|
flakeloaf posted:In countries where private handgun ownership is a given, that is a realistic belief. I might have a gun, so therefore you must have a gun, and since I know you must have one then I must have one, and since you know I must have one then you must shoot first. If everyone has a gun wear heavy armor, a gun doesn't protect you from being shot. spacetoaster posted:Cool, but self defense laws aren't about what you believe. They're about what the person "defending themselves" believes. Absent mind reading powers (or glaring evidence to the contrary) you can't really prove what is going on in someone else's mind. I'm only saying if it's dark there's no way to see if someone is a threat. But you've explained if you can't see its best to assume they're murderers and it's best to kill them before they can kill you. spacetoaster posted:Wait, what? I don't think it's OK to injure or kill people. I don't know the details of the video so I can't really say what I'd do in the same situation. But either way I don't think fist fights are OK to engage in. spacetoaster posted:And I do believe that a lot of (heck, most if they needed to be)humans are inherently violent murder machines. But you probably haven't witnessed very much of that ,so you don't really think it's true. I've seen plenty of violence, it's probably why I try to avoid violence in the first place. pacmania90 posted:He was perfectly within his rights to initiate the confrontation, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Additionally, the squatters escalated the situation, so they're also responsible for getting shot. How did the squatters escalate the situation?
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:43
|
|
You don't think defending your own child from harm by violent means could EVER be justified? Even though you just said that you would do it?
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect Burgarello to solve homelessness in America before he is permitted to set foot in his own home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
tsa posted:Only in a couple states, most places, like the US, Germany, France, etc. have provisions in their laws that allow the use of deadly force if threatened in your home. I guess people who don't like that can go to the UK since their laws seem pretty strict on the matter. That's not what "wrong" means you loving goon. Not sharing D&D's penchant for petty legalism and boot licking apologia is about as a correct a thing as opinions are capable of being, even.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:How did the squatters escalate the situation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:By pointing a flashlight at Burgarello. Do you know what the word escalation means?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
tsa posted:You're quite simply wrong on this, most states have self defense laws that would have covered the situation. It has nothing to do with squatting, it has to do with threatening someone in their own home. Generally the benefit of the doubt goes to the homeowner and not the meth-heads in these sorts of situations, sorry. That wasn't his home. It was an neglected building he owned. These people were not home invaders, they weren't violent, they didn't pose any threat to anyone. pacmania90 posted:I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect Burgarello to solve homelessness in America before he is permitted to set foot in his own home. That wasn't his home. pacmania90 posted:By pointing a flashlight at Burgarello. That's a reasonable reaction to someone bursting in on you in the dark and waking you up. Which is why it's not reasonable or prudent or defensive to jump out at someone when it's too dark to know if you're risking your life by doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
I fail to see how the guy acted reasonably. Of course he had the right to be there, because he owns the property, but his actions point to a dude who at best wasn't thinking much about what he was doing (entering a dark abandoned building alone and armed, when he knew there were trespassers there, and then shooting prone and unarmed people when he got startled), or at worst was playing out some twisted vigilante fantasy where he could give the "bad guys" what they deserved. Because sleeping in an abandoned property is worthy of the death penalty, of course. It's not like it was even the guys home or anything. Either way, the result was that unarmed people were killed by a moron, because they committed a harmless property crime, and some jurors decided it was fine. That doesn't sound like justice to me.flakeloaf posted:In countries where private handgun ownership is a given, that is a realistic belief. I might have a gun, so therefore you must have a gun, and since I know you must have one then I must have one, and since you know I must have one then you must shoot first. It's been a long time since I used my nine you got yours, 'cuz I got mine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_5EOPdVHiU You shouldn't assume that everyone is carrying a gun though, because most people aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Was the choice dying of exposure or squatting? Of course not, they had other means (the surviving squatter testified they only stayed there occasionally, a quick google search shows shelters are available in Reno, etc.) but those don't count for some reason that I guess don't exist on my moon. Framing it as some sort of necessity to break into a house and squat is just your fabrication to excuse lovely, dangerous behavior. I said "diminished" not "eliminated". Try again. Deliberately arranging to confront a squatter under circumstances contrived to create the best possible legal defense for murdering them is like super premeditated monstrousness and anyone who doesn't suffer from your unfortunate brand of legal-moral autism can see it is not really all that different from booby trapping a property or any other form of tactical castle doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
There are things you have a right to do that stop being okay when they lead to someone's death in a way you could foresee. You have a right to go onto your own property. You even have a right to enter your abandoned property in the middle of the night which you know contains squatters -- but you bear some responsibility for what happens in that confrontation. Use prudence and judgement. If you expect it to be violent, yet confront them anyway, you are purposefully causing unnecessary violence. I wish our laws reflected that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
