|
Is anyone going to address the actual moral hypothetical or is everyone going to continue dodging by making tactical arguments?
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm glad you "get" it.  ElCondemn posted:
Then why would you do it? Why would you defend your child from a violent attacker if you don't think that's "OK"? Here's the video, by the way (found it!). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0z6UeW0MI0
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Is anyone going to address the actual moral hypothetical or is everyone going to continue dodging by making tactical arguments? VitalSigns posted:If I genuinely thought the person meant to kill me, and wasn't just after my wallet, then shooting in self-defense is justifiable. If he says "give me your wallet and I'll let you live" I would of course give him my wallet because it's not worth killing over and definitely not worth risking my life in a gun battle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
If you like the idea of legal self defense you secretly just want to kill undesirable people for fun because you are a scared bigot. If you call out any use of self defense you are a weakling who would rather be brutally killed than lift a finger to protect yourself or others. Did I about sum this up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Fair enough, I missed that post somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:The prosecution conceded that the squatters had no right to be there; given a huge part of the defense's case was his right to enter it seems like something the prosecution would not have conceded lightly. Adverse possession is different from squatter's rights. Texas recognizes squatter's rights after 30 days, but actually getting title to a property through adverse possession takes 30 years or something crazy. Still, as a property owner, you have a burden to ensure you have the right to kick people out before you do so: post a notice, that sort of thing, because it's now a civil matter, you can't just chase them out with a gun. But I suppose if they had had those rights, the prosecution ought to have made an issue of it, so they probably didn't. Nevada sounds weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I don't know why, but I want to put this on a T-shirt.  And to get off the topic of whether it's justifiable or super-justifiable to kill unarmed people sleeping in a bed and how awesome it must be to finally get your cherry kill. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/stephen-rankin-military-trained-officer-william-chapman Cop kills his second unarmed victim because of the dreaded "reaching for his waistband". quote:Rankin’s use of a pseudonym online was understandable. He was chided by police chiefs when he publicly referred on Facebook to his firearms case as “Rankin’s box of vengeance” and said it “would be better if i was dirtying them instead of cleaning them!” This guy is clearly fit to be an officer. quote:Chapman’s mother, Sallie, claims her son’s hands were so badly wounded in the encounter that funeral workers told her they could not meet her request to lay them across his chest. “As a mother, I can’t do that to you,” she quoted one funeral home staff member as telling her. It is unclear how his hands came to be injured. DARPA fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
A waistband and a gun are the same thing, so what's the issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Brilliant psychoanalysis of unimpeachable quality. The first part is totally true, especially based on the accounts of police and why they find non-police threatening and why they need to pro-actively defend themselves against children and people with toys in Walmarts. If gun stores stopped selling "Zombie with dark skin" targets maybe they would have the benefit of the doubt. It might not be an orchestrated plan to allow certain groups to kill others legally but it's clear some people think it is based on attempts to use (successfully or not) stand your ground laws to start fights then shoot to kill when they get escalated or just shoot people knocking on doors. The second part is in regards to people that constantly think about self defense. If you are in America chances are you are pretty safe, especially if you are a middle class white guy so the types that are obsessed with making sure they have a gun and write out their absurd fan fiction about how they will totally quick draw that thug that has a gun on them are pretty clear about what their real motivator is. There's a significant difference between the guy that lives in a high crime area and has a gun in his house in case of a break in (and he better hope it's not the police at the wrong home because then self defense isn't allowed) and the old guy that manufactures a situation with two unarmed people in the middle of the night and ends up killing them because they were aggressively holding a flashlight. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Adverse possession is different from squatter's rights. Texas recognizes squatter's rights after 30 days, but actually getting title to a property through adverse possession takes 30 years or something crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:A property owner has the duty to ensure trespassers aren't squatters? That seems kind of unreasonable. Hell how exactly would someone determine that without a confrontation? If only there was some kind of governmental agency tasked with upholding the law and settling disputes that you could call...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
