Planetarion Forums - It's Illegal To Defend Yourself.

DrNick · 18 Mar 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by QazokRouge5
[b]I am absolutely outraged that I had to spend 4 hours in a county sherrifs dept. awaiting someone to bail me out.B]

You shot and killed a man and ur pissed cos u had to spend 4 hours in a police station? I've waited longer for a train ffs

queball · 18 Mar 2003, 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
this has the postential to become a very boring argument, nitpicking about minor legal details.

You think MrL has the slightest clue about law? I'd love to hear his views on "free will".

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
That's pretty proactive too.

Am I the one who's doing this?

Would they do this with or without my intervention or existance?

Not anything do to with me guv.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
as well as sending cheap food

Damn straight, should be expensive food!

Leshy · 18 Mar 2003, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Am I the one who's doing this?

Governments you voted for and representing you use the tax money you pay them to do things like that.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
You think MrL has the slightest clue about law? I'd love to hear his views on "free will".

You can't have a mandict as vague as 'You can't allow someone to be killed'. You would have to specify the conditions under which it applies, and if it as unilateral as the initial statement suggets, then as the law MUST be followed your capacity to make your own moral judgement is diminished.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
Governments you voted for and representing you use the tax money you pay them to do things like that.

As I was not old enough to vote at the last general election, I have not voted for the ruling party.

However, if I did vote here, it would be for the Lib Dems as the best of a bad lot. I doubt they're going to get into government.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
Governments you voted for and representing you use the tax money you pay them to do things like that.

I do not want them to represent me and I did not vote for them. If someone kills a million people and says it's in my name is that then my fault?

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I view a person who hasn't broken the law as more valuable to society than one who has. From a purely objectivist standpoint he runs the risk by taking the initial action. Of course I'd also punish someone who does shoot and kill another human being. Maybe it seems a bit daft but it seems to me to be the best way of minimising deaths, the armed robber knows he can be killed, and the person being robbed knows he can be punished for taking unnecessary actions.

On what do you base the assumption that the resident is not a criminal? Indeed, he may be the greater offender of the two- perhaps this whole scene unfolded five minutes after the resident had returned from personally overseeing and participating in a genocide.
Furthermore, even if the burglar is the greater criminal, this does not immediately qualify him as less valuable to society, as you well know- he may reform and become someone who brings joy to billions by claiming AIDS, for instance, while the resident degenerates into a genocidal maniac (which, to clarify, we are now assuming that he has not yet become).
The life of the resident is not necessarily more valuable than that of the burglar. We must therefore avoid drawing conclusions from the potentially misleading context of the situation in question. When treating the lives as equally valuable for lack of better information (an argument you used earlier in seemingly defending empiricism), my previous argument again stands.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
On what do you base the assumption that the resident is not a criminal? Indeed, he may be the greater offender of the two- perhaps this whole scene unfolded five minutes after the resident had returned from personally overseeing and participating in a genocide.

Statistically unlikely.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I do not want them to represent me and I did not vote for them. If someone kills a million people and says it's in my name is that then my fault?

No, unless the intention to do this was stated in their manifesto and you were aware of such a policy.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Statistically unlikely.

really?????

my case lies in ruins.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
No, unless the intention to do this was stated in their manifesto and you were aware of such a policy.

Why would it be his fault if it was?

He didn't vote for them.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
really?????

my case lies in ruins.

It does actually, because your entire point was based on an assumption.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Why would it be his fault if it was?

He didn't vote for them.

Oh. I seem to have neglected to read his post properly.

my bad.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It does actually, because your entire point was based on an assumption.