There is usually no criminal remedy for failing the reasonable person test. That's what civil courts are for. Anyone wanna bet on "Wealthy businessman who probably contributed heavily to the sitting judge's last candidacy vs. Indigent drug addicted vagrant"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
It's not lovely and dangerous to assume a property that's been vacant and neglected for a decade, and that you've been squatting in for three years and where you've stored possessions is actually abandoned, and not just owned by an absent and increasingly angry old man who rants about wanting to take a gun and punish vandals then finally does it. Like if there's a point where it's reasonable to say "no one is interested in this property, I should sleep here instead of freezing in the winter" surely it's within three years of no one telling you to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Do you know what the word escalation means? If they had pointed a gun at Burgarello, it would have been an escalation of the situation. A flashlight is the same thing as a gun when you're working with as much information as was available to him at the time of the incident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Gee, needlessly jumping out at people gun at the ready when you don't have enough information to assess whether they're a threat sounds pretty aggressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That wasn't his home. It was an neglected building he owned. These people were not home invaders, they weren't violent, they didn't pose any threat to anyone. You're basing your argument on a bunch of unproven assertions. I think that's why you're coming to a different conclusion from me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:A flashlight is the same thing as a gun Other things that are guns: Wallets, keys, hands, "furtive movements", general blackness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:You're basing your argument on a bunch of unproven assertions. I think that's why you're coming to a different conclusion from me. Which assertion was unproven?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect Burgarello to solve homelessness in America before he is permitted to set foot in his own home. "Property", not home. A home is a place you actually live and which you belong to as much as it belongs to you. There's nothing sacred about being the proud owner of a vacant and dilapidated duplex so there's no reason to allow that this idiot was "standing his ground" or whatever. The squatters arguably have more right to call it a home than the failed rentier who evicted them at gunpoint--they at least bothered to use it, albeit as a toilet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:If they had pointed a gun at Burgarello, it would have been an escalation of the situation. A flashlight is the same thing as a gun when you're working with as much information as was available to him at the time of the incident. So if I'm understanding correctly, in the absence of information always assume the worst? Why even bother confirming a presence at that point, just shoot into the darkness any time you're spooked if that's how were playing it. There could be armed criminals with rifles trained on you in every shadow. Raising a flashlight still does not mean they escalated the situation. Again, do you understand the word?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which assertion was unproven? That they weren't violent, that the posed no threat, and that Burgarello woke them up by "bursting in on them" ElCondemn posted:So if I'm understanding correctly, in the absence of information always assume the worst? Why even bother confirming a presence at that point, just shoot into the darkness any time you're spooked if that's how were playing it. There could be armed criminals with rifles trained on you in every shadow. If the squatters had pointed an actual gun at Burgarello, would you consider that to be escalation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:If they had pointed a gun at Burgarello, it would have been an escalation of the situation. A flashlight is the same thing as a gun when you're working with as much information as was available to him at the time of the incident. Maybe that should mean that that's insufficient information on which to base a decision to kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Woozy posted:"Property", not home. A home is a place you actually live and which you belong to as much as it belongs to you. There's nothing sacred about being the proud owner of a vacant and dilapidated duplex so there's no reason to allow that this idiot was "standing his ground" or whatever. The squatters arguably have more right to call it a home than the failed rentier who evicted them at gunpoint--they at least bothered to use it, albeit as a toilet. I feel that whether or not the property was "home" or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:I feel that whether or not the property was "home" or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Well then I guess stop calling it that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:If the squatters had pointed an actual gun at Burgarello, would you consider that to be escalation? Yes, a gun is a weapon. The fact that a flashlight is not a weapon is precisely why a it's not an escalation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Maybe that should mean that that's insufficient information on which to base a decision to kill someone. The squatters had plenty of opportunity to provide more information, though. At least according to Burgarello's version of events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yes, a gun is a weapon. The fact that a flashlight is not a weapon is precisely why a it's not an escalation. The law does not require this, simply the impression that a black flashlight in a dark room could look like a weapon. If this is unsatisfactory I suggest lobbying to change the law to "proof of danger" rather than simply requiring the impression of danger. However, with the law as it is written you must accept the ruling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yes, a gun is a weapon. The fact that a flashlight is not a weapon is precisely why a it's not an escalation. What if it had been a toy gun instead of a flashlight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
