Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservatives and 'self-defence'

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
From what I am seeing of conservative opinion, it is justified to use deliberately lethal force to defend yourself from any physical harm whatsoever or the threat of it. Killing people, rather than being a last resort, it seems, is the first.

So, next time someone gets in my face, should I kill that person? And, were I a young black man, would I be justified in killing a police officer if it appeared that he meant to do me physical harm?

Where I am getting this from is the arguments that seem to have been made regarding police shootings that assert the following:
1. If the police officer sustains any injuries whatsoever, then the shooting was justified
2. If the victim was not in a position from which it was impossible to attempt to cause anyone harm, then the shooting was justified

So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm

To clarify, what I mean is that, apparently, if the first five shots eliminate the threat, even then you are justified in firing a sixth to eliminate the individual. This is one of the reasons why I don't think this is pure self-defence but actually on the spot retributive justice. More bizarre elements of this discourse are that it doesn't seem to actually matter who instigates the situation, or that the victim may feel the need to increase his own level of force in response to the force he is being threatened with.

If any sympathisers would like to explain what exactly they think self-defence is, that would be helpful.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 1:57:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Us mere mortals are not to be compared to the police force.
They are teflon, and we must live by a more civil code of conduct.
My work here is, finally, done.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 2:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
From what I am seeing of conservative opinion, it is justified to use deliberately lethal force to defend yourself from any physical harm whatsoever or the threat of it. Killing people, rather than being a last resort, it seems, is the first.

So, next time someone gets in my face, should I kill that person? And, were I a young black man, would I be justified in killing a police officer if it appeared that he meant to do me physical harm?

Where I am getting this from is the arguments that seem to have been made regarding police shootings that assert the following:
1. If the police officer sustains any injuries whatsoever, then the shooting was justified
2. If the victim was not in a position from which it was impossible to attempt to cause anyone harm, then the shooting was justified


So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm

To clarify, what I mean is that, apparently, if the first five shots eliminate the threat, even then you are justified in firing a sixth to eliminate the individual. This is one of the reasons why I don't think this is pure self-defence but actually on the spot retributive justice. More bizarre elements of this discourse are that it doesn't seem to actually matter who instigates the situation, or that the victim may feel the need to increase his own level of force in response to the force he is being threatened with.

If any sympathisers would like to explain what exactly they think self-defence is, that would be helpful.

Self defense is very situational so I think we need to define the terms before we can really get into it. When you talk about "self defense" and "physical harm" or the "threat of physical harm" what exactly are we talking about?

I mean we can look at the extremes at least. If someone confronts you with a knife and says they're going to slit your throat, and starts running towards you, I don't know anyone who would argue that self defense isn't justifiable in that scenario. I think most people would agree that lethal force would be justified in that situation as well, but that's a pretty clean example. Most of the time I think the debate is over whether the perceived threat matches the actual threat.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 4:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 2:37:42 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
From what I am seeing of conservative opinion, it is justified to use deliberately lethal force to defend yourself from any physical harm whatsoever or the threat of it. Killing people, rather than being a last resort, it seems, is the first.

So, next time someone gets in my face, should I kill that person? And, were I a young black man, would I be justified in killing a police officer if it appeared that he meant to do me physical harm?

Where I am getting this from is the arguments that seem to have been made regarding police shootings that assert the following:
1. If the police officer sustains any injuries whatsoever, then the shooting was justified
2. If the victim was not in a position from which it was impossible to attempt to cause anyone harm, then the shooting was justified


So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm

To clarify, what I mean is that, apparently, if the first five shots eliminate the threat, even then you are justified in firing a sixth to eliminate the individual. This is one of the reasons why I don't think this is pure self-defence but actually on the spot retributive justice. More bizarre elements of this discourse are that it doesn't seem to actually matter who instigates the situation, or that the victim may feel the need to increase his own level of force in response to the force he is being threatened with.

If any sympathisers would like to explain what exactly they think self-defence is, that would be helpful.

Self defense is very situational so I think we need to define the terms before we can really get into it. When you talk about "self defense" and "physical harm" or the "threat of physical harm" what exactly are we talking about?

I mean we can look at the extremes at least. If someone confronts you with a knife and says they're going to slit your throat, and starts running towards you, I don't know anyone who would argue that self defense isn't justifiable in that scenario. I think most people would agree that lethal force would be justified in that situation as well, but that's a pretty clean example. Most of the time I think the debate is over whether the perceived threat matches the actual threat.

Well what I'm trying to show above is that the conservative arguments I see appear to conclude that any amount of force is justifiably used to prevent any amount of harm.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:43:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Actually, maybe you're saying that you should expect the police to shoot you, and so you should carry a gun with which to defend yourself from them?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
From what I am seeing of conservative opinion, it is justified to use deliberately lethal force to defend yourself from any physical harm whatsoever or the threat of it. Killing people, rather than being a last resort, it seems, is the first.

It's not the first resort. The first resort is trying to fight back without weapons. If you genuinely fear for your life and are being attacked, however, you have the right to defend yourself through necessary means.

So, next time someone gets in my face, should I kill that person? And, were I a young black man, would I be justified in killing a police officer if it appeared that he meant to do me physical harm?

If the guy punched you in the face repeatedly, was not going to stop assaulting you, you genuinely feared for your life and you had a weapon, yes it would be justified.

For the second, depends on the situation. There are situations where one can reasonably claim self-defense against a cop.

Where I am getting this from is the arguments that seem to have been made regarding police shootings that assert the following:
1. If the police officer sustains any injuries whatsoever, then the shooting was justified

Not the case.

2. If the victim was not in a position from which it was impossible to attempt to cause anyone harm, then the shooting was justified

Hm?

So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm

Incorrect. Being assaulted, however, is generally grounds for defense if the situation allows.

2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm

Close, but incorrect. The perceived threat must be reasonable, and the lethal force must be reasonable to the perceived harm.

To clarify, what I mean is that, apparently, if the first five shots eliminate the threat, even then you are justified in firing a sixth to eliminate the individual. This is one of the reasons why I don't think this is pure self-defence but actually on the spot retributive justice. More bizarre elements of this discourse are that it doesn't seem to actually matter who instigates the situation, or that the victim may feel the need to increase his own level of force in response to the force he is being threatened with.

But here's the problem - what is eliminating the threat? If you are being charged, for instance, you shoot until the person stops charging. If someone has a gun, on the other hand, you shoot until they are dead, because they could always pull the gun out if they are alive.

If any sympathisers would like to explain what exactly they think self-defence is, that would be helpful.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:14:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

No. It's your fault you can't comprehend self-defense, not his.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:45:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We should aim to kill as many arseholes as possible. So self-defence is justified, even if the threat is just a verbal/attitude thread. By killing rude@ss people we effectively remove their stupidity from the gene pool, leading to a brighter and better future.

Ergo, always carry a lethal weapon on your personnel at all times, ready to do your part for society.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:15:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

You are a lot braver than me. Feel free to punch anyone you feel just may carry a gun. Tell me how it works out for ya.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:47:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:

The reply is woven in and based off the laws that I am familiar with for my state.

From what I am seeing of conservative opinion, it is justified to use deliberately lethal force to defend yourself from any physical harm whatsoever or the threat of it. Killing people, rather than being a last resort, it seems, is the first.

So, next time someone gets in my face, should I kill that person? And, were I a young black man, would I be justified in killing a police officer if it appeared that he meant to do me physical harm?

No. The law regards a force on force situation. Some one getting in your face and letting you know how little they think of you doesn't mean anything, and 'physical harm' needs to be demonstrated or reasonably believed that the threat was intended to impart injury or death.

Where I am getting this from is the arguments that seem to have been made regarding police shootings that assert the following:
1. If the police officer sustains any injuries whatsoever, then the shooting was justified

No. If a person is in flight from an officer after making use of no weapons, and the officer was struck, shooting them as they run is not self defense. Shooting some one cuffed, is not self defense, as they are limited in their means of attack, no matter how aggresive. An officer engaged in a rolling fist fight, however could be justified in shooting the opposition if the aggressor does not cease.
2. If the victim was not in a position from which it was impossible to attempt to cause anyone harm, then the shooting was justified

Not always. Empty/unloaded/replica guns, knives at a distance, etc. A parking lot stand off regarding an officer(s) and one person with a knife whom refuses to drop the knife, it can only be assumed that the wielder has intent to use it.


So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm
With more information, is this sitill your conclusion?
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm
With more information, is this still your conclusion?

To clarify, what I mean is that, apparently, if the first five shots eliminate the threat, even then you are justified in firing a sixth to eliminate the individual.