If you'd read on, you'd know that I expanded on the implications of such (admittedly improbable) possibilities.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
On what do you base the assumption that the resident is not a criminal? Indeed, he may be the greater offender of the two- perhaps this whole scene unfolded five minutes after the resident had returned from personally overseeing and participating in a genocide.
Furthermore, even if the burglar is the greater criminal, this does not immediately qualify him as less valuable to society, as you well know- he may reform and become someone who brings joy to billions by claiming AIDS, for instance, while the resident degenerates into a genocidal maniac (which, to clarify, we are now assuming that he has not yet become).
The life of the resident is not necessarily more valuable than that of the burglar. We must therefore avoid drawing conclusions from the potentially misleading context of the situation in question. When treating the lives as equally valuable for lack of better information (an argument you used earlier in seemingly defending empiricism), my previous argument again stands.

That's why we have law courts. We assume initially that the robber is a criminal, and that the other man is not. If this is wrong we proceed accordingly. I'm not saying the lives are equally valuable in all aspects, I'm just saying we have to do this as any other course of action is less likely to lead to a more satisfactory solution. The life of the resident is probably more valuable than that of the burglar. We cannot draw any conclusions per se, rather we draw a general approach which we accept is amendable and change it when contrary information exists, contrary to what we based our original approach on that is.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
No, unless the intention to do this was stated in their manifesto and you were aware of such a policy.

If someone informs me that they are going to kill a million people for me do I then have a duty to do something about it?

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
If you'd read on, you'd know that I expanded on the implications of such (admittedly improbable) possibilities.

The entire criminal justice system presumes the opposite.

'We should stop murder being illegal because what if a man comes back from the future to stop someone who single handedly wipes out most of humanity, then if we prosecuted that would be a bad thing'

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The entire criminal justice system presumes the opposite.

and is therefore flawed.

I do accept however, that it would be impractical for it to operate otherwise, as your example illustrates.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
If someone informs me that they are going to kill a million people for me do I then have a duty to do something about it?

Too vague. For instance, you haven't specified character traits- this person might be a renowned liar.

But overlooking this and assuming that the person in question was the sincerest person in the history of mankind, I am still unable to make a judgement.
I may be privy to infromation which shows that by killing a million people, one billion will be saved.

I am therefore always reluctant to commit to oversimplistic moral absolutes such as 'killing is wrong'. Except for one moral absolute which I will accept- 'Kant was wrong'.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Mar 2003, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
Too vague. For instance, you haven't specified character traits- this person might be a renowned liar.

Well, he would be a politician.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Well, he would be a politician.

Come now, that's not fair. Oh no wait, yes it is.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
I am therefore always reluctant to commit to oversimplistic moral absolutes such as 'killing is wrong'.

That's my position. Act to the best of your ability and understanding but in the knowledge that you can, in some cases, be wrong.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
That's my position. Act to the best of your ability and understanding but in the knowledge that you can, in some cases, be wrong.

By the way, I'm assuming that you didn't set that signature of yours?

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
By the way, I'm assuming that you didn't set that signature of yours?

It's a 100% Jonny original. OH NOES YOU CAN'T BE ORIGINAL COS YOU JUST STOLE YOUR IDEAS FROM OTHER PEOPLE LOLS.

I always wondered who the first people stole their ideas from? A scalp-scratching conundrum to be sure to be sure.

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
It's a 100% Jonny original. OH NOES YOU CAN'T BE ORIGINAL COS YOU JUST STOLE YOUR IDEAS FROM OTHER PEOPLE LOLS.

I always wondered who the first people stole their ideas from? A scalp-scratching conundrum to be sure to be sure.

You have a wandering mind!

queball · 18 Mar 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

I always wondered who the first people stole their ideas from? A scalp-scratching conundrum to be sure to be sure.

They were only percieved ideas. The first person who ever stole was someone who had lost his banana and came to the conclusion his friend stole it. Thus theft was born.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
They were only percieved ideas. The first person who ever stole was someone who had lost his banana and came to the conclusion his friend stole it. Thus theft was born.

How was did the banana belong to anyone in the first place?

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
How was did the banana belong to anyone in the first place?

