pointless-letters:buffaleen:pointless-letters:AMANDA PLATELL: “Just to be clear, I’m not blaming thi

pointless-letters:buffaleen:pointless-letters:AMANDA PLATELL: “Just to be clear, I’m not blaming this murder victim. Who drank alcohol and partied. Not blaming her at all in any way. She drank Jagerbombs, by the way. But not blaming. No blame here. Even though she drank six of them. No blame.”Of course she has the “right” to get drunk (that is, at least the choice).  Of course we should never blame the victim (even when their actions “ask” for it).  Still, she *was* stupid.  And her friends were stupid.  And if her parents allowed it, they were also stupid.  And stupidity does have its consequences.  Normally not this dire, but then, risky behavior has *risks*.  Thus, when the risks don’t favor the stupid, it’s hardly surprising.  If it wasn’t this, it would have been something else, given the chances.  Just saying.Just out of curiosity, I have to ask: at what point does this young woman *stop* being stupid? And at what point does she *not* share some responsibility for her own murder? Since “stepping out of her front door, going to a club and drinking six Jagerbombs” is obviously enough to go over that threshold, I’m wondering where exactly that red line sits. If she had had five drinks and not six before being murdered, would that do it? What about four? Two? Just one? What if she had been on wine or beer instead of spirits, would that do it? Is stupidity in this case a function of number of drinks or units of alcohol consumed? If she had decided to go to another club, would that do it? Was she stupid to go to a club at all, not considering that there might be someone there who might murder her? What if she had stayed home but got murdered by someone who came into her house? Would she then have been stupid for *not* leaving the house? What if she had gone out, not had any alcoholic drinks at all, and still got murdered? If she had been a heavy smoker and had lacked the lung capacity to make a run for it, would that have done it? If she had never touched a drop of alcohol or a cigarette in her life but needed glasses to see and didn’t wear them that night and so didn’t see her murderer approach, would that have made a difference in her level of stupidity? At what point is a murdered young woman simply allowed to be referred to as a murdered young woman without additional qualifiers being added like how much she had to drink, or how stupid she was taking risks like stepping out of her door and thinking she could go out with friends and have drinks and still expect to be alive in the morning? At what point of personal probity and sobriety is the responsibility for her own murder - or at least the apparent complicity of stupidity - lifted from her shoulders? Put simply: in your eyes, how “good” does this young woman have to be before she becomes someone who was murdered and not someone who was murdered BUT…? Because I really can’t see the “stupid / not stupid” dividing line here. I really can’t. Just fucking saying.CAN I GET AN A-MEN?! -- source link

More pics about