Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Conservatives and 'Self-Defence' V2

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:24:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A few days ago I made a post about what I saw as conservatives unintentionally appearing to argue that in any situation where you suffer harm, or may suffer harm, that you can do whatever you want to eliminate the threat, because any indication that Officer Dick didn't walk up behind the guy and blow his brains out was held up as proof that he was simply 'defending himself'.

However, the idea that you hold some responsibility to not use unnecessary violence when defending yourself is apparently one that not everyone agrees with, e.g. FaustianJustice. According to this man, the right to self-defence is actually the right to commit unrestrained violence against people who have initiated violence.

That's not entirely accurate, at least, I hope not, because really I think he's just arguing, along with other people, that no one should ever criticise anyone for the amount of force they used to prevent harm to themselves. Violence is scary, and you're allowed to be as afraid and stupid as you want. That brings me to the point of this post: we should be more intelligent when trying to avert harm to ourselves. Encouraging stupidity, and almost certainly cruelty at the same time, by stalwartly defending the means used by anyone who gets attacked to stop the attack is stupid.

To take a different situation, let's say you are oppressed by a government. Do you bear absolutely no responsibility to ensure your protests against that government are justified? Of course; otherwise you could perpetrate any savagery you wanted and claim that you were fighting oppressive laws. Radical leftists defended the USSR in 1940s, or at least refused to criticise it, because they didn't want to hear anything bad said about the idea of a revolution. Similarly I think conservatives just don't want to hear anything bad said about people who may have used unnecessary force to prevent harm to themselves. I thought taking responsibility for your actions and temperance were conservative values until I realised that conservatism today is almost defined by fear of other people.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 9:24:55 PM, Wocambs wrote:
A few days ago I made a post about what I saw as conservatives unintentionally appearing to argue that in any situation where you suffer harm, or may suffer harm, that you can do whatever you want to eliminate the threat, because any indication that Officer Dick didn't walk up behind the guy and blow his brains out was held up as proof that he was simply 'defending himself'.

However, the idea that you hold some responsibility to not use unnecessary violence when defending yourself is apparently one that not everyone agrees with, e.g. FaustianJustice. According to this man, the right to self-defence is actually the right to commit unrestrained violence against people who have initiated violence.


Well, say someone was threatening me in a way where I felt truly threatened, and his actions supported his threats (say he was holding me at gunpoint, and had already killed or injured other people, and threatened my life and others). Most people would freeze in this situation, and not act. It is possible I may fall into this category, but I am kind of an aggressive and large person in real life. I would continue causing him harm, breaking bones, striking weak spots (eyes, groin, knees, other joints), anything that was open until he was literally unable to strike back. And that would be justified, as I had reason to believe he threatened my life or the lives of others.

Now, say in a situation like that I had a firearm. I would likely attempt to, say if he had a firearm, to first inflict him pain without my weapon (ignore his weapon in self-defense, within 20 ft firearms vs an aggressive person is about 50-50, and that's assuming the firearms user is actually good... unlikely). Also note, most criminals expect sheeple, and any resistance will catch them off guard (which is why, according to research by Gary Kleck, fighting back reduces the chance of a rape victim being raped with no increased chance of injury, and about 92% of defensive firearm ownership ends with a simple brandish of a firearm and/or a warning shot). I am getting sidetracked... But with a firearm I would likely strike him (if he was pointing his at me within a few feet), then brandish my weapon and attempt to reduce the chances of a bloody confrontation I describe above.

wtf am I talking about, I dunno.

But the fact is, in order to deter future criminals, end his career as a criminal, and effectively prevent him from harming others, unrestrained force against the attacker would, in fact, end the situation. Further, there are anecdotal cases (see some justice compilations) where people simply attack their attacker in public, and other people come into the fray and assist... So unrestrained force, when significantly threatened, is justified and saves lives.

"Researchers have generally agreed that female victims" resistance is effective for preventing the completion of a rape attempt . . . victim resistance was not associated with nonsexual injury (injury besides rape or attempted rape) compared to nonresistance, and was associated with only very slightly more risk of serious injury." https://www.ncjrs.gov...

I would note, however, that even moderate resistance to crime stops most criminals. "only 8% of the alleged gun defenders claimed to have shot their adversaries, and only
24% claim to have fired their gun." https://www.ncjrs.gov... (I think you can find the full text somewhere online, I think that quote was on pp 180, if I remember correctly. I just was on the ncjrs website and said fvck it close enough)

*pulls out like books*

"NCVS estimates indicate that 83% of Americans will, sometime over the span of their lives, be a victim of a violent crime which . . . involved direct confrontation with a criminal . . . [a]ctual defensive use of guns by victims in specific criminal attempts could disrupt the activity" [See Kleck, Targeting Guns 1997, pp 93 - 94).

"[T]he completion rate [for robbery] was 37% in crimes where the victim resisted with a weapon, a rate lower than that of any other form of self-protection and far lower than among those who did not resist in any way." Further, the book argues that only about 6% of people who use a firearm in defense are injured AFTER they use their firearm in defense. In other words, their injuries decreased after they applied excessive force. The best evidence suggests "that gun armed victim resistance to robbery or assault almost never provokes the offender to injure the victim." [See Kleck, Point Blank 1991, pp. 123-126).

Although the data is incomplete, after self protection occurs, 52.8% of victims lost belongings, whereas 83.6% of people who offer no resistance incur losses (robbery). Injury data is incomplete. With assault, data is again inconclusive. With burglary, injury estimates are again incomplete. However, to those who resisted, only 12.5% report lost property, whereas in the group where there was no resistance, 52.8% reported a loss of property [See Kleck and Kates, Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, 2001).

So, as we can see, resistance generally helps the victims and may deter future crime. Therefore, I would argue that what may seem as excessive force is a good thing and a 'right'. However, I urge people to restrain themselves and to not be vigilantes. If, say, I was to see a woman being beaten and I had a weapon. I would draw it, but not just begin shooting. You should notify the attacker of your existence and your armed status, and ask him to cease or you will act accordingly. Pretty much, don't be a dumb@ss and follow the law.

But yeah, resistance--even "unrestrained violence" (after, of course, the fighting occurs) is a right. But again, be aggressive, but don't be dumb.

I hope to whatever exists that I don't ever end up in this situation, because the prosecution will likely use this post as 'proof' that I did it unjustly (when in real life I would do everything as legally as possible, haha).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
iMagUdspEllr89
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 7:14:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Wocambs: A threat to your life is unrestrained violence. It is the final violence one person can inflict on another. So, how will you argue that I must show restraint in the face of the last moments of my life? That inherently gives the person who initiates force a massive advantage. You are ignoring that you are responding, you are the victim, and you are being attacked. It is the criminal's fault that they initiated force, not yours.

If they didn't do anything in the first place they wouldn't have to worry about getting injured or killed by their victim.

Your argument that '...we should be more intelligent...' under life or death circumstances is an absurd request. We are about to die, we don't have time to write a persuasive argument essay and hand it to our attacker.

Wocambs wrote:
Encouraging stupidity, and almost certainly cruelty at the same time, by stalwartly defending the means used by anyone who gets attacked to stop the attack is stupid.

Defending yourself isn't stupid. Please explain how it is stupid. Defending yourself isn't cruel. Please explain how it is cruel. Why is defending the means to defend yourself stupid?

Everyone is responsible for their actions. The law of the land and who is in power determines who gets thrown in jail for which actions. The initiator of force is the one who should be considered in the wrong and deserves whatever their victim gives them. Obviously, that is what you disagree with. It seems to me if you could write the law of the land and you were in power, you would throw everyone in jail who defended themselves against a violent attack. You would throw them in jail on grounds of "stupidity and cruelty". Government and law based upon your perspective does nothing but legally mandate everyone to be victims and inspire people to be afraid of legal retribution should they choose to defend themselves.

You aren't free if you aren't free to defend your life, of all things. And, any restriction to your right to self-defense is a de facto restriction on your life. You only own your life as far as you can defend it. So, your ideals seek to hand parts of everyone else's life over to the criminal.

This argument is really simple once you actually hold the criminals accountable for initiating violence instead of holding the victims accountable for defending themselves. This is absurd.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:27:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 7:14:36 AM, iMagUdspEllr89 wrote:
A threat to your life is unrestrained violence. It is the final violence one person can inflict on another. So, how will you argue that I must show restraint in the face of the last moments of my life? That inherently gives the person who initiates force a massive advantage
We are about to die, we don't have time to write a persuasive argument essay and hand it to our attacker.

I'm saying that when you defend yourself, you have the responsibility to consider what degree of force is required to stop the threat. Nothing you have said is at all relevant to that. You seem to be running purely on high emotions here. You do not have the responsibility to do what you cannot do, but you are clearly capable of realising in a split-second that a threat can be stopped by some means other than death.

Defending yourself isn't stupid. Please explain how it is stupid. Defending yourself isn't cruel. Please explain how it is cruel. Why is defending the means to defend yourself stupid?

It's stupid and cruel to claim that you bear absolutely no responsibility to try to use the least amount of force that you think will prevent harm to yourself.

It seems to me if you could write the law of the land and you were in power, you would throw everyone in jail who defended themselves against a violent attack. You would throw them in jail on grounds of "stupidity and cruelty".

Maybe I'd throw you in jail for stupidity - try to understand arguments before you attack them, instead of just falling victim to violently defending an ideology for emotional reasons. You just don't want people critiquing self-defence, which is a position I am happy to call stupid and cruel. If a girl slaps me in the face I hardly think that I am justified in preventing the next slap by shooting her between the eyes, but apparently you think that's okay.

You aren't free if you aren't free to defend your life

Again, you have no understanding of what I am saying. I'll try to help. Look at the contradiction here:

This argument is really simple once you actually hold the criminals accountable for initiating violence instead of holding the victims accountable for defending themselves. This is absurd.
Everyone is responsible for their actions

The person who initiates force is responsible for his actions. If he was wrong to do so, he's a criminal. The person who responds to that force with force is also responsible for his actions. If he used force that was greater than what was required to defend himself, then that force was unnecessary, and he is a criminal too.

Yes, the argument is really simple, but you have to hold both sides accountable for their actions. It's completely ridiculous to assume that all violence in response to violence is always completely justified, regardless of how much force was used in response to what kind of threat.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 3:02:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.

It kinda does. I don't know much philosophy, so I cannot comment on the morality of self-defense, nor people's 'right' to exercise those rights. However, based on the technical research, there seems to be a net-benefit from using what may be deemed as 'excessive' force. So that is relevant to the position that we should use the *least* amount of force. I argue, from a statistical perspective, that using a significant amount of force *benefits* the person using the force.

Even if you were to tell me there was no right to self-defense, it would not affect my position that people *should* act violently when being posed with a threat to the wellbeing of others or themselves.

So, if the points of the *effects* of self defense are not meant for this forum, I will respectfully exit and thank you for the discourse.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 3:02:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.

It kinda does. I don't know much philosophy, so I cannot comment on the morality of self-defense, nor people's 'right' to exercise those rights. However, based on the technical research, there seems to be a net-benefit from using what may be deemed as 'excessive' force. So that is relevant to the position that we should use the *least* amount of force. I argue, from a statistical perspective, that using a significant amount of force *benefits* the person using the force.

Even if you were to tell me there was no right to self-defense, it would not affect my position that people *should* act violently when being posed with a threat to the wellbeing of others or themselves.

So, if the points of the *effects* of self defense are not meant for this forum, I will respectfully exit and thank you for the discourse.

I'm not at all saying that there is no right to self-defence, I'm defining it in terms of using force to prevent harm, which entails that your right to use force only extends so far as that force is necessary to prevent harm.

As far as data goes, from what I can see the evidence and the proposed interpretations you give only support that resistance can be effective; however, I cannot see that any of the studies and interpretations you give support to the idea that excessive force is helpful. You tell me that 'using a gun' helps prevent injury, but also that only 8% of such use involves actually shooting someone. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to argue that 'excessive force' helps reduce crime when presumably it is itself a crime, or at least ought to be.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 5:53:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:36:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 3:02:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.

It kinda does. I don't know much philosophy, so I cannot comment on the morality of self-defense, nor people's 'right' to exercise those rights. However, based on the technical research, there seems to be a net-benefit from using what may be deemed as 'excessive' force. So that is relevant to the position that we should use the *least* amount of force. I argue, from a statistical perspective, that using a significant amount of force *benefits* the person using the force.

Even if you were to tell me there was no right to self-defense, it would not affect my position that people *should* act violently when being posed with a threat to the wellbeing of others or themselves.

So, if the points of the *effects* of self defense are not meant for this forum, I will respectfully exit and thank you for the discourse.

I'm not at all saying that there is no right to self-defence, I'm defining it in terms of using force to prevent harm, which entails that your right to use force only extends so far as that force is necessary to prevent harm.

As far as data goes, from what I can see the evidence and the proposed interpretations you give only support that resistance can be effective; however, I cannot see that any of the studies and interpretations you give support to the idea that excessive force is helpful. You tell me that 'using a gun' helps prevent injury, but also that only 8% of such use involves actually shooting someone. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to argue that 'excessive force' helps reduce crime when presumably it is itself a crime, or at least ought to be.

Excessive force is actually considered a crime. If you were to shoot and kill an attacker, you have to prove that either your life or the lives of others were in danger. 'Excessive' force, for the most part, is illegal (http://criminal.lawyers.com...). So really you are supporting something already on the books, nothing new.

No, only 8% of the incidents involved a weapon discharging--not shooting, or even killing, someone. 92% are ended with brandishment of the weapon (the estimate is as high at 95 - 98% in some, more controversial, studies).

But again, it comes down to what we see as excessive. You seem to oppose killing someone in defense. However, there are many instances which that could be a reasonable response.

Evidence from the literature finds these conclusions:
1) Resistance reduces injury and property loss
2) Most of the time, force isn't 'excessive'.
3) Resistance with a firearm is the most effective way to defend yourself

Although (2) does, in fact, support part of your point: excessive force needn't *always* be applied, in those other 2-8% of cases, the injury or killing of an attacker ends the engagement and can save the life of the victim.

Again, this argument is about the definition of excessive. I see brandishing a weapon, and if needed, killing an attacker, as justified. And, I then go on to say such incidences of responding with a firearm (which may be 'excessive') often reduce crime (for further discussion, see Southwick 1997).

So we do have some common ground. If, for example, someone flips me off and says "I want to kill you", that is *not* a reason to blow that motherfvckers head off. If he took actual steps towards killing me, say he pulls a weapon or attempts to physically harm me, using a firearm or any tool at my disposal to make him cease functioning (whether that means death or I cause him to lose his functions, like eyesight) would be justified--both legally and empirically. What I am trying to say is, the use of deadly force can be justified, and it prevents the loss of innocent life time and time again.

