reading a reviewer in criminal law. and i quote:

in still another case, the accused entered the store of a chinese couple, to commit robbery. they hogtied the chinaman and his wife. because the wife was so talkative, one of the offenders got a pan de sal and put it in her mouth. but because the woman was trying to wriggle from the bondage, the pan de sal slipped through her throat. she died because of suffocation. the offenders were convicted for robbery with homicide because there was a resulting death, although their intention was only to rob. they were given the benefit of paragraph 3 of article 13, "they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed." there was really no intention to bring about the killing, because it was the pan de sal they put into the mouth. had it been a piece of rag, it would have been different. in that case, the supreme court gave the offenders the benefit of praeter intentionem as a mitigating circumstance. the means employed is not capable of producing death IF ONLY THE WOMAN CHEWED THE PAN DE SAL.


unquote.

at 130 am, with two cups of coffee in a non coffee drinker like me, i was laughing hysterically, saying pan de sal pan de sal. that last statement was so profound. damn. why didn't she chew the pan de sal? if you were tied up with pan de sal stuffed in your mouth would you chew it? probably. with cheez whiz. geez.

back to reading. there's too much blood in my coffee. (to paraphrase faye)