No. After a threat is neutralized, additional force is not required.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think this is pure self-defence but actually on the spot retributive justice. More bizarre elements of this discourse are that it doesn't seem to actually matter who instigates the situation,

This part is highly situational dependent, between to citizens, if one person provides a good faith effort in which to withdraw, if not honored, the assaulted becomes the assailant.

or that the victim may feel the need to increase his own level of force in response to the force he is being threatened with.

That is the nature of a weapon, to multiply a force so as to be superior. Between a rape whistle and a gun, which do you think a female has a better chance of avoiding being raped with?

If any sympathisers would like to explain what exactly they think self-defence is, that would be helpful.

There is no law that states 'you must be assaulted'. An aggressor, by nature, is breaking the law in conducting an assault, therefore, ultimate responsibility rely on them to their life. Further more, an aggressor that changes his/her mind is protected by a good faith effort of withdraw, should their attempt at law breaking go south.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:31:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 10:14:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

No. It's your fault you can't comprehend self-defense, not his.

Well, he appears to be defending the idea that if someone starts a fistfight, they ought to be shot, which I would say means he doesn't understand self-defence.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:33:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:15:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

You are a lot braver than me. Feel free to punch anyone you feel just may carry a gun. Tell me how it works out for ya.

Yes, I am a lot braver than you, because you subscribe to an ideology of fear. But anyway, don't you think it's a little inhuman to assert that if you shove me, I may kill you, because I am merely defending myself from your violence? That's what you appear to be claiming.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 8:29:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:47:51 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
An officer engaged in a rolling fist fight, however could be justified in shooting the opposition if the aggressor does not cease.

I think the situations in which it is justified to do that are pretty damn rare, but the conservative opinion appears to be that it is always just to end a fistfight with another shooting victim.

Not always. Empty/unloaded/replica guns, knives at a distance, etc. A parking lot stand off regarding an officer(s) and one person with a knife whom refuses to drop the knife, it can only be assumed that the wielder has intent to use it.

Replica guns is where I would agree with you, but I must disagree with you on the knife at a distance. It seems like an opinion particularly prejudiced against the mentally ill. If someone is holding a knife but not in a position to use it then that can't be self-defence.

That is the nature of a weapon, to multiply a force so as to be superior

What I was complaining about is how people never seem to recognise that the particular young black man shot this week's behaviour would have been affected by the fact that he was confronted by someone who was actually armed.

Between a rape whistle and a gun, which do you think a female has a better chance of avoiding being raped with?

I think the more important point to be made is that you don't need to kill someone to stop them hurting you.

An aggressor, by nature, is breaking the law in conducting an assault, therefore, ultimate responsibility rely on them to their life

Only insofar as they actually force someone to kill them, which really doesn't seem to be the case very often in the 'self-defence' shootings that conservatives appear to have endless love for.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:41:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 7:31:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 10:14:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

No. It's your fault you can't comprehend self-defense, not his.

Well, he appears to be defending the idea that if someone starts a fistfight, they ought to be shot, which I would say means he doesn't understand self-defence.

If you walk up to someone and start punching them in the face, they can defend themselves, and aren't just limited to using their fists. It's not a difficult concept.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:44:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 11:41:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:31:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 10:14:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

No. It's your fault you can't comprehend self-defense, not his.

Well, he appears to be defending the idea that if someone starts a fistfight, they ought to be shot, which I would say means he doesn't understand self-defence.

If you walk up to someone and start punching them in the face, they can defend themselves, and aren't just limited to using their fists. It's not a difficult concept.

Is it your opinion that there is no such thing as excessive force?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:50:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 11:44:24 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:41:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:31:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 10:14:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

No. It's your fault you can't comprehend self-defense, not his.

Well, he appears to be defending the idea that if someone starts a fistfight, they ought to be shot, which I would say means he doesn't understand self-defence.

If you walk up to someone and start punching them in the face, they can defend themselves, and aren't just limited to using their fists. It's not a difficult concept.

Is it your opinion that there is no such thing as excessive force?

There is clearly such thing as excessive force - the Eric Garner case is a clear example of it. Your response should be proportional. Lethal force has justification when:
A) The person using the force is under legitimate threat towards his or another person's life
or
B) The person using the force has reasonable fear for his or another person's life.