*Most of what I said was random fluff, and I don't really say anything of worth until the second half, haha
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:06:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 5:53:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:36:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 3:02:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.

It kinda does. I don't know much philosophy, so I cannot comment on the morality of self-defense, nor people's 'right' to exercise those rights. However, based on the technical research, there seems to be a net-benefit from using what may be deemed as 'excessive' force. So that is relevant to the position that we should use the *least* amount of force. I argue, from a statistical perspective, that using a significant amount of force *benefits* the person using the force.

Even if you were to tell me there was no right to self-defense, it would not affect my position that people *should* act violently when being posed with a threat to the wellbeing of others or themselves.

So, if the points of the *effects* of self defense are not meant for this forum, I will respectfully exit and thank you for the discourse.

I'm not at all saying that there is no right to self-defence, I'm defining it in terms of using force to prevent harm, which entails that your right to use force only extends so far as that force is necessary to prevent harm.

As far as data goes, from what I can see the evidence and the proposed interpretations you give only support that resistance can be effective; however, I cannot see that any of the studies and interpretations you give support to the idea that excessive force is helpful. You tell me that 'using a gun' helps prevent injury, but also that only 8% of such use involves actually shooting someone. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to argue that 'excessive force' helps reduce crime when presumably it is itself a crime, or at least ought to be.

Excessive force is actually considered a crime. If you were to shoot and kill an attacker, you have to prove that either your life or the lives of others were in danger. 'Excessive' force, for the most part, is illegal (http://criminal.lawyers.com...). So really you are supporting something already on the books, nothing new.

No, only 8% of the incidents involved a weapon discharging--not shooting, or even killing, someone. 92% are ended with brandishment of the weapon (the estimate is as high at 95 - 98% in some, more controversial, studies).

But again, it comes down to what we see as excessive. You seem to oppose killing someone in defense. However, there are many instances which that could be a reasonable response.

Evidence from the literature finds these conclusions:
1) Resistance reduces injury and property loss
2) Most of the time, force isn't 'excessive'.
3) Resistance with a firearm is the most effective way to defend yourself

Although (2) does, in fact, support part of your point: excessive force needn't *always* be applied, in those other 2-8% of cases, the injury or killing of an attacker ends the engagement and can save the life of the victim.

Again, this argument is about the definition of excessive. I see brandishing a weapon, and if needed, killing an attacker, as justified. And, I then go on to say such incidences of responding with a firearm (which may be 'excessive') often reduce crime (for further discussion, see Southwick 1997).

So we do have some common ground. If, for example, someone flips me off and says "I want to kill you", that is *not* a reason to blow that motherfvckers head off. If he took actual steps towards killing me, say he pulls a weapon or attempts to physically harm me, using a firearm or any tool at my disposal to make him cease functioning (whether that means death or I cause him to lose his functions, like eyesight) would be justified--both legally and empirically. What I am trying to say is, the use of deadly force can be justified, and it prevents the loss of innocent life time and time again.

*Most of what I said was random fluff, and I don't really say anything of worth until the second half, haha

Hey, I really appreciate the effort you put into investigating this stuff, and it's very useful, because it helps us to understand what is and what is not excessive, but from the philosophical perspective I'm coming from, you're pretty much supporting my argument, in a way. If you accept that a conversation and an investigation should be had into what kind of force is justified in response to threats, then that's great, because that's exactly what I want to see. The only problem I have is with people who think it's wrong to have that discussion, with people who think that any and all force is justifiably used all of the time. I'm not attacking the right to self-defence, I'm arguing that we need to really look at what is legitimate self-defence and what is just excessive, because I think its particularly a problem in America, because of guns really, that self-defence is used to justify killing people who didn't need to die. You know, a couple of bruises, the guy involved smoked weed and pretended to be a gangsta... even if you don't have any sympathy for him, have sympathy for his family and friends, and even if you don't care about them it's still shameful to allow it.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:06:43 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:53:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:36:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 3:02:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.

It kinda does. I don't know much philosophy, so I cannot comment on the morality of self-defense, nor people's 'right' to exercise those rights. However, based on the technical research, there seems to be a net-benefit from using what may be deemed as 'excessive' force. So that is relevant to the position that we should use the *least* amount of force. I argue, from a statistical perspective, that using a significant amount of force *benefits* the person using the force.

Even if you were to tell me there was no right to self-defense, it would not affect my position that people *should* act violently when being posed with a threat to the wellbeing of others or themselves.

So, if the points of the *effects* of self defense are not meant for this forum, I will respectfully exit and thank you for the discourse.

I'm not at all saying that there is no right to self-defence, I'm defining it in terms of using force to prevent harm, which entails that your right to use force only extends so far as that force is necessary to prevent harm.

As far as data goes, from what I can see the evidence and the proposed interpretations you give only support that resistance can be effective; however, I cannot see that any of the studies and interpretations you give support to the idea that excessive force is helpful. You tell me that 'using a gun' helps prevent injury, but also that only 8% of such use involves actually shooting someone. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to argue that 'excessive force' helps reduce crime when presumably it is itself a crime, or at least ought to be.

Excessive force is actually considered a crime. If you were to shoot and kill an attacker, you have to prove that either your life or the lives of others were in danger. 'Excessive' force, for the most part, is illegal (http://criminal.lawyers.com...). So really you are supporting something already on the books, nothing new.

No, only 8% of the incidents involved a weapon discharging--not shooting, or even killing, someone. 92% are ended with brandishment of the weapon (the estimate is as high at 95 - 98% in some, more controversial, studies).

But again, it comes down to what we see as excessive. You seem to oppose killing someone in defense. However, there are many instances which that could be a reasonable response.

Evidence from the literature finds these conclusions:
1) Resistance reduces injury and property loss
2) Most of the time, force isn't 'excessive'.
3) Resistance with a firearm is the most effective way to defend yourself

Although (2) does, in fact, support part of your point: excessive force needn't *always* be applied, in those other 2-8% of cases, the injury or killing of an attacker ends the engagement and can save the life of the victim.

Again, this argument is about the definition of excessive. I see brandishing a weapon, and if needed, killing an attacker, as justified. And, I then go on to say such incidences of responding with a firearm (which may be 'excessive') often reduce crime (for further discussion, see Southwick 1997).

So we do have some common ground. If, for example, someone flips me off and says "I want to kill you", that is *not* a reason to blow that motherfvckers head off. If he took actual steps towards killing me, say he pulls a weapon or attempts to physically harm me, using a firearm or any tool at my disposal to make him cease functioning (whether that means death or I cause him to lose his functions, like eyesight) would be justified--both legally and empirically. What I am trying to say is, the use of deadly force can be justified, and it prevents the loss of innocent life time and time again.

*Most of what I said was random fluff, and I don't really say anything of worth until the second half, haha

Hey, I really appreciate the effort you put into investigating this stuff, and it's very useful, because it helps us to understand what is and what is not excessive, but from the philosophical perspective I'm coming from, you're pretty much supporting my argument, in a way. If you accept that a conversation and an investigation should be had into what kind of force is justified in response to threats, then that's great, because that's exactly what I want to see. The only problem I have is with people who think it's wrong to have that discussion, with people who think that any and all force is justifiably used all of the time. I'm not attacking the right to self-defence, I'm arguing that we need to really look at what is legitimate self-defence and what is just excessive, because I think its particularly a problem in America, because of guns really, that self-defence is used to justify killing people who didn't need to die. You know, a couple of bruises, the guy involved smoked weed and pretended to be a gangsta... even if you don't have any sympathy for him, have sympathy for his family and friends, and even if you don't care about them it's still shameful to allow it.

But in the heat of the situation, when the man high on drugs acting gangster is hitting someone, it is not going to seem like a minor incident at the time. If he was shot, it would be justified as at the time he felt there was a threat to his life. And, the situation you paint makes it look cut and dry, when in hindsight that is often not the case. So that situation would be a justified killing.

I would, in fact, sympathize for the family. The loss of a loved one is always a terrible thing. If I was the one who was forced to kill my attacker, it would be terrible. I would hate having to kill someone. The fact is, life isn't all chocolate and roses, and killing people in defense can save lives, if you feel as though your life is in danger.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 6:29:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 6:12:45 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 6:06:43 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:53:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 5:36:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 3:02:50 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:28:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:13:10 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/14/2014 2:09:07 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:06:34 AM, 16kadams wrote:

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. This isn't about gun rights or about whether you should violently resist robberies or rapes. This is only about whether you have any responsibility to try to use the least amount of force possible to prevent harm - since by definition any force greater than that is 'unnecessary', or 'excessive'. Are you trying to say that we ought to try to kill criminals and use 'self-defence' as an excuse?

I noted that resisting robberies and rapes, even without firearms, increases the chance that you will not be harmed. From the research presented, defending yourself--with or without a firearm--reduces loss of property, and reduces the chances of being injured by your attacker.

That's not relevant to the argument I put forward.

It kinda does. I don't know much philosophy, so I cannot comment on the morality of self-defense, nor people's 'right' to exercise those rights. However, based on the technical research, there seems to be a net-benefit from using what may be deemed as 'excessive' force. So that is relevant to the position that we should use the *least* amount of force. I argue, from a statistical perspective, that using a significant amount of force *benefits* the person using the force.

Even if you were to tell me there was no right to self-defense, it would not affect my position that people *should* act violently when being posed with a threat to the wellbeing of others or themselves.

So, if the points of the *effects* of self defense are not meant for this forum, I will respectfully exit and thank you for the discourse.

