug and a medical procedure performed by a physician, I don't really know what to say.