I mean sure my entire argument trades in sentimental pining over the invasion of a dwelling commonly associated with things like family, comfort, and security but come on guys whats in a name and all that. Please include the phrase "property monopolized for profit" instead of "home" in all further argumentation because I think that will you help you hear what you sound like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:The squatters had plenty of opportunity to provide more information, though. At least according to Burgarello's version of events. What information could they have given to save their lives? I guess it doesn't really matter, they could be lying, better to kill them just in case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:What if it had been a toy gun instead of a flashlight? Exactly, a lot of people here seem to think you actually need to be a threat but the law as written (which is similar to other country's laws on the subject) merely requires the impression of danger. For how much people here hate 'tough on crime' they sure seem to ignore it in situations they do not like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Woozy posted:I mean sure my entire argument trades in sentimental pining over the invasion of a dwelling commonly associated with things like family, comfort, and security but come on guys whats in a name and all that. Please include the phrase "property monopolized for profit" instead of "home" in all further argumentation because I think that will you help you hear what you sound like. The law does not make a distinction. It might be helpful to lobby lawmakers if you do not like this current state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
tsa posted:Exactly, a lot of people here seem to think you actually need to be a threat but the law as written (which is similar to other country's laws on the subject) merely requires the impression of danger. For how much people here hate 'tough on crime' they sure seem to ignore it in situations they do not like. I promise you no one who frequents this thread is under the impression that monstrous behavior does not often enjoy legal vindication. The question, which you are ignoring, is whether legal vindication amounts to moral vindication, or more precisely why legal vindication does not actually amount to moral vindication. If you would stop deliberately conflating the two this would be a much more straightforward conversation. Edit: tsa posted:The law does not make a distinction. It might be helpful to lobby lawmakers if you do not like this current state of affairs. lmao is absolutely does. Ever hear of squatter's rights? Even your rank legalism is just confused libertarian gun humping horseshit. Woozy fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:What if it had been a toy gun instead of a flashlight? A toy gun looks like a gun. A flashlight doesn't, unless you're paranoid and twitchy, or half-blind, or are looking for an excuse to justify shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Woozy posted:I promise you one who frequents this thread is under the impression that monstrous behavior does not often enjoy legal vindication. The question, which you are ignoring, is whether legal vindication amounts to moral vindication, or more precisely why legal vindication does not actually amount to moral vindication. If you would stop deliberately conflating the two this would be a much more straightforward conversation. I believe that it would be morally acceptable to kill someone if they pointed at me something that could reasonably be mistaken for a gun. edit: and that I believed in fact to be a gun. edit edit: is this actually on topic for this thread? pacmania90 fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
I mean try to just think for a second about where you're posting this non-sense. What would this, the Cop Thread, look like if "welp he wasn't punished by anyone powerful so obviously what he did was a-okay" was allowed to fly. Actually don't answer that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Rah! posted:A toy gun looks like a gun. A flashlight doesn't, unless you're paranoid and twitchy, or half-blind, or are looking for an excuse to justify shooting. Or if it's dark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:What if it had been a toy gun instead of a flashlight? quote:
A fake gun, something that looks like a gun, anything but a real weapon is not an escalation. What you're actually trying to argue is that because he couldn't tell it wasn't an escalation he's justified. His lack of information does not justify his use of deadly force. There was no way for him to know whether it was dangerous or not so instead of finding out he killed the potential threat. This is not OK. tsa posted:The law does not require this, simply the impression that a black flashlight in a dark room could look like a weapon. If this is unsatisfactory I suggest lobbying to change the law to "proof of danger" rather than simply requiring the impression of danger. However, with the law as it is written you must accept the ruling. I don't have to accept anything, I'm not arguing what the result of the case is. I'm arguing that there is a problem with what happened, two people died for no reason. You guys seem to think it's all good because it's technically under the law ok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:Or if it's dark. You should stay out of dark places, you seem unstable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Mavric posted:You should stay out of dark places, you seem unstable. How I behave in dark places has no bearing on this argument. Why are you even bringing it up, if not to attack me as a person?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
That's what I'm doing, don't shoot though, I'm unarmed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:29 |
|
|
pacmania90 posted:How I behave in dark places has no bearing on this argument. Why are you even bringing it up, if not to attack me as a person? Your argument is if you're afraid and can't verify a threat it's justified to kill someone. Maybe he's just scared to be in a dark place with someone who holds these beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:53
|
|