I'm not at all saying that there is no right to self-defence, I'm defining it in terms of using force to prevent harm, which entails that your right to use force only extends so far as that force is necessary to prevent harm.

As far as data goes, from what I can see the evidence and the proposed interpretations you give only support that resistance can be effective; however, I cannot see that any of the studies and interpretations you give support to the idea that excessive force is helpful. You tell me that 'using a gun' helps prevent injury, but also that only 8% of such use involves actually shooting someone. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to argue that 'excessive force' helps reduce crime when presumably it is itself a crime, or at least ought to be.

Excessive force is actually considered a crime. If you were to shoot and kill an attacker, you have to prove that either your life or the lives of others were in danger. 'Excessive' force, for the most part, is illegal (http://criminal.lawyers.com...). So really you are supporting something already on the books, nothing new.

No, only 8% of the incidents involved a weapon discharging--not shooting, or even killing, someone. 92% are ended with brandishment of the weapon (the estimate is as high at 95 - 98% in some, more controversial, studies).

But again, it comes down to what we see as excessive. You seem to oppose killing someone in defense. However, there are many instances which that could be a reasonable response.

Evidence from the literature finds these conclusions:
1) Resistance reduces injury and property loss
2) Most of the time, force isn't 'excessive'.
3) Resistance with a firearm is the most effective way to defend yourself

Although (2) does, in fact, support part of your point: excessive force needn't *always* be applied, in those other 2-8% of cases, the injury or killing of an attacker ends the engagement and can save the life of the victim.

Again, this argument is about the definition of excessive. I see brandishing a weapon, and if needed, killing an attacker, as justified. And, I then go on to say such incidences of responding with a firearm (which may be 'excessive') often reduce crime (for further discussion, see Southwick 1997).

So we do have some common ground. If, for example, someone flips me off and says "I want to kill you", that is *not* a reason to blow that motherfvckers head off. If he took actual steps towards killing me, say he pulls a weapon or attempts to physically harm me, using a firearm or any tool at my disposal to make him cease functioning (whether that means death or I cause him to lose his functions, like eyesight) would be justified--both legally and empirically. What I am trying to say is, the use of deadly force can be justified, and it prevents the loss of innocent life time and time again.

*Most of what I said was random fluff, and I don't really say anything of worth until the second half, haha

Hey, I really appreciate the effort you put into investigating this stuff, and it's very useful, because it helps us to understand what is and what is not excessive, but from the philosophical perspective I'm coming from, you're pretty much supporting my argument, in a way. If you accept that a conversation and an investigation should be had into what kind of force is justified in response to threats, then that's great, because that's exactly what I want to see. The only problem I have is with people who think it's wrong to have that discussion, with people who think that any and all force is justifiably used all of the time. I'm not attacking the right to self-defence, I'm arguing that we need to really look at what is legitimate self-defence and what is just excessive, because I think its particularly a problem in America, because of guns really, that self-defence is used to justify killing people who didn't need to die. You know, a couple of bruises, the guy involved smoked weed and pretended to be a gangsta... even if you don't have any sympathy for him, have sympathy for his family and friends, and even if you don't care about them it's still shameful to allow it.

But in the heat of the situation, when the man high on drugs acting gangster is hitting someone, it is not going to seem like a minor incident at the time. If he was shot, it would be justified as at the time he felt there was a threat to his life. And, the situation you paint makes it look cut and dry, when in hindsight that is often not the case. So that situation would be a justified killing.

I would, in fact, sympathize for the family. The loss of a loved one is always a terrible thing. If I was the one who was forced to kill my attacker, it would be terrible. I would hate having to kill someone. The fact is, life isn't all chocolate and roses, and killing people in defense can save lives, if you feel as though your life is in danger.

Yeah, I know. If I was in a really dangerous situation I'd be scared sh*tless. Thing is though, I'm pretty sure we've all seen instances where someone gets hit and then proceed to beat the sh*t out of the other guy for pride, or vengeance, or whatever. We shouldn't assume everyone's a good guy with all the best intentions, you know.
iMagUdspEllr89
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 9:16:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Wocambs:

Wocambs wrote:
Nothing you have said is at all relevant to that. You seem to be running purely on high emotions here.

Don't talk about me and what I'm doing. We aren't discussing me. We are discussing our arguments.

Wocambs wrote:
I'm saying that when you defend yourself, you have the responsibility to consider what degree of force is required to stop the threat...

I concede that there are some scenarios that can be easily handled with the least amount of force possible. However, many scenarios do not permit things to be handled in such a "clean" manner. It is often impossible to use just enough force to prevent harm. I might have to punch person A exactly five times to get them to give up attacking me... but I have no way of knowing how many punches person A can take until after the fact. So, in the mean time I will hit them 6, 7, 8, 9, et cetera times until I am no longer being attacked. And, even then, they might die later from internal injuries even if I stopped at exactly five. Fights are too fast and confusing to know exactly when you can stop fighting. Even people who have been cut or shot don't realize they have been cut or shot until after the confrontation. Adrenaline permits people to fight on even after a lethal wound has been inflicted on their person. Death is often inevitable despite even the best intentions because of how long the human body might cling to life and continue posing a threat despite the fact that they most certainly will die from the current injuries they have sustained.