For an example of the first, if someone walks up to a car and tries to carjack you at gunpoint, for example, you have grounds to use lethal force. If someone walks up to you and starts lightly tapping you with a stick, that is not grounds to use lethal force. It needs to be proportional, in other words.

For the second, it's a tough bar to clear. About as much as I can say is that If someone with a baseball bat is following you and you are in a dark alley, you may have grounds to use lethal force, if you reasonably suspect they plan to attack you. But the burden is on you to prove that.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:59:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 11:50:27 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:44:24 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/5/2014 11:41:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:31:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 10:14:10 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

No. It's your fault you can't comprehend self-defense, not his.

Well, he appears to be defending the idea that if someone starts a fistfight, they ought to be shot, which I would say means he doesn't understand self-defence.

If you walk up to someone and start punching them in the face, they can defend themselves, and aren't just limited to using their fists. It's not a difficult concept.

Is it your opinion that there is no such thing as excessive force?

There is clearly such thing as excessive force - the Eric Garner case is a clear example of it. Your response should be proportional. Lethal force has justification when:
A) The person using the force is under legitimate threat towards his or another person's life
or
B) The person using the force has reasonable fear for his or another person's life.

For an example of the first, if someone walks up to a car and tries to carjack you at gunpoint, for example, you have grounds to use lethal force. If someone walks up to you and starts lightly tapping you with a stick, that is not grounds to use lethal force. It needs to be proportional, in other words.

For the second, it's a tough bar to clear. About as much as I can say is that If someone with a baseball bat is following you and you are in a dark alley, you may have grounds to use lethal force, if you reasonably suspect they plan to attack you. But the burden is on you to prove that.

So what does this say about shooting people during brawls when you're a police officer?
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 3:16:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:


So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm

These are probably strawman arguments, i.e., not exactly accurate. To respond to your question, the appropriate response to physical harm is physical harm that roughly equates with the physical harm inflicted. So if a mugger tries to use his fists, you could use pepper spray. Killing him might be justified actually in this instance (because your life might be threatened), but lethal force is probably an exaggerated response in other circumstances. If a guy punched you, you probably wouldn't employ lethal force except as a last resort.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 4:19:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 7:33:25 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:15:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

You are a lot braver than me. Feel free to punch anyone you feel just may carry a gun. Tell me how it works out for ya.

Yes, I am a lot braver than you, because you subscribe to an ideology of fear.

Ok.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 4:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
From the limited time that I've spent caring about the ferguson trial, I can only say that I do not wholeheartedly agree with the indictment, but that it is understandable.

On another note, WHAT ABOUT THE ERIC GARNER CHOKE HOMICIDE? THAT'S terrible..... How THIS police officer got away with it is a clear indication of the problems with law enforcement (police) and the laws themselves.

Someone please explain the nonsense lol.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 5:36:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Any threat of physical force is potentially deadly. There are many fist fights that have ended in death. Besides the fact that if you get punched hard enough and enough times you can die, you also have to consider what the aggressor can do to your limp body, once your unconscious.

My definition of self defense is probably a lot more liberal (not the political ideology), than most.

Anytime anybody who is an adult get's into a physical altercation they should realize that there is a good chance this altercation will end in death for him or his foe and act accordingly. Either by being less aggressive and more respectful or by having a good life insurance policy and will.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:32:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 3:16:50 PM, Contra wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:40:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:


So naturally I can only conclude:
1. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any physical harm
2. Lethal force is an appropriate response to any perceived threat of physical harm

These are probably strawman arguments, i.e., not exactly accurate. To respond to your question, the appropriate response to physical harm is physical harm that roughly equates with the physical harm inflicted. So if a mugger tries to use his fists, you could use pepper spray. Killing him might be justified actually in this instance (because your life might be threatened), but lethal force is probably an exaggerated response in other circumstances. If a guy punched you, you probably wouldn't employ lethal force except as a last resort.

Well hardly. I'm making fun of the people who say 'Ah, the officer has bruises! Of course emptying a clip into that kid was the right thing to do', as if the only possible circumstance in which the shooting could be wrong is if he walked up behind the guy and shot him in the head until he had to reload, then proceeded to continue filling him with bullets.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:34:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 4:19:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:33:25 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:15:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

You are a lot braver than me. Feel free to punch anyone you feel just may carry a gun. Tell me how it works out for ya.