At the risk of missing the point, may I tentatively suggest that perhaps someone picked it?

queball · 18 Mar 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
How was did the banana belong to anyone in the first place?

I don't quite understand the sentence, but ownership is fairly natural. Try stealing an eagle's egg. If you mean when was the concept of ownership reified, then I guess it came soon after the banana was stolen, and the victim invented a grunt meaning "**** you jonny", and the thief understood.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
At the risk of missing the point, may I tentatively suggest that perhaps someone picked it?

The act of picking made it theirs? Jesus, why didn't we all just run around grabbing possessions as fast as we can that nobody else is using. Oh wait we did that, named it colonialism as I recall!

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
I don't quite understand the sentence, but ownership is fairly natural. Try stealing an eagle's egg. If you mean when was the concept of ownership reified, then I guess it came soon after the banana was stolen, and the victim invented a grunt meaning "**** you jonny", and the thief understood.

That eagle exploited the other birds though. Surely they're entitled to a share of the egg?

Nondescript Human · 18 Mar 2003, 23:22

Anything about your person or located within your cave is your personal property, perhaps (although this would mean that as soon as you stole something it would be yours and no-one else would have any right to it).
There was no state or official property ownership, obviously.

The colonialism analogy isn't great, because there was no reason to take more bananas than would feed you/your family back then, whereas it was later advantageous to increase the power of your empire.

queball · 18 Mar 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
That eagle exploited the other birds though. Surely they're entitled to a share of the egg?

Eagles are anarcho-capitalists.

JonnyBGood · 18 Mar 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
Anything about your person or located within your cave is your personal property, perhaps? although this would mean that as soon as you stole something it would be yours and no-one else would have any right to it.
There was no state or official property ownership.

And the colonialism analogy isn't great, because there was no reason to take more bananas than would feed you/your family back then, whereas it was later advantageous to increase the power of your empire.

It's a joke. I was just pointing out how patently false property laws if you try to justify them through origins.

At least they're not anarcho syndicalists queball. As for me I'm off for a few weeks again. Don't do anything I wouldn't do! Actually on second thoughts don't do anything I would do, that's probably safer.

Eidron · 18 Mar 2003, 23:30

It is quite funny watching threads wander a bit...but anyway, if someone is about to shoot you with a shotgun, and you shoot them with a pistol to PROTECT yourself then that in really self defence, since you used necessary force. What else are you gonna do in that situation? Change into some martial arts expert, leap into the air, land behind him and knock him out....

eple · 18 Mar 2003, 23:37

killing a guy sucks
trolling about the right to kill to proteckt hi-fi stereos suck too

You will all go to hell and I'll be chillin' it with jesus in heaven.

okay I'm done now

QazokRouge5 · 18 Mar 2003, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by m.ar.d
you are 16 and you have already killed a person.
You have wiped out all of his memories, all of what he ever was and all that he ever could be.
I feel very sorry for you . It must be horrible being in your shoes.
And i dont believe that you would do the same thing agan.
Be honest. if you were in your bed again at the moment that man broke into your house;
would you really grab for the gun again( with all the things you know now) ??

You hit the nail on the head. But I don't know what I would do if it happened again. Dont want to think about it.

Well I'v ebeen in court, and consulting with lawyers all day.
And the judge decided that I was acting in self defence, and that the charges should be dropped.

I'm glad that happened, but slightly miffed about the large amount of bail I had to pay. Anyway, I'm glad this is over.

Mushroom · 18 Mar 2003, 23:40

how can you expect someone to actually THINK about if someone is going to shoot them if they're having a shotgun raised at them?! That's just stupid. If i were in the same position with a gun in my hand, and it was my house, i would probably have shot as well - it's just the instinct to survive. You don't think rationally when these things happen. If you do, you've got a strong possibility that you won't live through it. Ok, there's obviously the possibility that he wasn't going to shoot, but there's also the one that he WAS going to shoot, which if he has a gun is what you first consider.

