If instead the person had jumped on the stun grenade to protect others, would you still have a problem with people saying “a cop blew out a students stomach” not be accurate enough for you?
Theyre functionally the same thing. The cop is the reason why the student is now maimed. Saying that’s inaccurate only makes you look like you’re defending their actions, and are instead blaming the victim.
Sure, if the student intended to harm the cop, and slipped it directly under his foot when he went to step. That would be a fair equivalent, and I would say yeah, the student is in the wrong.
You can’t throw something intended to harm others, and then cry fowl. The cop is the reason that students hand is gone. No clue why you would say otherwise, except tovictim blame.
If instead the person had jumped on the stun grenade to protect others, would you still have a problem with people saying “a cop blew out a students stomach” not be accurate enough for you?
Theyre functionally the same thing. The cop is the reason why the student is now maimed. Saying that’s inaccurate only makes you look like you’re defending their actions, and are instead blaming the victim.
Suppose a cop tripped over a students water bottle, hit his head on the ground and died. Did the student murder that cop?
Sure, if the student intended to harm the cop, and slipped it directly under his foot when he went to step. That would be a fair equivalent, and I would say yeah, the student is in the wrong.
You can’t throw something intended to harm others, and then cry fowl. The cop is the reason that students hand is gone. No clue why you would say otherwise, except tovictim blame.
Its interesting you consider the students intention.
What do you suppose was the cop’s intention?