Yes, I am a lot braver than you, because you subscribe to an ideology of fear.

Ok.

Pussyboi parrot never leaves his fortified home unless he's armed against young black men with larger penises who would beat his old grey *ss in a fight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 7:34:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/5/2014 4:19:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:33:25 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:15:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

You are a lot braver than me. Feel free to punch anyone you feel just may carry a gun. Tell me how it works out for ya.

Yes, I am a lot braver than you, because you subscribe to an ideology of fear.

Ok.

Pussyboi parrot never leaves his fortified home unless he's armed against young black men with larger penises who would beat his old grey *ss in a fight.

Ok.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:50:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 7:46:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:34:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/5/2014 4:19:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:33:25 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:15:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:42:11 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 1:28:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't bring your fists to a gunfight.

Lol. Really? So if I get in your face and give me a little push, I could... curb stomp you, and say 'Don't bring shoves to a stomping', or glass you in the neck and say 'Don't bring shoves to a bottle fight', or rip your heart from your body and say 'BITE IT, YOU SCUM'? I mean, you seem to be saying I can shoot whoever I want provided they display any level of aggression.

You are a lot braver than me. Feel free to punch anyone you feel just may carry a gun. Tell me how it works out for ya.

Yes, I am a lot braver than you, because you subscribe to an ideology of fear.

Ok.

Pussyboi parrot never leaves his fortified home unless he's armed against young black men with larger penises who would beat his old grey *ss in a fight.

Ok.

I got you stuck off the realness, we be the infamous
you heard of us
official Queensbridge murderers
the Mobb comes equipped with warfare, beware
of my crime family who got nuff shots to share
for all of those who wanna profile and pose
rock you in your face, stab your brain wit' your nosebone
you all alone in these streets, cousin
every man for theirself in this land we be gunnin'
and keep them shook crews runnin'
like they supposed to
they come around but they never come close to
I can see it inside your face
you're in the wrong place
cowards like you just get they're whole body laced up
with bullet holes and such
speak the wrong words man and you will get touched
you can put your whole army against my team and
I guarantee you it'll be your very last time breathin'
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:53:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 5:36:23 PM, Wylted wrote:
Any threat of physical force is potentially deadly. There are many fist fights that have ended in death. Besides the fact that if you get punched hard enough and enough times you can die, you also have to consider what the aggressor can do to your limp body, once your unconscious.

There are many fist fights that have ended in death, and probably many millions that have not. In fact if we look at the specifics of the situation I'm talking about, your case seems to become even more untenable. I mean, let's say I knock out a police officer... would my next move be to stomp on him until he stops breathing? Isn't that the kind of sh*t the police go crazy about?

My definition of self defense is probably a lot more liberal (not the political ideology), than most.

Anytime anybody who is an adult get's into a physical altercation they should realize that there is a good chance this altercation will end in death for him or his foe and act accordingly. Either by being less aggressive and more respectful or by having a good life insurance policy and will.

A good chance? Have you ever seen a fight? Ah, no doubt this old white man has seen many, and he will recount in detail how they confirmed his every fearful prejudice. The reality is a lot of people get their asses kicked all the time, and it very rarely ends in severe consequences for anyone. Equanimity and respect are admirable things to advocate but I fear that it does little to rectify the impunity with which those who allegedly protect and serve society shoot unarmed citizens.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:56:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 10:45:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
We should aim to kill as many arseholes as possible. So self-defence is justified, even if the threat is just a verbal/attitude thread. By killing rude@ss people we effectively remove their stupidity from the gene pool, leading to a brighter and better future.

Ergo, always carry a lethal weapon on your personnel at all times, ready to do your part for society.

Unfortunately I think for this to result in any real progress the calm and kind-hearted of society would have to engage in the slaughter of those who take such liberal attitudes towards meting out 'justice'.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 8:12:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 7:56:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/4/2014 10:45:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
We should aim to kill as many arseholes as possible. So self-defence is justified, even if the threat is just a verbal/attitude thread. By killing rude@ss people we effectively remove their stupidity from the gene pool, leading to a brighter and better future.

Ergo, always carry a lethal weapon on your personnel at all times, ready to do your part for society.

Unfortunately I think for this to result in any real progress the calm and kind-hearted of society would have to engage in the slaughter of those who take such liberal attitudes towards meting out 'justice'.

A necessary evil.