Wocambs wrote:
...You do not have the responsibility to do what you cannot do, but you are clearly capable of realising in a split-second that a threat can be stopped by some means other than death.

How do you support this assertion? You may inflict a lethal injury on your attacker long before they stop fighting. All you know is that they still may kill you even if they might die from the injuries you have inflicted upon them hours later.

Wocambs wrote:
It's stupid and cruel to claim that you bear absolutely no responsibility to try to use the least amount of force that you think will prevent harm to yourself.

It isn't stupid to value your survival more than the life of a criminal who initiated force on you. Just because I desire to retain the right to fight with everything I have doesn't mean I am not concerned about inflicting harm upon another person. Cruelty may help you be a better fighter and improve your chances of survival, but just wanting to retain the right to fight with everything you have does not make you "cruel" by default.

Wocambs wrote:
Maybe I'd throw you in jail for stupidity - try to understand arguments before you attack them, instead of just falling victim to violently defending an ideology for emotional reasons.

Ad hominem. Waste of characters.

Wocambs wrote:
You just don't want people critiquing self-defence, which is a position I am happy to call stupid and cruel.

I think the idea of throwing victims in jail for defending themselves the "wrong way" is deplorable and immoral.

Wocambs wrote:
Again, you have no understanding of what I am saying. I'll try to help. Look at the contradiction here:

iMagUdspEllr89 wrote:
This argument is really simple once you actually hold the criminals accountable for initiating violence instead of holding the victims accountable for defending themselves. This is absurd.
Everyone is responsible for their actions

Yes, I did contradict myself here. I apologize. I assert that criminals should be held accountable for initiating violence and their victims should not be held accountable for responding to that violence in the wrong way.

We could try to compromise and draw the line where the the attacker stops. But, unfortunately, someone could just stop attacking me, fooling me into dropping my guard, and then turn right back around and resume attacking me. If I managed to achieve a dominant position, would I be mandated to get off of them (and thereby permit them to start attacking me again)? I really don't feel inclined to waste time arguing about how we should punish victims when they are the ones who were attacked.

Wocambs wrote:
If he used force that was greater than what was required to defend himself, then that force was unnecessary, and he is a criminal too.

So, we will probably end up throwing both parties in jail much of the time. That isn't really fair to the victim. People already sue other people for "emotional damages" because their criminal family member was killed during a crime.

Wocambs wrote:
It's completely ridiculous to assume that all violence in response to violence is always completely justified, regardless of how much force was used in response to what kind of threat.

As soon as you threaten someone's life you are ignoring their right to live. I think that justifies your victim ignoring your right to live. Again, no problem if you don't start anything.
iMagUdspEllr89
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 9:34:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Wocambs:

I would also like to share something my Karate instructor taught me. He said that you should respond with twice the force that you received. If you are slapped, you punch. If you are punched, you kick.

A great way to motivate someone to stop is by giving them more than they bargained for. You don't want to wait for them to break your leg before you break theirs. Why? Because you probably won't be able to break their leg if yours is broken first. The victim already has many disadvantages. So, the victim has to respond in a way that does not just stop the current violence, but also gives the victim the advantage. If you're a violent criminal, you aren't likely to stop if you retain the advantage.

Of course, this is not the "main lesson" or the "first response". You are supposed to be aware and avoid a bad situation so that you don't have to resort to violence. But, if it is indeed time for violence it is really stupid to willfully lower your chances of survival by employing a tit for tat strategy.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 5:58:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 9:34:04 PM, iMagUdspEllr89 wrote:
I assert that criminals should be held accountable for initiating violence and their victims should not be held accountable for responding to that violence in the wrong way.

This is the only part of your response that wasn't you idiotically being unable to understand that I have never said that you cannot do what is necessary. That's the foundation of my argument here. I don't mean to say, though, that this is not idiotic. You literally assert that it is possible to respond to violence 'in the wrong way', and you proceed to deny that anyone is ever responsible. That doesn't make any sense. Your desire to justify 'unnecessary violence' is either based on the same stupidity as FaustianJustice, or, as seems more likely, you really don't understand what is necessary. What is necessary depends entirely on the situation. You think I want you to go to ridiculous lengths and risks to avoid violence, but I don't. That isn't the point I'm trying to make. What I am trying to say is that your view, that you cannot possibly be guilty of responding to violence in the wrong way, is, as I said, stupid and cruel. There are plenty of instances where the victim of the initial attack is in a far stronger position than the aggressor, and has a wide variety of options available to him, and he chooses the most violent. According to you, that's completely justified.
iMagUdspEllr89
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 6:43:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Wocambs:
Wocambs wrote:
This is the only part of your response that wasn't you idiotically being unable to understand that I have never said that you cannot do what is necessary.
I never said, or thought you said, 'You cannot do what is necessary.' I'm trying to point out that your requirement to use only the amount of force that is necessary is unjust and unattainable except in a small minority of cases where the victim has a massive advantage.

