Unarmed Vs Not a threat

[ReverendHellh0und]

Defending yourself is fine. Being given permission to kill another citizen is an excessive "right" that should never be given.

never? even if you caught them in the act of raping your wife/sister/mother/daughter?


Not even then, Buddha?

 

[clownboy]

Defending yourself is fine. Being given permission to kill another citizen is an excessive "right" that should never be given.

No, it's not, never has been, in law or philosophy.

 

[Unrepresented]

The "criminal" would have the equal right to defend themselves if I initiated the attack. Nobody has enhanced rights. NOBODY had the right to attack you.

In your version the criminal has enhanced rights though. They can attack and not be attacked.

You're still arguing for circumstantial justification of otherwise illegal acts. Intentionally killing someone is illegal in every other context except this, and it's inconsistent with our approach to dealing with illegal activities.

But the person you are killing has NO say in whether or not they live or die? The societal punishment that you see fit to accept is that they die.

They can defend themselves. I'm simply arguing that killing goes beyond the limits of self defense.

If you killed someone in self defense it wouldn't be on your hands either. It would be on the person who attacked you.

Let's stop with this actually. Let's put your scenario to play in the real world for a second:

Someone breaks into your home with a knife. They are cracked out of their mind and seeing demons (which you happen to look like since...Ya know...cocaine is a hell of a drug). They attack you. With a knife. You somehow are lucky enough to have...say...a bat...and you hit them. One good shot. They DIE.

In MY (or the US government law)...you have nothing to fear. You saved your life. The responsible party is dead. Why? Because they violated the sanctity of your home and put your life in jeopardy. You did the reasonable thing and stopped them.

In YOUR version...you will now face the full weight of the legal system because you murdered someone. You...in cold blood...being the "non objective party" decided that your life was more important than that of that crack heads. You then deprived him of his right to life. And you did it on purpose. Why else would you have defended your life?

Your version does not work when actual lives are at stake.

You're accelerating to a scene well past multiple opportunities to prevent a break in, armed encounter, and assault.

The idea is to not wait until you have an armed intruder in your home suffering from cocaine induced psychosis, because your options are significantly decreased by that point.

 

[Unrepresented]

Not a court. The legislative branch. The one who put self defense laws on the book. Reasonable laws that say if someone is trying to kill you...you can stop them by any means necessary.

The legislative branch can't possibly discern all people who have motive, intent, and capability in every situation. Leaving that up to citizens is asking us to make capital decisions that should be made by the court systems.

 

[Unrepresented]

You don't have the BTDT shirt when it comes to being targeted for violent crime, obviously, so I'm going to quit bothering to take this nonsense seriously.


I wish you no ill, but your mind would change in an instant under the wrong circumstances.

I don't want victims or criminals writing laws. I want objective minds.

 

[Unrepresented]

never? even if you caught them in the act of raping your wife/sister/mother/daughter?


Not even then, Buddha?

Yes. Stopping them from raping is good. Vigilantism isn't good.

 

[Unrepresented]

No, it's not, never has been, in law or philosophy.

You're giving people that are victims of violent crimes the right to kill their attacker. That's an excessive right.

 

[blackjack50]

You're still arguing for circumstantial justification of otherwise illegal acts. Intentionally killing someone is illegal in every other context except this, and it's inconsistent with our approach to dealing with illegal activities.

Accept it is consistent. Everyone can defend their life.

They can defend themselves. I'm simply arguing that killing goes beyond the limits of self defense.

Then you have never been placed in a situation where someone was bigger and stronger and intent on hurting you. Clearly not even in a training environment.

You're accelerating to a scene well past multiple opportunities to prevent a break in, armed encounter, and assault.

The idea is to not wait until you have an armed intruder in your home suffering from cocaine induced psychosis, because your options are significantly decreased by that point.

You can take as many precautions as you like. It doesn't matter. Maybe you have a dog, locked doors, and a great alarm system. Bad things happen. You could be walking about and someone with a mental illness could attack you.

Your argument is still putting people in jail for even accidentally killing someone in the act of self defense. And if they had no choice, like someone opening fire on them...they still go to jail. End of story man. Your argument has not other direction to go. People go to jail for defending their life.

 

[blackjack50]

The legislative branch can't possibly discern all people who have motive, intent, and capability in every situation. Leaving that up to citizens is asking us to make capital decisions that should be made by the court systems.

And yet, somehow, they have written laws that cover every discernible situation under the sun and moon and stars. It is a self defense law. If someone attacked you, or showed every intent of doing you grievous bodily harm and the threat is immediate, you are allowed to defend your life. If they die...it is not the fault of the defender. It is the fault of the one who initiated the attack.

Your view says that you can attack someone, try and kill them, and still have the right to not have someone stop you. And you blame the victim of an attack.



In your argument...if they followed your doctrine...they would both have been stabbed to death. End of story.

Ps

I have ONE question: have you ever had ANY formal self defense training?

 

[Unrepresented]

Accept it is consistent. Everyone can defend their life.

I have made no claims you can't defend your life, our only disagreement is what constitutes "defense."

Then you have never been placed in a situation where someone was bigger and stronger and intent on hurting you. Clearly not even in a training environment.

Again, you're arguing that victims should be the ones determining justice, which is a conflict of interests.

You can take as many precautions as you like. It doesn't matter. Maybe you have a dog, locked doors, and a great alarm system. Bad things happen. You could be walking about and someone with a mental illness could attack you.

Your argument is still putting people in jail for even accidentally killing someone in the act of self defense. And if they had no choice, like someone opening fire on them...they still go to jail. End of story man. Your argument has not other direction to go. People go to jail for defending their life.

