The Filipino and the Drunkard Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

The Filipino and the Drunkard - Essay Example This confirms his passive aggressiveness to actually inflict injury on another person. Though this may be considered as proof that there was conclusive intent on his part to kill the drunkard, the circumstance of his utterance evidences the contrary. There was unlawful aggression on the part of the drunkard but his actions of stabbing, although it is categorically harassment of a grave nature, does not equate to a real life threatening situation which would make self-defense appreciable. It is not a reasonable means in relation to the type of aggression. There was no overt act on the part of the American that manifests he is without a doubt going to hurt or kill the Filipino. He had no deadly weapon except the fact that he was significantly bigger than the boy. Furthermore, one must consider that he was in a state of drunkenness and this is an alternative circumstance since he does not have the full capacity to grasp his actions and the right state of mind. When the drunkard grabbed hold of the boy and was choking him, we must consider that there was also provocation on the part of the Filipino since he first stabbed the man. It was clear from the facts that the Filipino was already overcome with rage and had decided to hurt the drunkard but he did not want to kill him. On a sudden fit of rage he stabbed the man once. If he was able to thrust his knife multiple times while was held compromisingly by the physically larger drunkard, then, on the first attack he would have already done so. This proves that his initial intention was to somehow physically hurt the man. But to reiterate, he was not completely without fault and to fully absolve him of his acts would be

Discussion Response Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Discussion Response - Essay Example Government machinery was deployed in both cases to ensure that the leaders’ ideologies were implemented. This took the form of mass violence, the establishment of concentration camps, and strict control of every aspect of the people’s lives as you rightly state. I have learnt from you one main difference between Hitler and Stalin that never was on my mind; the faà §ades they presented in public. I like the way you put it; Stalin’s speech and presentation in public light was positive while the actions he did or oversaw were quite the opposite, unlike Hitler who never minded what others thought of him. That said, I will like to add a point to your post in relation to the differences of the two regimes. While both regimes were oriented toward the good of the state as opposed to the individual, they were different in the sense that the Nazi movement focused on eliminating inferior races and people from the country while the Soviet regime was focused on eliminating class differences as noted by Kershaw and Moshà © (1997). In some sense, therefore, the two regimes used the same means (violence and strict controls) to meet different ends (establishing a pure Aryan state versus eliminating class