- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 4,230
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Constitutional rights are the foundation of legal rights. I don't find any support for how the two conflicting rights can exist based on the Constitution.I'm beginning to think you're not yet a Junior in high school.
Someone in THE COMMISSION of a MURDER is not "accused". They are subject to ZERO constitutional rights when IN THE COMMISSION of a murder. I've cited the section code of federal law for you like 3 times. Either you start reading THE LAW, or learn it when you get to college.
There's a reason people can defend themselves with lethal force. There's a REASON Wilson is not EVEN indicted. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes. I encourage everyone to try and protect their lives. Killing other people is not the best means for protecting your own life. It's the best means for killing other people.The criminal doesn't care if he kills you, shouldn't you care about protecting yoir life?
Police have technology, numbers, strength, and experience on their side. I expect the police to be able to use these to supplement them when engaging potential criminals in place of simply shooting them.Actually, he is saying both should live, only he doesn't understand that when faced with the attack police can't run like he would. Is that the world he wants to live in? One where police run from criminals rather than one where police stop criminals?
I agree with much of the second half of your post, but I believe that we're currently far too biased towards property rights and law enforcement at the detriment to general protections of citizens. The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are basically a permission slip for giving capital sentences to mid level criminals.
We need to dissuade lethal answers and increase prevention.
Death should be avoided. Extreme threats should be prevented.Is death an acceptable response to extreme threats to you then?
Constitutional rights are the foundation of legal rights. I don't find any support for how the two conflicting rights can exist based on the Constitution.
Yes. I encourage everyone to try and protect their lives. Killing other people is not the best means for protecting your own life. It's the best means for killing other people.
Police have technology, numbers, strength, and experience on their side. I expect the police to be able to use these to supplement them when engaging potential criminals in place of simply shooting them.
Death should be avoided. Extreme threats should be prevented.
Constitutional rights are the foundation of legal rights. I don't find any support for how the two conflicting rights can exist based on the Constitution.
Yes. I encourage everyone to try and protect their lives. Killing other people is not the best means for protecting your own life. It's the best means for killing other people.
Police have technology, numbers, strength, and experience on their side. I expect the police to be able to use these to supplement them when engaging potential criminals in place of simply shooting them.
Increased social services, increased education, increased legal barriers to killing, more community outreach, greater staffing, greater training, etc.And, what is your detailed prevention plan...............
You're citing case law. I'm citing Constitutional rights. The two are in conflict. I'm siding with the document that's the foundation of the republic.I cited law, you are just babbling and making up lies.
Thanks for showing your ignorance on the subject and I really do hope you get educated on it. Law is a very interesting topic especially when you know it.
You're arguing a false dichotomy. Killing others is not the only method of preventing your own death.As an individual.... I cannot change the desire of another to murder me.
I CAN change my response to that.... and despite your ideals that Murderers deserve more rights than victims.... my response is still to defend myself with the use of lethal force (if necessary).
The difference is that law enforcement is organized, the overwhelming majority of those offenders are not, and in addition those 12 million offenders are rarely attempting to murder people.LOL! I just noticed this. You just said police have the "numbers"??? LOL! 12 MILLION offenders in 2013- that's not including multiple offenses! Only 780,000 total law enforcement (including park rangers and CT security). The FBI estimates 24 offenders to ONE police officer.
What a hilariously incorrect statement you made. You are just an anti-cop propaganda machine.
The difference is that law enforcement is organized, the overwhelming majority of those offenders are not, and in addition those 12 million offenders are rarely attempting to murder people.
The difference is that law enforcement is organized, the overwhelming majority of those offenders are not, and in addition those 12 million offenders are rarely attempting to murder people.
What kind of social services..... Its a broad termIncreased social services,
How would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill? It won't. Even educated people kill.increased education
We already have the death penalty... and yet people kill in those states. Not all murders are committed with a gun. So there goes your Gun Control idea (because that is where you were going with this I know)increased legal barriers to killing
And how would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill another person?more community outreach,
WTF does that have to do with preventing people from wanting to murder others?greater staffing, greater training, etc.
You're arguing a false dichotomy. Killing others is not the only method of preventing your own death.
I'm concerned you may kill give, ten, maybe fifty people. Should we be proactively killing you to prevent that?They should be organized. With millions of people attacking them they should be prepared to shoot their way out if they need to, such as the savage Brown case.