Eidron · 18 Mar 2003, 23:53

I agree (just adding to my post). Remember: Generally when someone breaks into your house and starts to point his shotgun at you he is much more likely to shoot you than not. I know that in that position I wouldn't have thought twice about shooting him first, because personally I want to live to see the next day...

19 Mar 2003, 05:30

I would think the logic of some anti war people would mean that all house residents should be armed and shoot burglers on sight wether armed or not.
After all, "it is untolerateable if even just ONE innocent CIVILIAN dies. if any do, it is entirely unjustifiable [to not have all burglers shot on sight]"

He did the right thing.

From the viewpoint of a person of moral integrity, the life of an innocent victim IS WORTH MORE then the life of a burglar. A lot more, more then 50 burgulars, and out of that many one would murdered him in cold blood, and on that chance the criminal's life is forfit. Harsh? NO, it's simple. Dont want killed? DONT BREAK INTO HOUSES!

Dante Hicks · 19 Mar 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick
I would think the logic of some anti war people would mean that all house residents should be armed and shoot burglers on sight wether armed or not.
After all, "it is untolerateable if even just ONE innocent CIVILIAN dies. if any do, it is entirely unjustifiable [to not have all burglers shot on sight]"

Even by your standards, this makes no sense.

Radical Edward · 19 Mar 2003, 08:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Even by your standards, this makes no sense.

his point is that no innocent civilians should ever die. and hence all burglars should be shot in case a burglar kills someone.

a far better argument would have been the fact that Saddam kills innocent civilians all the time, and at least we can stop that from happening.

Makain · 19 Mar 2003, 09:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tactitus
I don't understand why you are outraged. You killed someone and now there will be a hearing. Arresting you is basically a formality because the police cannot simply assume your story is correct. If the facts are as you stated them and no evidence to the contrary surfaces at the hearing, then your lawyer is right--it will never go to trial because no jury would ever convict you.

Its not suppose to work that way. They are charging him with manslaughter which means they want to pursue a conviction. If it was merely to keep all options open they would of just kept him under survellience or house arrest until all evidence has been collected. This is just one of the many things calling for a revolution in the US.

Leshy · 19 Mar 2003, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Mushroom
how can you expect someone to actually THINK about if someone is going to shoot them if they're having a shotgun raised at them?!

Quote:

Originally posted by Eidron
Generally when someone breaks into your house and starts to point his shotgun at you [...]

Both of you seem to miss the concept that the burglar did not raise his shotgun until Qazok came at him with a gun.

I'm not at all questioning why Qazok shot the guy once the confrontation was there, I am questioning why Qazok immediately grabbed a gun and forced a confrontation.

MrL_JaKiri · 19 Mar 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
Both of you seem to miss the concept that the burglar did not raise his shotgun until Qazok came at him with a gun.

I'm not at all questioning why Qazok shot the guy once the confrontation was there, I am questioning why Qazok immediately grabbed a gun and forced a confrontation.

He's obviously not the philanthropist you are.

Radical Edward · 19 Mar 2003, 10:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Leshy
Both of you seem to miss the concept that the burglar did not raise his shotgun until Qazok came at him with a gun.

I'm not at all questioning why Qazok shot the guy once the confrontation was there, I am questioning why Qazok immediately grabbed a gun and forced a confrontation.

where is the logic in facing someone with superior armament?

Steve_G · 19 Mar 2003, 10:46

1 comment on the whole situation (may as well not direct any replies to me as i doubt ill read forums for another month or so)

this wouldnt have happened if nearly every american hadn't owned a gun to begin with, some days i wonder if there assigned the day someone is born there

just me .02

assuming you give a ****

MrL_JaKiri · 19 Mar 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve_G
this wouldnt have happened if nearly every american hadn't owned a gun to begin with, some days i wonder if there assigned the day someone is born there

Similar gun laws in other countries, fewer gun deaths.

It's not the presence of guns on its own.