|
tezcat posted:My thought is that pacmania90's thought pattern is that of the Scorpio Villain in Dirty Harry. You know, the criminally retarded dumbass that gets blown away because he went for his gun while Dirty Harry has him at gunpoint? I haven't seen the movie. Can you describe the scene for me?
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
pacmania90 posted:I guess my hypothetical was poorly considered because none of you are engaging with it. I wanted to use it to examine the relationship between risk assessment and self defense, as well as one's responsibility for one's level of risk assessment. I believe if you're in a situation where you're in imminent danger of being killed it is ok to use lethal force to protect yourself. However, I don't believe situations where your only recourse is to pull out your piece and blast them are all that common. I would even argue that most situations that turn life threatening are life threatening because a gun becomes involved. Either way if you're trying to argue that using a gun is the best recourse in a dangerous situation I think you're wrong. A gun does not negate a gun, a shield or armor would be much more helpful if you want to protect yourself from bullets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:I haven't seen the movie. Can you describe the scene for me? The dumbass gets blown away because he went for his gun while Dirty Harry has him at gunpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I believe if you're in a situation where you're in imminent danger of being killed it is ok to use lethal force to protect yourself. However, I don't believe situations where your only recourse is to pull out your piece and blast them are all that common. I would even argue that most situations that turn life threatening are life threatening because a gun becomes involved. Agree with this but to clarify you actually have to be in danger, not just be frightened. Allowing frightened people to kill others is what we're arguing against all the time in here. Yes, I know that means I disagree with some laws, tsa, and it doesn't mean I want people be punished by the American justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
There are way too many people out there who are way too interested in being able to legally kill other people. It's something that never really crosses my mind but I can tell some out there put a hell of a lot of thought into it. Do you want a notarized certificate signed by a lawyer stating that you officially get to blow someone away if x, y and z conditions are met?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:Let's consider four hypotheticals. Hahahaha. Game theory say the answer is to give your wallet every time as drawing would result in death every time for at least one the participants who is just as likely to be you and maybe the mugger if you somehow managed to stay functional enough to shoot. That is some seriously bad odds. Go flip some coins and see how often you are dead. Then try not flipping the coin. You are not sound of mind and neither is you justice system as already discussed many pages back. Stop before you pull the Dead Reckoning who shot himself after digging his own grave. I also really hope you don't own a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:I've never once said that though. I personally believe that whether he had a gun is irrelevant. pacmania90 posted:If the squatters had pointed an actual gun at Burgarello, would you consider that to be escalation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:Let's consider four hypotheticals. Silly rabbit, if you already have a gun on you you go for their gun. Also lol at all the people ITT who are happy being victimized because an assailant's life is just too precious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Silly rabbit, if you already have a gun on you you go for their gun. I consider my life too precious. I also have confidence that someone who goes around mugging people will get caught and dealt with by the police.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also lol at all the people ITT who are happy being victimized because an assailant's life is just too precious. No one's happy being victimized, you dipshit. But people dying over property doesn't make anything better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also lol at all the people ITT who are happy being victimized because an assailant's life is just too precious. Maybe we just value our lives over material possessions. But I guess it's easier to call us pussies because we'd rather not kill people. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also lol at all the people ITT who are happy being victimized because an assailant's life is just too precious. Serious question time: if you were mugged by someone pointing a gun at you, would you attempt to draw and fire your own gun? Would you recommend doing so to your spouse and children if such a thing were to happen to them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe we just value our lives over material possessions. But I guess it's easier to call us pussies because we'd rather not kill people. Maybe other people should value their lives over possessions before they try to rob people. Sorry if I've seen enough good people die to not give the slightest gently caress about people who bring it on themselves. And yea, I hold nothing.but contempt for those who'd rather protect those who would victimize over their victims, it's base cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Jesus Christ you people are still all talking about this
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Maybe other people should value their lives over possessions before they try to rob people. Sorry if I've seen enough good people die to not give the slightest gently caress about people who bring it on themselves. Did I miss the part of the hypothetical situation where it was stipulated that a "good person" would die if you didn't shoot the mugger? Are you saying you think anyone who's willing to rob someone should be killed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Maybe other people should value their lives over possessions before they try to rob people. Sorry if I've seen enough good people die to not give the slightest gently caress about people who bring it on themselves. Are you missing the part where if you pull a gun on someone who already has a gun pointed at you, you're just as likely to die as they are? Maybe even more likely to die? Also, people don't deserve to die for stealing or threatening violence. I know good people who have been murdered too. But I don't recommend trying to channel Clint Eastwood when you have a gun pointed in your face. edit: unless the person wants to kill you. Then you have nothing to lose fighting back, and you should fight back, and not feel too bad if you happen to kill them. Though running is often more conducive to living if you have the option. Rah! fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Maybe other people should value their lives over possessions before they try to rob people. Sorry if I've seen enough good people die to not give the slightest gently caress about people who bring it on themselves.  you really are the worst poster in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Hahahaha. Game theory say the answer is to give your wallet every time as drawing would result in death every time for at least one the participants who is just as likely to be you and maybe the mugger if you somehow managed to stay functional enough to shoot. That is some seriously bad odds. Go flip some coins and see how often you are dead. Then try not flipping the coin. What if I am Dick Cheney and my phylactery-wallet is the hiding place of my ancient blackened soul, then a 50/50 chance of only destroying my useless half-rotted husk of a body looks pretty good doesn't it? Where's your game theory now, liberals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What if I am Dick Cheney and my phylactery-wallet is the hiding place of my ancient blackened soul, then a 50/50 chance of only destroying my useless half-rotted husk of a body looks pretty good doesn't it? Where's your game theory now, liberals? You might be an evil NPC under attack by the Hero PCs, in which case you need to roll initiative and consult the Manual as to determine what creatures to summon. Combat will then play out at 6 second intervals. The outcome will vary on rule set used and near random dice rolls that over a long enough timeline will be effectively random as the probabilities regress to the mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:You can't change the law to fix this situation because the old man had property rights. As morally questionable as his decision was to exercise them right then, gun in hand, knowing he was likely to soon be in mortal peril that he could then leverage as an excuse to shoot some filthy bums (per the prosecution), legally he had the right to do everything that he did. ElCondemn posted:Just because it's legal to kill people on your property doesn't mean it's right, there are lots of things people do that are terrible that don't land them in jail. Also I was envisioning a teenager, maybe 17 or 18, perfectly reasonable to expect them to be ignorant and not deserve to be killed. I can't believe you think "I was spooked" is justification enough to kill someone. Rhesus Pieces posted:If you're an armed citizen and someone is squatting in your yard or intruding on your property but not presenting an immediate threat to life and limb, the reasonable course of action is to call the police and keep an eye on him, with your weapon nearby if you feel he may become an immediate threat. His presence shouldn't be used as an excuse to start an armed confrontation just because you may be legally in the right for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's pretty much what I've been driving at this whole time. The point of the law isn't to force people to do what they ought to do, it's to set rules about what they may not do. There is no way to change the law in this case without eliminating property rights, eliminating the right to self defense, or creating various other legal absurdities. Well, this isn't true at all. It certainly is possible to change the law to make even the fact pattern the jury chose to believe a crime. Plenty of states don't have stand your ground laws and continue with the traditional duty to retreat from reasonably foreseeable and escapable confrontations, and those states haven't eliminated property rights or the right to self defense. If I'm going to put on my Rawlsian veil of ignorance here, so I don't know in advance whether my kid is the one getting gunned down in a dark room by a scared old man playing vigilante or my kid is the one who has to wait until morning and then go through the process of legally evicting squatters from his neglected property after a decade of letting it go to ruin, I know which situation I want the law to encourage. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Well, I guess it's legal, I just want to keep talking about how morally reprehensible I think it was" is the most boring conversation possible, especially because most of us probably do something legal every day that one of our fellow citizens considers morally wrong. I think it's even more boring, and really stupid, if every conversation ended with "The courts ruled, any dissenting opinions are irrelevant." Dead Reckoning posted:You really just refuse to get it, don't you? The law, as it stands doesn't allow you to kill people because they deserve it (or for trespassing.) The person defending themselves isn't carrying out a sentence on behalf of society. I get it, he did something that was legal under the law, I'm not arguing that this isn't what happened. Dead Reckoning posted:The law doesn't punish homicide because people don't deserve to die, those judgements are completely irrelevant. If homicide isn't illegal because people don't deserve to die, why is it illegal? Seriously, maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole point behind laws. I see it as an extension of the whole "do unto others" philosophy, I don't want someone to kill or harm me therefore it's wrong to kill or harm others. Dead Reckoning posted:And no, the end result isn't important, how we get there is. The law allows deadly force when someone reasonably fears for their life, irrespective of whether or not they're doing things the way that you or I think is most rational. What exactly would you change about this? I agree that intent is important, ignorance/stupidity in my mind should not be illegal. However, I do believe the end result is very important. If I'm constantly plowing into children at bus stops should I be allowed to keep my license because I technically might not be at fault? The point is, this guy faced no repercussions for killing two people who did not deserve to be killed. At the very least wouldn't it make sense to take some action to prevent this kind of thing from happening again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