It is just for the victim to violate the well-being of their attacker because their attacker violated their well-being. Furthermore, when someone chooses to become a criminal they forfeit being treated the same as a law-abiding citizen. Holding the victim to a higher standard forces them to fight with one hand behind their back. They will have to go easy on their attacker. Otherwise they will run the risk of using an unnecessary amount of force in the eyes of the judge and jury. This increases the chances that the victim will be injured or killed. Permitting the victim to be as vicious as possible minimizes the chances of the victim being injured or killed. It is unjust and immoral to force people to increase the chance that they will be injured or killed, in the name of protecting their attacker. That defeats the purpose of self-defense, or at least undermines it.

Just to clarify, you want people to stop being so heavy-handed in self-defense scenarios, correct? Or, you at least want them to be thrown in jail for using an unnecessary amount of force, right? I am tempted to agree with those seemingly compassionate desires. But, I assert it is immoral to establish a system that forces law-abiding citizens to pay with freedom or blood to protect the rights of an outlaw.

Wocambs wrote:
There are plenty of instances where the victim of the initial attack is in a far stronger position than the aggressor, and has a wide variety of options available to him, and he chooses the most violent. According to you, that's completely justified.
Technically, because of what I stated above, yes. But, everything doesn't hinge upon you accepting this one point.

I will address your original post again.
Wocambs wrote:
That brings me to the point of this post: we should be more intelligent when trying to avert harm to ourselves. Encouraging stupidity, and almost certainly cruelty at the same time, by stalwartly defending the means used by anyone who gets attacked to stop the attack is stupid.
There are scenarios that are very straightforward where you can easily prove that the victim responded with excessive force out of anger, rather than a legitimate fear for their life. But, what you are proposing doesn't even bother to discern between those types of situations. It only distinguishes between whether the force that was used was necessary or not.

I am trying to communicate to you that people will unintentionally use unnecessary force in self-defense. I am also trying to communicate that it is unjust and immoral to deny people the right to use excessive force in self-defense except for in the minority of scenarios where the victim has a massive advantage.

Restricting how ferociously you defend yourself, regardless if you are afraid or angry, increases the chances that you will be injured or killed in the attack. For that reason, restraining yourself seems to be stupid, not intelligent. I might agree that it is certainly impressive and compassionate for someone to use exactly the amount of force necessary to avert harm. But, I fail to see how willfully increasing your chances of being wounded or killed is intelligent or just. Also, can you explain why cruelty is a bad thing in this situation? Who, in their right mind, should be concerned about inflicting harm upon their attacker? This is why we "stalwartly" defend the means used by anyone to defend themselves. The attacker brought it upon themselves. Don't be a criminal and there won't be an issue. The consequences of the restriction you are proposing seem to be horrible. Such a restriction will embolden potential criminals and undermine self-defense.

I understand that you are just asking for people to show restraint. But, clear-cut scenarios aside, that isn't a fair request when your life is on the line. Overall, it seems that encouraging swift and vicious retaliation is the right course of action. People shouldn't be criminals and go around bullying people and starting fights. The law shouldn't offer them protection for doing so, either.

I don't see a good way to write a law that would yield what you want without causing rampant wrongful imprisonment or more people becoming injured or killed when they otherwise wouldn't be. German law seems to permit excessive force as long as it was inflicted out of fear, rather than anger. But, I think it is unfair and incoherent to give people a pass who are gripped by the emotion of fear but condemn those that are gripped by the emotion of anger. You aren't thinking clearly when you are gripped by either emotion.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:04:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The highlight's of me and the OP authort's original convo:

I don't feel the need to gauge an appropriate response to a serious attacker. I will employ what I find to be a superior force to stop the threat, immediately.

My response to a serious attacker is the attacker's responsibility.

From here, the the OP's author attempts to blur lines as to what a serious attacker is. Evidence of this was done in this thread, too. A slap in the face by a woman. Some one high trying to look macho.

My position was actually quite simple: a reasonable threat to bodily harm or life justifies a superior display of force, up to and including lethal action. The assailant that displays a reasonable threat to bodily harm or life then assumes responsibility for his/her own safety; my immediate concern for their well beeing was forfeit once they sought to engage in harm upon my person. A victim of ongoing violence is under no compunction to suffer such to judge and engage an appropriate response.

an idle threat is not reasonable threat.
A clearly inferior employed force is not a reasonable threat.

Questions expertly dodged on the matter:

How much of a beating is one required to take before employing lethal force?

How long must a woman be raped before employing lethal force?

The follow question was mentioned with the 'hands tied behind the back' comment above: The only reason I can think of that one would not want to allow people to defend themselves with deadly force would be some one that WANTS to have an easy victim. If all other options must first be exhausted before superior force is used, you are favoring the attacker. Why?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...