You're still unable to separate "defense" from "killing." The two are not synonyms despite the common (mis)usage. You don't need to kill someone to stop them. We have jails based on this very concept: we don't shoot prisoners, we simply limit their access to potential harm.

 

[Unrepresented]

And yet, somehow, they have written laws that cover every discernible situation under the sun and moon and stars. It is a self defense law. If someone attacked you, or showed every intent of doing you grievous bodily harm and the threat is immediate, you are allowed to defend your life. If they die...it is not the fault of the defender. It is the fault of the one who initiated the attack.

Your view says that you can attack someone, try and kill them, and still have the right to not have someone stop you. And you blame the victim of an attack.



In your argument...if they followed your doctrine...they would both have been stabbed to death. End of story.

Ps

I have ONE question: have you ever had ANY formal self defense training?

If you pull a trigger, it's not someone else's fault. "Personal responsibility" is a two way street.

 

[blackjack50]

If you pull a trigger, it's not someone else's fault. "Personal responsibility" is a two way street.

Exactly. A 2 way street. You decide to kill someone and they kill you first...that is on you. You are placing the responsibility on the victim.

Ps

Your argument is against evolution.

 

[blackjack50]

I have made no claims you can't defend your life, our only disagreement is what constitutes "defense."


Again, you're arguing that victims should be the ones determining justice, which is a conflict of interests.

You're still unable to separate "defense" from "killing." The two are not synonyms despite the common (mis)usage. You don't need to kill someone to stop them. We have jails based on this very concept: we don't shoot prisoners, we simply limit their access to potential harm.

Point to ONE place where I said anything about justice? This isn't about justice. NOTHING. You can't. I never talked about justice. This has nothing to do with that. This is about ONE thing. Getting out alive. And a citizen should have the RIGHT to do whatever they must to get out.



She didn't have the right to defend herself then. Tell me. What was her option? In your world? What was it? Call the cops? She did. She still had no choice.

Actually no. According to you...she had a choice. Get raped. Do you have a wife, daughter, or mother? Tell that to them.



You want justice? Let your citizens defend their lives.

 

[Unrepresented]

Exactly. A 2 way street. You decide to kill someone and they kill you first...that is on you. You are placing the responsibility on the victim.

Ps

Your argument is against evolution.

A) You're arguing that we have the ability to forfeit Constitutional rights without die process.

B) Feel free to explain how anyone can be "against evolution."

 

[Unrepresented]

Point to ONE place where I said anything about justice? This isn't about justice. NOTHING. You can't. I never talked about justice. This has nothing to do with that. This is about ONE thing. Getting out alive. And a citizen should have the RIGHT to do whatever they must to get out.



She didn't have the right to defend herself then. Tell me. What was her option? In your world? What was it? Call the cops? She did. She still had no choice.

Actually no. According to you...she had a choice. Get raped. Do you have a wife, daughter, or mother? Tell that to them.



You want justice? Let your citizens defend their lives.

By your logic a death row inmate has the right to kill his warden or guards.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Yes. Stopping them from raping is good. Vigilantism isn't good.

Stopping them? what does that mean?


"sir, please stop raping my daughter or I'll blow this whistle"?


What do you mean "stop"?


Me? I'd choke the mother ****er out until he was dead, then piss on his corpse.

 

[Unrepresented]

Stopping them? what does that mean?


"sir, please stop raping my daughter or I'll blow this whistle"?


What do you mean "stop"?


Me? I'd choke the mother ****er out until he was dead, then piss on his corpse.

You might just have overstepped the delicate balance between defense and vigilantism.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You might just have overstepped the delicate balance between defense and vigilantism.

At what point? the choking to death or pissing on his corpse?

 

[Unrepresented]

At what point? the choking to death or pissing on his corpse?

Yes.

Killing someone and defiling their corpse would be a capital crime in many situations. Claiming self defense shouldn't fundamentally alter that.

 

[blackjack50]

A) You're arguing that we have the ability to forfeit Constitutional rights without die process.

B) Feel free to explain how anyone can be "against evolution."

A) No. I'm not. I'm arguing that if someone is trying to survive...that they shouldn't be prosecuted for doing so. My argument isn't about the court. My argument is about living. At what point is a constitutional right forfeited without due process in my argument? You have no proof of this.

B) Anyone arguing that there should be limits on what one should do for survival is against evolution. Evolution says that you do what is necessary to survive. Those who don't...they die out.

 

[blackjack50]

By your logic a death row inmate has the right to kill his warden or guards.

So the woman in the video had 2 options, get raped, or serve life in prison and maybe be on death row?

 

[blackjack50]

Yes.

Killing someone and defiling their corpse would be a capital crime in many situations. Claiming self defense shouldn't fundamentally alter that.

Depends on the lawyer and situation. If the guy killed his kid, he would get 5 years and therapy.

 

[Unrepresented]

A) No. I'm not. I'm arguing that if someone is trying to survive...that they shouldn't be prosecuted for doing so. My argument isn't about the court. My argument is about living. At what point is a constitutional right forfeited without due process in my argument? You have no proof of this.

B) Anyone arguing that there should be limits on what one should do for survival is against evolution. Evolution says that you do what is necessary to survive. Those who don't...they die out.

A) Amendments 4 through 8 are violated by "Self defense" killings.

B) You can't be "against evolution" any more than you can "against gravity." Both are natural processes. Our activities are in constant adherence with them regardless of our actions.

 

[Unrepresented]

So the woman in the video had 2 options, get raped, or serve life in prison and maybe be on death row?

You're again seeking to define a lengthy set of variables by a single option.

 

[Unrepresented]

Depends on the lawyer and situation. If the guy killed his kid, he would get 5 years and therapy.

Both sides should be entitled to lawyers, not just the one who survives.