The law actually does require more than just a reasonable fear for your life to justify deadly force. For example, if I jump out of a bush and start shooting at you, and you pull out a gun and aim at me to defend yourself, a reasonable person in my position would now fear for his life in that instant, but that doesn't make my next shot one of justified self-defense nor does it mean the law isn't concerned with whether my actions leading up to that instant were reasonable and defensive. E: The law shouldn't give people an incentive to arm themselves and go pick a fight, then shoot their way out of it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Haha, wtf. I post a case I find horrible and the gun rights advocates come out in for force to defend it for days on end.Dead Reckoning posted:That's pretty much what I've been driving at this whole time. The point of the law isn't to force people to do what they ought to do, it's to set rules about what they may not do. Then the law needs to change. Another gold star for you. [...] Dead Reckoning posted:There is no way to change the law in this case without eliminating property rights, eliminating the right to self defense, or creating various other legal absurdities. "Well, I guess it's legal, I just want to keep talking about how morally reprehensible I think it was" is the most boring conversation possible, especially because most of us probably do something legal every day that one of our fellow citizens considers morally wrong. Hahahah, I'm taking your gold stars away. Murder everyone, all the time. Oh, let me remind you that the shooter falls under these laws: The point of the law isn't to force people to do what they ought to do, it's to set rules about what they may not do.  They can do anything if they claim they were afraid. Edit: Unless they get caught taping themselves in creepy home audio talking about the murders they were going to commit. gently caress yeah, freedom. Pohl fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
I didn't see this brought up in any news articles about the case, but exactly how was her presence there illegal? In Texas anyway, once someone is living in a place for 30 days, they are a squatter and have a legal right to stay there until the landlord/owner formally evicts them (I think in Texas you have to post a notice and give them 3 days). Going in there and chasing them out with a gun is a crime, but I don't know what the law is in Nevada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
To make another thing clear, this is a thread about Police, Criminal Justice, and Baltimore Riots. So this topic is not out of bounds. Pohl fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
He walked up and shot them in bed because it was his property. Legal and acceptable in Texas. poo poo, bad edit: It isn't legal, but a lot of people don't care. Dead Reckoning posted:
Just lol. Dead Reckoning posted:That's pretty much what I've been driving at this whole time. The point of the law isn't to force people to do what they ought to do, it's to set rules about what they may not do. There is no way to change the law... He walked up and shot them in bed. At night. After he was pissed that they were squatting. He could have got the cops involved, but he was angry and butthurt so he killed them. And lol at the law couldn't change. Seriously, you think these laws can't change? They are newer than "god" on our money. Pohl fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't see this brought up in any news articles about the case, but exactly how was her presence there illegal? In Texas anyway, once someone is living in a place for 30 days, they are a squatter and have a legal right to stay there until the landlord/owner formally evicts them (I think in Texas you have to post a notice and give them 3 days). Going in there and chasing them out with a gun is a crime, but I don't know what the law is in Nevada. I'd really like this answered because the people defending a guy that to any person not being disingenuous or pedantic would say engineered a situation where he could murder people he found irritating and get away with it like using laws an an excuse to be morally repugnant. If the owner broke the law in order to carry out his killings it would be illuminating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't see this brought up in any news articles about the case, but exactly how was her presence there illegal? In Texas anyway, once someone is living in a place for 30 days, they are a squatter and have a legal right to stay there until the landlord/owner formally evicts them (I think in Texas you have to post a notice and give them 3 days). Going in there and chasing them out with a gun is a crime, but I don't know what the law is in Nevada. A quick read of Nevada law requires 5 years of adverse, continuous possession. They would need to be evicted through the civil courts if their possession had color of law (a fake lease seems to be a common tactic). I haven't seen anything to indicate these squatters had that or that the actual owner knew they were trying to establish such rights and weren't mere trespassers. Hell, the fact that neighbors were tipped off to something being wrong at the residence by a car being parked there leads me to believe the squatters weren't there all that often (read: their possession wasn't all that open or notorious or continuous).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