People shoot at police all the time. Luckily, they are trained well enough (and getting better) at eliminating the threat so the general public is safe. People like Brown...who knows how many innocents he would have slaughtered in cold blood, just as he tried to against Wilson. 5? 10? 50?
This is not indicative of the 12 million number provided. It's an outlier in terms of the daily encounters officers face.In the case we're discussing, they were attempting to murder people. They were attempting to murder the cops with a deadly weapon, their vehicle.
And what makes your subjective view on the value of life more significant than the subjective views of everyone else, including potential offenders?While you are correct....
You are not correct 100% of the time.
My life is worth a higher percentage of success.
True. Of the millions of encounters police have with civilians, ones in which lives are threatened make up only a small percentage. Good thing, huh?I'm concerned you may kill give, ten, maybe fifty people. Should we be proactively killing you to prevent that?
This is not indicative of the 12 million number provided. It's an outlier in terms of the daily encounters officers face.
And what makes your subjective view on the value of life more significant than the subjective views of everyone else, including potential offenders?
Indeed. I'd still like to improve that, however.True. Of the millions of encounters police have with civilians, ones in which lives are threatened make up only a small percentage. Good thing, huh?
I'm concerned you may kill give, ten, maybe fifty people. Should we be proactively killing you to prevent that?
This is not indicative of the 12 million number provided. It's an outlier in terms of the daily encounters officers face.
And what makes your subjective view on the value of life more significant than the subjective views of everyone else, including potential offenders?
Indeed. I'd still like to improve that, however.
Just as your concerns about who Brown might've killed are rampant speculation and of no real value to the conversation.Your concerns are not relevant until (hypothetically) I did act on them. The moment I act on them, as Brown did, I am subject to be killed. Very easy concept. I cited laws and regs, you have your crazy and hilarious theories. Best of luck in the future. Don't attack any cops. You know what will happen.
Status quo may be acceptable for some, but I expect more from my citizens and my government.Wouldn't that be great? We would truly have a great society if no one ever threatened the lives of cops or anyone else.
Here in the real world, however, things aren't so peaceful.
Just as your concerns about who Brown might've killed are rampant speculation and of no real value to the conversation.
Status quo may be acceptable for some, but I expect more from my citizens and my government.
We've failed our citizens by not giving them affordable, easily accessible, low stigma mental health.What kind of social services..... Its a broad term
How would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill? It won't. Even educated people kill.
The death penalty isn't a solution, and yes, decreasing access to lethal weapons would contribute to decreased lethal acts.We already have the death penalty... and yet people kill in those states. Not all murders are committed with a gun. So there goes your Gun Control idea (because that is where you were going with this I know)
Obviously you can't control every human emotion, but you can decrease imbalances that contribute to at least one motive for killing.And how would this prevent human emotion from creating the desire to kill another person?
I'm advocating what I perceive as a Constitutional right to fair trial, due process, ability to face an accuser, right to council, etc. This would be achieved by not permitting lethal force, even with the justification of stopping a crime in progress. Ideally, this would promote the secondary goal of decreased violence in general.WTF does that have to do with preventing people from wanting to murder others?
Or was I wrong this whole time...
Was it your desire to prevent people from stoping murderers by using lethal force, rather than from preventing murderers from having the desire to murder......
I don't advocate attempted murder. I also don't advocate killing. They've both bad for society.My speculations about brown were irrelevant. His actions were not. He attempted to murder a cop, and died in the process. All of the right things happened in that scenario. Too bad we have people so stupid on this planet that they would try and murder a cop in cold blood, or anyone for that matter.
Crazy right?
I don't advocate attempted murder. I also don't advocate killing. They've both bad for society.
We likely agree on a good many things. I'm a fan of order and justice. I see that as being a product of an organized, consistent, and objective system. Individual judgments and actions are frequently going to be disorganized, inconsistent, and subjective. I'm advocating removing those factors from the way we treat citizens.At least we agree on something
We likely agree on a good many things. I'm a fan of order and justice. I see that as being a product of an organized, consistent, and objective system. Individual judgments and actions are frequently going to be disorganized, inconsistent, and subjective. I'm advocating removing those factors from the way we treat citizens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?