Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
There is no such thing as "shoot to disarm". It's "shoot to stop", or do not shoot at all. Aim center mass to ensure you hit, and you put enough rounds into the person to stop them. And if they die, they die.
Deviant: "Escalation of violence" would mean you do not have reason to believe the assailant is using lethal force. If I have my fist and I'm gonna break your nose, you don't suddenly get the right to blow my head off.
Maybe if I'm brandishing a knife or something (that's more of an edge case). But the bottom line is that your right to be secure in your person does not supersede the assailants right to live. No, not even if he's stealing your TV.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:34:41 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Ha ha ha no. Your property rights don't supersede the right to life of other people. You don't get to decide just how much you're allowed to take in return for your stuff. That's why we're a nation of laws, rather than vicious vagabonds.
Varies from region to region. I'm talking about a situation where you can reasonably come to the conclusion that your life is NOT in immediate danger.
Honestly, it seems like a decidedly American sentiment; in America, there seems to be a "they broke the rules (where "the rules" can be defined as the law or whatever other code) therefore we don't care about them." Part of why our criminal justice system is so fucked up, but also relates to why people don't see aggravated self defense (so to speak) as at all problematic. It's the "we don't have to care about this person anymore" button.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:42:06 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
@Tomu: Even so, most self-defense laws provide protection for harming an assailant, even if you're unarmed.
In states that have duty to retreat laws, you can technically be charged for assault if you defend yourself, even if the assailant doesn't die from it.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:43:39 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianWell, there's two issues: what the law is, and what the law reasonably should be.
If we, as a society, consider violence to be bad mmmkay, then presumably escalating violence is not considered okay. That doesn't necessarily mean that a person who fights back without escalating the level of violence should be considered to be doing something wrong. Though in general, I suspect that a duty to retreat reduces the overall level of violence, and is therefore a superior situation.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:44:25 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
What's the point of being a nation of laws if the laws can't protect my stuff.
I frigging hate laws that favor the criminal over the victim.
F*cking Duty to retreat.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:45:41 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Under no circumstance is killing the intruder "taking something in exchange for your stuff". There's no equivalence: there loss in no way compensates your loss. You are stopping your stuff from being taken without your consent. You have the right to use whatever level of force is necessary to do so, with an additional allowance for safety as you are not expected to risk yourself for the sake of a criminal. The situation of a hostile intruder in your home at night is one in which lethal force without warning is justified, because there is often no way for you to assure yourself that the intruder is not armed,, and more importantly there is no way for a court of law to fairly determine whether you could have so assured yourself. Trespassers in broad daylight, on the other hand, deserve a warning under all but the most extreme of circumstances, simply because of the strong likelihood of an honest mistake in that situation.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:46:25 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><Grizzly: we're talking about hypotheticals, where we know that using lethal force is an escalation of violence. Bringing up situations that don't meet that hypothetical is missing the point entirely.
More to the point however, if someone steals your TV and they are running away from your house, you do not have the right to shoot them in the back to get your TV back.
There are those that disagree, BTW, which is why I'm bringing up; the notion of the rule of law means that you don't give up all of your protections under the rule of law just because you violated part of that law.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:49:19 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
My point is that most if not all of the situations these laws apply to don't meet your hypothetical.
I honestly believe that you do.
Although I suppose a case could be made for the Hammurabi system: require the government to compensate all victims of theft under its jurisdiction for the full amount of their loss, and leave it up to the government to recover the stolen property and prevent future thefts.
Unfortunately that doesn't work well without a taxation system that avoids passing the cost directly back to the people.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:53:00 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><

They're nothing alike at all.
Self-Defense is when you're actually there trying to stop someone from hurting/killing another.
Drone Strikes are not in any way a defensive action and cannot be declared that. Without using a severe perversion of the term "self-defense". They're a fully offensive action.
Likewise, for that case(Martin VS Zimmerman), the topic has been locked for a long time. If one wants to talk more about it, a request could be made to open it. Either way, this is quite an unrelated topic. I'm sure another more appropriate one can be found/made instead of discussing it here.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:10:16 PM by Hydronix
Quest 64 thread