No, no, no...the person who first commits an illegal act should be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens as a result, since if he/she had obeyed the laws nothing else would have happened. All responsibility lies on the person who first starts a chain of events.
No, no, no...the person who first commits an illegal act should be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens as a result, since if he/she had obeyed the laws nothing else would have happened. All responsibility lies on the person who first starts a chain of events.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
I agree. So when a burglar breaks in your next door neighbor's house, he's responsible for you capturing him, torturing him, and then tracking down and doing the same to his family.
People have been claiming this exact same doom and gloom since concealed carry and self-defense laws started picking up four decades ago. Still hasn't happened with any kind of statistical impact.
I don't torture people for property crimes. Rape, probably. Even property crimes only rate a quick death when they escalate the situation. If they just surrender immediately and don't make any threatening actions they'll live through it.
Actions by the police are an entirely different ball of wax. We were discussing a citizen using deadly force in a criminal encounter, nothing else. All talk of torture and so on is just a straw man.
The apparent Joe Horn legacy is a whole lot of nothing. Even these copper thieves don't seem deterred by a shoot-first-ask-questions-later Texas mentality. Criminals: shoot all you want, society will make more.
You need to follow the discussion It's not about what you DO, it's about the logic of what was said.
If you posted we should repeal murder laws and make it legal for everyone to kill anyone they want, and I then said so you're in favor of legalizing neighbors killing each other over arguments, you wouldn't make any sense to tell me how you don't kill your neigbors over arguments. The point is that you called for legalizing it, not whether you do it.
Your position included what I said, so you didn't answer the question.
It's not a straw man, it's pointing out the implications of the sloppily worded post.
If the poster is going to say EVERYTHING in big caps, then guess what?
Why don't you try posting what you mean to say, instead of what you don't mean and then calling the response to what you actually said a 'straw man'?
How about you quit pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass that has NOTHING to do with the subject in a pitiable attempt to discredit others.
Seems like the news report is a little light on details, but this case seems quite a bit weaker than the Joe Horn case.
First, you've got what appears to be an unarmed man who hadn't (yet) committed any crime. Second, there appears to be no threat from the attempted criminal that would warrant the use of deadly force.
First, you've got what appears to be an unarmed man who hadn't (yet) committed any crime. Second, there appears to be no threat from the attempted criminal that would warrant the use of deadly force.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Craig is simply pointing out he logical conclusion of your position that the criminal is responsible for EVERYTHING (in all caps, no less) that happens after he commits the crime that starts the chain of events. If this were the case then Craig is right, we could capture, hold and torture petty criminals with impunity. You need to admit that either your post was poorly worded and ill-conceived or that you advocate torture, brutality, sexual abuse and whatever else some sick vigilante feels like doing to a captured thief.
PoW and SpecOp007 both seem to be under the delusional belief that criminals magically lose all of their constitutional protections and civil liberties once they've committed (or in this case, once they've contemplated committing) a crime. Their basis for this thought (if you could call it that), is that a convicted felon loses his/her right to own a firearm. So by extension, they therefore have NO rights whatsoever.
Yup, that's how it works.
Yup, that's how it works.
It's impossible for me to predict the level of stupidity and non sequiturs that someone may invent in order to detract from the topic at hand. Here's another one: a kid steals a camera that a tourist sets down on a ledge. An alien spacecraft then flies overhead. The tourist goes to take a picture, but cant since his camera is stolen. This prevents disclosing proof of alien life. Because of that the world doesn't prepare for an imminent alien invasion and we're caught unawares, falling under the control of our new alien overlords. Because of that you would claim that I believe that all people that steal cameras should be shot on sight, in order to prevent inter-galactic war...right?
Seriously, anybody can find a ridiculous set of circumstances to anything. We're talking about rather or not a citizen should be solely responsible for the violence that ensues as a direct result of intervening in criminal actions against them. Within that context, I feel the criminal is the one responsible for everything that transpires.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Perhaps you need to take a class in logic because you really suck at it. Try starting here, because clearly you don't know what a non sequitur is.
Your conclusion from the alien example does not follow from your argument (hhmmm, does not follow. Wonder what that is in Latin?). The correct conclusion is that you are free to do whatever you feel like doing to the kid after he steals the camera as long as what you are doing stems from the chain of events following his stealing of the camera. Your argument says nothing at all about what you should do so I won't draw any conclusions in those terms.
No, actually that's not at all how I arrive at my stance, but thanks for trying.
No one is required to allow themselves to be a victim. The best chance of stopping a crime in progress and any subsequent losses is for the person who witnesses it to intervene (this is because it frequently takes police too long to arrive). This is completely within every citizen's rights. Violence and crime go together. It is reasonable for a person to believe that when they intervene in a crime in progress that they will be in danger from the criminal. After all, if someone is willing to commit one crime it is reasonable to assume that they will be willing to commit another, possibly violent crime. It is reasonable to assume that a criminal is armed and dangerous (given the amount of crimes in which the criminal is armed, and the amount of violent crimes that occur).
So now we're in a situation where an innocent person, acting in accordance with law and morality, is in a dangerous situation that was caused by the illegal actions of someone acting without moral foundation. There is no reasonable question of the criminals guilt, since we're talking about someone who is witnessing the crime in progress.
Now, if during that intervention the criminal does ANYTHING which could be interpreted as a danger to the innocent person, that person has every right to protect themselves since they have very good reason to believe that they could be seriously harmed or even killed. We won't even go into the fact that so many states have laws that allow for the use of deadly force to stop a felony, even if in practice courts have implemented an unwritten requirement of impending harm. The bottom line is that a person can reasonably believe that EVERY criminal IS a threat to them.
Let's go even further. There is only one thing in the universe that is likely finite - our time. We have a limited amount of time to live. It is the ultimate currency. A property crime isn't about the dollar value of what is taken, but the time value of what is taken. You aren't stealing my money, you're stealing the time spent to earn the money, the time spent with the object, etc. You are also stealing the emotional value attached to the item - and emotional values cannot be insured or replaced. You are also stealing my safety, and my peace of mind. Therefore a property crime is a theft of a portion of my life, a portion of my mind, and a portion of my heart...you are, in essence, robbing me of bits of my life. That, to me, is a SERIOUS attack that warrants the willingness to use equal force in response.
Of course there is a basic understanding that harming without reason is bad. Every member of society therefore enters into an agreement with every other member of society, as well as the society as a whole. The agreement is that an individual won't visit harm upon you, and in return you won't visit harm upon them. When one individual chooses to remove themselves from that agreement, they release the other party from the agreement as well. That's the crux of my views on self-defense. I would never visit harm on someone I wasn't certain had invited that harm by removing themselves from contract. Once I knew they had in fact done that, they no longer have an expectation of safety/security and moreover I will be responding to what I view as an attack on my life (even in the case of property crimes), AND I will have a reasonable fear for my safety during the intervention. This all accumulates to create an allowance for the use of force.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter