The dumb guy who had a 100 accidents
2007-11-06 03:21:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The person who is evil may not reform and remain a danger to the society, whereas a person who killed 100 by accident will always be more careful to avoid accidents.He has killed them by accidents only.The evil man does not deserve any mercy or protection.
2007-11-06 03:25:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by yogeshwargarg 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Neither. But I noticed the one killing one was called evil, where the other wasn't. In fact the other could have simply been a soldier. Thus though the evil man might have only actually killed one he could've hurt or tortured thousands.
But if you're asking God's opinion, sin is sin and you're judged by your heart.
2007-11-06 03:31:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by syllylou77 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I probably wouldn't care about either. They hurt my family, THEN it's game time. Whatever happened to the concept of personal revenge? Why is every problem CNN's buisness that the entire country has to know about and solve? I think its BS.
2007-11-06 03:24:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by <Sweet-Innocence> 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think the person who killed 100 people should go away -- he killed more, even though it was unintentional -- it is still worse than killing only one.
Good question... : )
2007-11-06 03:23:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I will offer the opportunity of salvation through Jesus to anyone I could.
2007-11-06 04:14:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Darth Eugene Vader 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is the second man evil also? :o)
2007-11-06 04:05:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Linz VT•AM 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the intent is very important. I'd go with the overly clumsy fellow.
2007-11-06 03:28:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by esoteric_knight 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I only save friends and relatives, others are SOL....
2007-11-06 03:20:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by outcrop 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Good question, kill them both.
2007-11-06 03:24:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