RE: What are the limits to self defense.

RE: What are the limits to self defense. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

graceadieu -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 8:53:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 if in a developped country, weaken the hold of crime on the street is a private citizen matter, over the duty of testify in a court, this means there is something wrong way upstream. Agreed. If we have to rely on vigilante justice to keep peace in our streets, our society is broken.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 9:07:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: So in your first example, would you suggest that people should be legally required to turn their back and run, or try to retreat while backpedalling 'if possible', before they are allowed to apply any sort of defensive force against the person with the knife? If the only choice I had was kill the boy or give him my wallet I would, and you should, give the wallet...It is not worth a life nor is that situation justification for deadly force. Now if you give him the wallet and he then tries to stab you anyway then yes you would be justified...But killing for THINGS should never be the first choice. Butch How moral is this. !4 year old pulls a knife on you and you explain to him that while what he is doing isn't real nice anyone trying to stop him is doing something far worse. His right to rob and terrorize people far outweighs any right they have to defend themselves. You have taught him that what ever he does is ok and anyone who fights back is wrong. He pulls a knife on me and finds himself either staring down the muzzle of a .45 or with my sword can at his throat even if he manages to run away (I wouldn't shoot him in the back) he will never wear those underwear again and might well reform. Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution. Yep we all know he is a well meaning kind hearted person who is just down on his luck and would never resort to violence against the gunslinging victim although you obviously consider the victim the greater criminal, after all how dare he try to keep that poor innocent mugger from making an honest living.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 9:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 if in a developped country, weaken the hold of crime on the street is a private citizen matter, over the duty of testify in a court, this means there is something wrong way upstream. Agreed. If we have to rely on vigilante justice to keep peace in our streets, our society is broken. You clearly do not understand the difference between self defense and vigilantism

EdBowie -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 9:18:00 PM)
It sounds like science fiction. And it doesn't answer the question, since when does pulling a weapon and demanding money confer a presumption of innocence about using the weapon to hurt the victim? Are you seriously claiming that there is no right to pre-emptive self defense? That the criminal has to be allowed the first strike? quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: So in your first example, would you suggest that people should be legally required to turn their back and run, or try to retreat while backpedalling 'if possible', before they are allowed to apply any sort of defensive force against the person with the knife? If the only choice I had was kill the boy or give him my wallet I would, and you should, give the wallet...It is not worth a life nor is that situation justification for deadly force. Now if you give him the wallet and he then tries to stab you anyway then yes you would be justified...But killing for THINGS should never be the first choice. Butch How moral is this. !4 year old pulls a knife on you and you explain to him that while what he is doing isn't real nice anyone trying to stop him is doing something far worse. His right to rob and terrorize people far outweighs any right they have to defend themselves. You have taught him that what ever he does is ok and anyone who fights back is wrong. He pulls a knife on me and finds himself either staring down the muzzle of a .45 or with my sword can at his throat even if he manages to run away (I wouldn't shoot him in the back) he will never wear those underwear again and might well reform. Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 9:27:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie It sounds like science fiction. And it doesn't answer the question, since when does pulling a weapon and demanding money confer a presumption of innocence about using the weapon to hurt the victim? Are you seriously claiming that there is no right to pre-emptive self defense? That the criminal has to be allowed the first strike? quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: So in your first example, would you suggest that people should be legally required to turn their back and run, or try to retreat while backpedalling 'if possible', before they are allowed to apply any sort of defensive force against the person with the knife? If the only choice I had was kill the boy or give him my wallet I would, and you should, give the wallet...It is not worth a life nor is that situation justification for deadly force. Now if you give him the wallet and he then tries to stab you anyway then yes you would be justified...But killing for THINGS should never be the first choice. Butch How moral is this. !4 year old pulls a knife on you and you explain to him that while what he is doing isn't real nice anyone trying to stop him is doing something far worse. His right to rob and terrorize people far outweighs any right they have to defend themselves. You have taught him that what ever he does is ok and anyone who fights back is wrong. He pulls a knife on me and finds himself either staring down the muzzle of a .45 or with my sword can at his throat even if he manages to run away (I wouldn't shoot him in the back) he will never wear those underwear again and might well reform. Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution. What I said without the sarcasm

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 12:40:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Do you realize there are many places on this earth where people knows what "criminal hold on te streat" means just through TV when they watch documentaries on socially deprived areas? Do you theink there are cops at any corner there? To the extent such places exist. Riyadh for example, they are not part of this conversation. I sometimes ask myself if this kind of sentences are due to a deep ignorance or it's just some poeple would feel sad if there was no crime around as to feel they have an important place in the world they would need more effort than owning a gun and dream to be the hero in a western movie. And you would be totally wrong. If there is nothing to defend yourself against then the subject of self defense is not relevant is it. 1) since when is living in a safe place a problem? 2) how is your post a reply to my last post?

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 12:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie It sounds like science fiction. And it doesn't answer the question, since when does pulling a weapon and demanding money confer a presumption of innocence about using the weapon to hurt the victim? Are you seriously claiming that there is no right to pre-emptive self defense? That the criminal has to be allowed the first strike? quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution. I read that he thinks a gun in your face or a knife on your throath gives you little time to reach your gun before getting shot or stabbed.

Kirata -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 1:01:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie It sounds like ~~science~~ fiction. Fixed that for ya. [:)] K.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 3:36:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD exactly what a subject would say Now you are throwing personal insults and still talking bollocks quote: I said that a subject has less of an obligation I never said they wouldn't defend themselves Show me anything that backs up this drivel quote: And I have found a couple of sites that say there is such a thing as a British subject. Peon posted an official UK Government web site. I doubt you can do the same to prove your point. quote: Even a person (Peonforher) who lives in the UK says there is such a thing. See my reply to Peon.

Zonie63 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 6:09:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: I actually find it difficult to place much value on the life of a thief. I don't either...although I do believe there are reasons to steal that are understandable anyway. The value I am determining is my life. If I kill because someone stole something from me I am lessening my worth as a human being...and I do care about that. Yeah, I can see what you're saying. I think this might be related to the point I was making about our society and not wanting it to become sort of wild, vigilante state. I don't think anyone wants that. But I think sometimes our society has things backwards when we seemingly devote more resources to helping criminals rehabilitate than we do to help the poor and disadvantaged before they resort to crime. People often talk about the life of the poor criminal being so important, but very little about the lives of non-criminals who are just trying to get by leading honest lives. To put so much sympathy on criminals seems to lessen the worth of law abiding citizens. How much do we spend to rehabilitate criminals versus the amount we spend to help disadvantaged but promising youth to get a better education and improve their lives? Yes, there may sometimes be reasons for people to steal, although maybe we should be looking closer at that question, as that deals with a larger issue. quote: quote: But I can also see that it's a fair question to ask whether that view is too naive and impractical when dealing with hardened criminals who are wont to violate every rule of civilized society I don't expect every criminal to bring his rap sheet and present it to me before I am robbed...so you have no idea if the thief is a poor slob hung up on heroin, maybe your son or daughter, or the so called hardened criminal. True, although when looking at the bigger picture, we still have to ask whether society has strong enough deterrents in place to discourage crime. We have some deterrents, such as neighborhood watch, increased private security, surveillance, alarms, bars on windows, gated communities, public awareness campaigns, etc., so crime overall has come down in recent years. I think that it has worked to some degree, although all this extra security does seem to indicate something deeply unhealthy about our society. Maybe it's a level of naïveté on my part, but I just don't think it's really supposed to be this way, where our neighborhoods turn into rows of little mini-fortresses of heavily armed people shielded behind barricaded doors and windows. It may be necessary, but deep down, there seems to be something seriously wrong with all this. I think we try to remain civilized and proper, sticking to our principles, which is all well and good, but there may be some things the founding fathers didn't consider. quote: quote: It's not just "stuff." It's also the violation of people's privacy and their right to be safe in their own homes. The actual dollar value of the stuff is beside the point. When a human life is at stake... stuff...is just stuff... no matter how you look at it and killing is always the point. If you reread my first post you will see I am not against self defense if all else fails...but I will not, as many here will, shoot to kill when that can be avoided reasonably. Butch When I can sit here calmly and think about it, I can easily see your point and agree with you. But I also have to consider that someone facing such a situation may not be able to think rationally and calmly at that particular moment. I would think it's only fair to take that into consideration before judging someone. I don't think anyone is saying that the death sentence is warranted for thievery, but I don't think we should take it too lightly either. I do value human life, and I do have sympathy for the poor and working classes of this country - but they're the ones who are most vulnerable and the primary victims of thievery and other acts of criminality. The lives of the innocent are also important, and that's what I would emphasize.

MasterCaneman -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 8:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: So in your first example, would you suggest that people should be legally required to turn their back and run, or try to retreat while backpedalling 'if possible', before they are allowed to apply any sort of defensive force against the person with the knife? If the only choice I had was kill the boy or give him my wallet I would, and you should, give the wallet...It is not worth a life nor is that situation justification for deadly force. Now if you give him the wallet and he then tries to stab you anyway then yes you would be justified...But killing for THINGS should never be the first choice. Butch How moral is this. !4 year old pulls a knife on you and you explain to him that while what he is doing isn't real nice anyone trying to stop him is doing something far worse. His right to rob and terrorize people far outweighs any right they have to defend themselves. You have taught him that what ever he does is ok and anyone who fights back is wrong. He pulls a knife on me and finds himself either staring down the muzzle of a .45 or with my sword can at his throat even if he manages to run away (I wouldn't shoot him in the back) he will never wear those underwear again and might well reform. Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution. Okay, let's break this down. Someone accosts me with a knife, and when I go for my weapon, he stabs me, therefore its my fault I got stabbed. Or, I could wuss out and let him take MY wallet. Let's see, when someone wants something that belongs to ME I get a little sniffy. I can tell you haven't been in a fight against an armed man. I have. I used to be a bouncer and it's not as easy as it looks to stab someone facing you. In doing so, you expose yourself at least two times, the overhand drawback or if you do the hip-low brandish. When I was younger, I practiced to make my move during those two times. Now, not so much (mainly because I've broken my body being a bouncer, among other things). My wallet and everything in it is mine. My cash, my cards, my ID, my pictures. I'm not handing the fucker over to some snot-nose kid with a swap-meet blade. Because I'm disabled, I practice what's called "Situational Awareness", which basically means I pay attention to what's going on around me at all times. I've learned how to use shadows and reflections to my advantage, and it's not easy to sneak up on me. And then there's the 'display' scene and the demand. More than enough time for me to draw, set up and fire. And I'm not worried in the least about the 'law' coming down on the side of an armed attacker. Armed robbery is a felony in my state, and according to the way the law is written here, I am entirely within my rights to shoot the stupid little fuck down where he stands. I'm not handing jack-shit over to some snotrocket just because he has a knife. I've been cut, stabbed, and shot before, I survived them and can do so again. What's mine will remain mine, by God, and I won't parse hairs about his rights. Anyone who robs you is violating your civil rights you know, the ones about life, liberty, and enjoying the fruits of one's labors. Or in your world are low-end street criminals possessing of more rights than I because they chose to follow their particular career arc? If he turns and runs, more the better, I'll reholster my weapon and go upon my merry way.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 9:21:11 AM)
1) since when is living in a safe place a problem? 2) how is your post a reply to my last post? 1 It is not a problem and nothing I said indicated it was. 2 If you have nothing to defend against standards for self defense are of no direct concern to you.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 9:33:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD exactly what a subject would say Now you are throwing personal insults and still talking bollocks quote: I said that a subject has less of an obligation I never said they wouldn't defend themselves Show me anything that backs up this drivel quote: And I have found a couple of sites that say there is such a thing as a British subject. Peon posted an official UK Government web site. I doubt you can do the same to prove your point. quote: Even a person (Peonforher) who lives in the UK says there is such a thing. See my reply to Peon. 1 An observation, not intended as an insult, if you wish to take it as such that is your business. 2 Wrong again www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/.../othernationality/britishsubjects wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/... www.democraticunderground.com › … › Places › United Kingdom

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 10:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 1) since when is living in a safe place a problem? 2) how is your post a reply to my last post? 1 It is not a problem and nothing I said indicated it was. 2 If you have nothing to defend against standards for self defense are of no direct concern to you. a little recap 'cos you tend to move the discussion spotlight to a point where you can close everything with "shut up you don't understand my world" this originated from your post #133 where you said "So as long as they say they won't kill you, you have an excuse not to fight back and to strengthen their hold on the street" and I pointed out that in a healty (and normal) society it's not up to the individual citizen warry about the hold crime has on the streets and so one limit of self defence is it's not supposed to replace the state's duties to protect it's citizens, you answered, with some arrogance, with some concerns on the judical system's inefficiency and how not stick on the merican way of dealing problems makes you a subject, I pointed out that most of the western country just have less crime and people feel safer, and than you came out with something like "yes places like saudi arabia" I'm not sure what you meant but I suppose you were referring to the cut of thefts' hands otherwise makes not much sense, at this point I pointed out you probably never seen a different way of living but have a lot of prejudice on other countries, or that being the law abaiding citizen that stands in front of the thugs is somehow something that builds your pride and self-esteem and a gun is what makes it possible, then you come out with your usual dicotomy where if crime don't hold on the streets than there is no crime at all so makes no sense talking about self defence... so to go back: one limit of self defence is it's meant to get you out an extreme situation and not a tool to fight crime so you don't need and excuse to not fight back as it is not a private citizen's duty.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 10:27:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 1) since when is living in a safe place a problem? 2) how is your post a reply to my last post? 1 It is not a problem and nothing I said indicated it was. 2 If you have nothing to defend against standards for self defense are of no direct concern to you. a little recap 'cos you tend to move the discussion spotlight to a point where you can close everything with "shut up you don't understand my world" this originated from your post #133 where you said "So as long as they say they won't kill you, you have an excuse not to fight back and to strengthen their hold on the street" and I pointed out that in a healty (and normal) society it's not up to the individual citizen warry about the hold crime has on the streets and so one limit of self defence is it's not supposed to replace the state's duties to protect it's citizens, you answered, with some arrogance, with some concerns on the judical system's inefficiency and how not stick on the merican way of dealing problems makes you a subject, I pointed out that most of the western country just have less crime and people feel safer, and than you came out with something like "yes places like saudi arabia" I'm not sure what you meant but I suppose you were referring to the cut of thefts' hands otherwise makes not much sense, at this point I pointed out you probably never seen a different way of living but have a lot of prejudice on other countries, or that being the law abaiding citizen that stands in front of the thugs is somehow something that builds your pride and self-esteem and a gun is what makes it possible, then you come out with your usual dicotomy where if crime don't hold on the streets than there is no crime at all so makes no sense talking about self defence... so to go back: one limit of self defence is it's meant to get you out an extreme situation and not a tool to fight crime so you don't need and excuse to not fight back as it is not a private citizen's duty. Only places like Saudi Arabia are what I would call crime free. If where you live there is virtually no crime this would mean that you have less knowledge of the matter. You misunderstood this to mean you don't have a right to speak your mind, it just means that you have limited experience to draw upon.