That post was part of the exchange. Assertion: Flashlight is escalation Assertion: Flashlight is not escalation Question: What if gun? Response: Escalation Assertion: Flashlight is escalation because gun is escalation I'm sorry if I made my position unclear by breaking it up across multiple posts. Edit: On reflection, I think that my hypothetical is not useful when considering the Nevada squatter killings. The feasibility and justifiability of shooting a mugger doesn't really have anything to do with that topic, though I guess it is within the purview of this thread. pacmania90 fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Banana is escalation. Killing undesirables is legal because anything can be confused for a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
It's not useful period because life isn't loving 24. /e - quote:The feasibility and justifiability of shooting a mugger doesn't really have anything to do with that topic, though I guess it is within the purview of this thread. Submarine Sandpaper fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Banana is escalation. Killing undesirables is legal because anything can be confused for a gun. It's the goal of a lot of gun rights advocates. Simultaneously allowing certain types of people to be heavily armed at all times and also giving the legal system an excuse for them to kill people since if guns are so prolific, literally anyone could be armed at any time so any action, even complying with the person with the gun, is worthy of lethal "self defense." People who constantly dream of defending themselves with lethal force are a lot scarier than a mugger since at least with the mugger his goal is to get your money and might not shoot you while the self defense advocate is looking for a reason to kill and knows there's a decent chance he will get away with it if the victim isn't alive to give his or her side of the story. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
I don't know why, but I want to put this on a T-shirt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's the goal of a lot of gun rights advocates. Simultaneously allowing certain types of people to be heavily armed at all times and also giving the legal system an excuse for them to kill people since if guns are so prolific, literally anyone could be armed at any time so any action, even complying with the person with the gun, is worthy of lethal "self defense." Brilliant psychoanalysis of unimpeachable quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Let me ask directly; to anyone who cares to give their judgement. Is the risk assessment of a "reasonable person" under current US law accurate enough to make a morally justifiable self defense kill in all situations where it would be deemed legal? That may be jumbled, so I'll try to rephrase the question so people understand what I'm asking. How sure do you have to be that someone is threatening your life before you are morally justified in killing them? Does a legal self defense kill in the US always meet this moral threshold? If not, when is it legal to kill someone in self defense while not being morally justifiable? Another question that I'm trying to figure out. What level of moral responsibility does a person have in cultivating an accurate sense of risk assessment before "defending themselves". Is there a moral responsibility to learn about guns so that you are better able to differentiate between a real gun and a toy gun if someone is threatening you with one? Is there a moral responsibility to wear your glasses in public so you are better able to identify an object someone threatens you with? What about avoiding dark areas? Do you have a moral responsibility to exercise your body so you are better able to end a confrontation by running away instead of shooting a threat? What about wearing high heels instead of running shoes? What if you're in a wheel chair? Do you have a greater moral responsibility to avoid situations where it is harder to accurately assess a threat since you have fewer options for peacefully resolving a situation than someone who is capable of running away?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Brilliant psychoanalysis of unimpeachable quality. I actually am ok with guns being in the hands of Gay, Women, Trans and other minorities because they are targeted disproportionately by retarded white men for violence. I would never tell them to try and reach for a gun when someone has them at gunpoint. pacmania90 needs to shut the gently caress up with his retard scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:It's not useful period because life isn't loving 24. Why is "mugged" in quotation marks? What are you implying? Say it out loud instead of making passive aggressive insinuations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Sure is, the alternative is listening to some kid with a comic book understanding of firearms telling people to try and go for a weapon whens someone has you at gunpoint. Read my posts. Stop projecting arguments onto them that I didn't make. I never said it is right to to shoot someone if they were mugging you. I apologize if I was unable to convey that to you in my posts, but I feel that you are making a deliberate effort to misinterpret them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
How fast can you draw you gun bro? Are you aware of the 21 foot rule with knives? If a fat man farts but and denies it, is that justification to shoot him because there might be a thinner man behind him with a gun? Is there a moral imperative to light one homless man on fire if the one next to him is shivering? If you are being mugged you will not have the opportunity to draw your gun, contemplate on the legality or morality of the shot and shoot someone unless it's in the back as he's running away. I don't know why you think it'd be otherwise and as much as you'd like to pre-meditate your naive justifications, it doesn't fly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:19
|
|