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
Because that's not how the rule of law works.
Let me put it this way. If it went to trial, and the judge gave the assailant the death penalty for breaking your nose, would you consider that a fair penalty? If not, what makes it okay for you to administer death, but not the actual legal system, that has checks and balances and therefore the ability to actually make sure that it's acting in a (somewhat) just fashion?
edited 30th Oct '12 8:50:34 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Because when you defend yourself you are in no way acting as an arbiter of justice. That would be vigilantism, which is bad. Self defense has nothing to do with ensuring the criminal receives fair punishment, and everything to do with keeping your stuff.
When you put razor wire around your property, it's not to make sure that anyone who trespasses suffers an appropriate amount of pain, it's to stop people from trespassing. If they insist on trying it anyway and wind up with lacerated arms and legs, that's their own problem, not yours.
<><Grizzly: like I said it's off topic. IF you wanna continue the discussion in P Ms I'd be happy to, though I get the sense it's not really a big issue one way or the other. Same goes with ye, Deviant.
Storm-affected states quickly resume early voting
Judge denies American Indians’ emergency request for satellite voting in Montana
After Sandy, Bill Clinton rails against Romney on global warming
edited 30th Oct '12 9:19:51 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I'd argue that gun politics have something to do with the 2012 election. Some single-issue voters will vote on that issue. Therefore, a rational discussion about the issue and how it pertains to this election would seem to be on-topic.
...even though single-issue voters are kind of nutjobs.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.@Serrocco: Comparing invasion of your house to drone strikes is a terrible comparison. For one, drone strikes are a government decision, not a lone guy being a douche and breaking into someone's house. For another, someone breaking into my house might kill me if I don't defend myself. I somehow doubt you wouldn't do everything you humanly could to survive an encounter like that. For a third, they're entirely different scales of situations that need entirely different solutions. (Eliminating drone strikes as a thing a president can do, for instance, isn't going to stop burglars from casing out your house.) Stand Your Ground Laws, at their base, are basically self defense laws. The problems come in when they do things like allow you to get away with escalating something to the point that you're chasing the other guy and killing them when you know they're no longer a threat to you.
I really don't understand single issue voters myself. Particularly when other issues tend to have an effect on the things you care most about.
edited 30th Oct '12 10:15:27 PM by AceofSpades
Audience Laughs at Rep. Michele Bachmann During Debate
During the debate in St. Cloud, Minnesota, Graves slammed Rep. Bachmann for failing to come up with any ideas to fund Medicare and Social Security.
Graves said: "At the end of the day, you have to solve the problem. You can’t do the political speak. You have to talk to people honestly. We have a problem. We are all going to be in this together.”
Rep. Bachmann responded: “I have very much been part of the solution and it’s insulting to say it’s political speak. That’s one thing I do not do, is political speak."
The audience laughed as the moderator tried to change the subject
edited 30th Oct '12 11:50:42 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Heh!
While I agree that most of the topic of armed self-defense isn't on topic here (since it has not come up as an election issue) , it's worth correcting a misconception; in most US states that have some variety of "Castle Doctrine" in law, lethal force is not permitted to defend property. Generally, the defense of human life is the only permissible reason.
Washington, Texas, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota allow deadly force in the defense of the home even if there is no cause to believe that life is in danger. Many other states allow the rebuttable presumption that someone breaking into an occupied dwelling intends harm to the occupants. (By rebuttable, I mean that evidence can be introduced to show that someone had reason to know that they were in no danger, but that the occupant gets the benefit of the doubt).
A brighter future for a darker age.
Despite Bachmann's district being the most conservative in all of Minnesota, Graves is gaining on her in the polls.
Graves main problem is money. Bachmann is out spending him 10-to-1.On top of that 25-30 percent of Grave's campaign expenses come from his own pocket.
edited 31st Oct '12 12:17:03 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016> derails reveal some posters find a human life less valuable than a television set
> same poster valued a woman's bodily autonomy less than a zygote's life not pages ago
> thread rerails
> -__________-
ANYWAYS. It seems that Sandy won't be having that big an effect on the elections after all. Which is good. Doesn't seem like Romney's FEMA positions will be affecting the campaign discourse much either.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Radical: Yes, I consider it worse to kill an innocent child than to shoot a non-innocent person who is in the process of stealing committing a crime. Is there something inconsistent about that?
That said, I personally would never shoot someone over a TV set (I'd probably have a hard time shooting someone to save my own life). I do believe that a case can be made for it being a situation where the right of self defense applies, though, or at least a situation where the shooter is entitled to some legal protection. As usual, it depends on the context: it certainly wouldn't be acceptable follow them off your property and shoot your way into their house to recover your TV, for example.
edited 31st Oct '12 7:12:31 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><People burglarizing your home usually have weapons and will try to seriously injure you/kill you if you catch them in the act.
The whole idea of someone breaking into your house and stealing your T Vs and computers just telling you to "Shh! Don't tell anyone!" if you catch them is bullshit. That's a high level felony right there, to break into someone's house and steal things. They're going to have weapons in case this happens and it happens all the time. A person is completely in the right to use deadly force if someone is robbing their home because if the owner catches the robbers in the act, they will likely seriously injure or kill the person. It really is naive to think that someone being caught committing a high level felony won't attempt to remove witnesses but instead choose to leave your things there and run. Running is what happens when you're shoplifting. Killing and injuring is what you do when you're burglarizing someone's home or robbing a store.
If you're being threatened with violence, it's definitely in your best interest to assume the person is being fucking serious and will still hurt you after you follow all of his commands. Because that's what usually happens.
There really is a serious level of naivete over crime in this discussion.
If someone's in your house taking your shit and they see you, it's a good possibility they're going to kill you. Lethal force is completely justified.
Seriously?
edited 31st Oct '12 7:28:49 AM by Completion
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's a consistent worldview. The world that actually results from that set of priorities just scares the shit out of me.
![]()
![]()
I draw a distinction between shooting at someone to get them the fuck off my property and shooting them because they're holding my possessions. If his arms are full of television and he's on his way out, I'm not putting a bullet in him as long as that stays the case.
ACK RIGHT WHOOPS.
edited 31st Oct '12 7:36:24 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

And why can't I escalate the violence?
He/She escalated it to begin with.
Why not? =
edited 30th Oct '12 8:50:50 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016