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 11:14:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 1) since when is living in a safe place a problem? 2) how is your post a reply to my last post? 1 It is not a problem and nothing I said indicated it was. 2 If you have nothing to defend against standards for self defense are of no direct concern to you. a little recap 'cos you tend to move the discussion spotlight to a point where you can close everything with "shut up you don't understand my world" this originated from your post #133 where you said "So as long as they say they won't kill you, you have an excuse not to fight back and to strengthen their hold on the street" and I pointed out that in a healty (and normal) society it's not up to the individual citizen warry about the hold crime has on the streets and so one limit of self defence is it's not supposed to replace the state's duties to protect it's citizens, you answered, with some arrogance, with some concerns on the judical system's inefficiency and how not stick on the merican way of dealing problems makes you a subject, I pointed out that most of the western country just have less crime and people feel safer, and than you came out with something like "yes places like saudi arabia" I'm not sure what you meant but I suppose you were referring to the cut of thefts' hands otherwise makes not much sense, at this point I pointed out you probably never seen a different way of living but have a lot of prejudice on other countries, or that being the law abaiding citizen that stands in front of the thugs is somehow something that builds your pride and self-esteem and a gun is what makes it possible, then you come out with your usual dicotomy where if crime don't hold on the streets than there is no crime at all so makes no sense talking about self defence... so to go back: one limit of self defence is it's meant to get you out an extreme situation and not a tool to fight crime so you don't need and excuse to not fight back as it is not a private citizen's duty. Only places like Saudi Arabia are what I would call crime free. If where you live there is virtually no crime this would mean that you have less knowledge of the matter. You misunderstood this to mean you don't have a right to speak your mind, it just means that you have limited experience to draw upon. something to support this? means I have more experience in what works for real, what I don't understand is how you can think it's fine to watch costantly your back and not wanting a better enviroment to live in.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 11:16:41 AM)
something to support this? I said in my view.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 11:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 1 An observation, not intended as an insult, if you wish to take it as such that is your business. 2 Wrong again www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/.../othernationality/britishsubjects wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/... www.democraticunderground.com › … › Places › United Kingdom 1) Yeah right, you didnt mean it as an insult... So what exactly is your point, if there is one ? 2) Your links dont work and anyway, I am not wrong....... Take some time and work out what "other nationality" could possibly mean. You claimed I was a subject, you are talking bollocks and seem miffed to have had it pointed out. Your problem and not mine.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 11:49:36 AM)
something to support this? means I have more experience in what works for real, what I don't understand is how you can think it's fine to watch costantly your back and not wanting a better enviroment to live in. Please say you aren't trying to tell me that crime stopped by the lack of resistance. Please show me where I said I don't want to live in a better environment. Means you don't understand my situation.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (10/1/2013 11:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 1 An observation, not intended as an insult, if you wish to take it as such that is your business. 2 Wrong again www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/.../othernationality/britishsubjects wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/... www.democraticunderground.com › … › Places › United Kingdom 1) Yeah right, you didnt mean it as an insult... So what exactly is your point, if there is one ? 2) Your links dont work and anyway, I am not wrong....... Take some time and work out what "other nationality" could possibly mean. You claimed I was a subject, you are talking bollocks and seem miffed to have had it pointed out. Your problem and not mine. Your the one who sees an insult, as usual I am only amused.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625