botany posted:If only there was some kind of governmental agency tasked with upholding the law and settling disputes that you could call... But but but we D&D leftists would be hypocrites for calling the cops instead of going vigilante since we're a hive mind that thinks all cops are trigger happy murderers so that's out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:A property owner has the duty to ensure trespassers aren't squatters? That seems kind of unreasonable. Hell how exactly would someone determine that without a confrontation? Yeah, before you pull a gun on people, you should really be sure you're legally in the right. You could determine that by: -Waiting until the house is unoccupied and posting a notice on the door to vacate -Knocking on the door in the daytime and talking to the people there, with friends to back you up if necessary -Calling the police whose job it is to investigate things like this Nah, just kidding, obviously the only reasonable way to find out if there's a peaceful resolution to this situation is to bust down the door at night brandishing a pistol and then fire at the first thing that moves
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:How fast can you draw you gun bro? Are you aware of the 21 foot rule with knives? In my mind, I'm never gonna die in no ghetto. Absolutely never. If a man turns around and punches me in the head, the fights on. If he cuts me, the fights on. If I'm shot, the Fight. Is. On. I'm not losing no fight to no scumbag out there in no ghetto. Period. Thats it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
If you just call the cops on some squatters the cops will most likely kill them for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
botany posted:If only there was some kind of governmental agency tasked with upholding the law and settling disputes that you could call... It's baffling that now just the possibility that someone is on your property illegally means you can face legal sanction for entering it. If not for the unfortunate reaction of the trespassers this is pretty much how it should be- you investigate your property, if you find someone there with no right to be there you tell them to get out. If they refuse then call the cops. But apparently we need the state holding our hand at every step so we don't startle trespassers (who wouldn't be startled by police for some reason).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:It's baffling that now just the possibility that someone is on your property illegally means you can face legal sanction for entering it. If not for the unfortunate reaction of the trespassers this is pretty much how it should be- you investigate your property, if you find someone there with no right to be there you tell them to get out. If they refuse then call the cops. But apparently we need the state holding our hand at every step so we don't startle trespassers (who wouldn't be startled by police for some reason). If someone has stolen my wallet, and I get a gun, hunt them down, and surprise them in a dark alley where I can't see if they're armed and shoot them out of fear; does it baffle you that I might face legal sanction just for going to pick up my own wallet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Yeah I'm sure the "hey there might be someone on property I own could you check it out" call is going to be high priority. If it's your home, then yes, it's going to be high priority. If it's your abandoned duplex that you haven't been to in three years, then it doesn't need to be high priority. The rest of your post in borderline incoherent, so I'll just point this poo poo out again: There is a proper way to react to trespassers. It does not involve you grabbing a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Adverse possession is different from squatter's rights. Texas recognizes squatter's rights after 30 days, but actually getting title to a property through adverse possession takes 30 years or something crazy. Please post a source for this because every legal research source I've tried searching for squatters rights in redirects to adverse possession. I can't find anything to support your claim of landlord's duties. Closest I've been able to find are instances where there's a claim of actual tenant status being established.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, before you pull a gun on people, you should really be sure you're legally in the right. Also lol at you advocating marshalling a posse of friends. No vigilante overtones there or anything. And he was in the right so what is the point of creating all these tasks? Why can't we just say "hey if you break into a house don't make any sudden moves if confronted." Less cost on the injured party (the property owner) and actually reflects the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:And he was in the right so what is the point of creating all these tasks? Why can't we just say "hey if you break into a house don't make any sudden moves if confronted." Less cost on the injured party (the property owner) and actually reflects the real world. The injured party are the people you're shooting, you imbecile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Right. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm glad you "get" it. You're literally arguing if he can't see a threat he's in his right to use deadly force, what are you really saying if not that? spacetoaster posted:Then why would you do it? Why would you defend your child from a violent attacker if you don't think that's "OK"? Great, in that situation I probably would step in between my child and the guy, maybe push him back. The kid didn't seem like he was in serious danger. However, I wasn't there so the situation may have looked different in person. If I were in that situation and did react badly it still doesn't mean I'm justified to hit people. Force is reserved for defense, violence does not become justified because "he deserved it". Waco Panty Raid posted:A property owner has the duty to ensure trespassers aren't squatters? That seems kind of unreasonable. Hell how exactly would someone determine that without a confrontation? Occupying and/or using your property would probably be enough to ensure nobody could claim squatters rights. The goal of these types of laws is to make disused land available to someone willing to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Sorry if I've seen enough good people die to not give the slightest gently caress about people who bring it on themselves. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Oh so now we have to respect the schedule of the trespassers too? People who ignore things like locks and ownership are going to respond to a notice? How would he know if they saw the notice or could read it? They might be illiterate or non-English speakers so better have it in a dozen languages and pictures or something just to be sure! Yes, it is literally the law in Texas that if you have a squatter you must post a notice and give them three days to vacate. I've never heard that the law requires you to post it in a dozen languages, so I don't know why you're inventing that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:A property owner has the duty to ensure trespassers aren't squatters? That seems kind of unreasonable. Hell how exactly would someone determine that without a confrontation? Reasonable would be Rent National fencing and some No Trespassing signs you get put up in broad daylight. If trespassers try to exercise squatters rights I don't see how busting down a door at midnight with a gun in hand is supposed to have resolved, well, anything. Waco Panty Raid posted:Yeah I'm sure the "hey there might be someone on property I own could you check it out" call is going to be high priority. Waco Panty Raid posted:Oh so now we have to respect the schedule of the trespassers too? Actually you're right. Having to wait a few hours or, dear me, schedule a visit with the police is probably just too much to ask after three years of abandonment. Get the door ram and the glock out. We're going in hot. DARPA fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Maybe people wouldn't mistake flashlights and whatnot for guns if they didn't have guns so prominently in their life. I believe that the squatter killer did think the flashlight is a gun, since he probably sleeps with a loaded gun and would reach for it in the same situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If someone has stolen my wallet, and I get a gun, hunt them down, and surprise them in a dark alley where I can't see if they're armed and shoot them out of fear; does it baffle you that I might face legal sanction just for going to pick up my own wallet? Edit wow bad typo botany posted:The injured party are the people you're shooting, you imbecile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Oh so now we have to respect the schedule of the trespassers too? People who ignore things like locks and ownership are going to respond to a notice? How would he know if they saw the notice or could read it? They might be illiterate or non-English speakers so better have it in a dozen languages and pictures or something just to be sure! I live across the street from a vacant house. I don't know who owns it, but I know it's empty. I change the locks, I put up a rental advertisement on Craiglist, and I find a renter who signs a lease with me and starts paying me rent money. That tenant has a good faith expectation that they are a legal resident, so when you barge in at 11pm and shoot them in the face when they reach to turn on their bedside lamp, that is a BAD THING for society. Which is why we have legal processes for addressing problems like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I'm really having trouble understanding how calling the cops to deal with trespassers and squatters (in a building you own but don't live in) instead of kicking the door down and waving a gun around is in any way unreasonable. Just because it's technically your property doesn't give you the moral duty to personally flush out the invaders at gunpoint, nor does it make it a remotely smart idea. If we were talking about home invaders kicking down the door to your own residence it's a completely different story. At that point it's completely reasonable to believe you are in mortal danger and waiting for the police to arrive to sort things out isn't a viable option. Dead Reckoning posted:I find it absurd that, in a thread about police misconduct, your solution is that someone's property rights only extend as far as the police are willing and able to enforce them. That someone on their own property should have to take care to avoid an illegal invader lest the invader be hurt or killed. All I'm saying is I think it's a good and prudent idea to try to avoid using lethal force against anybody unless you have no other choice. Why put yourself or anyone else in mortal danger if there is any way to avoid it? An "illegal invader" existing on your sacred property isn't a declaration of war that you have no choice but to violently respond to. Doing anything except charging at the invader with your weapon drawn isn't the equivalent of politely asking if he's comfortable and offering him tea and a scone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Before you call someone an imbecile or incoherent you should probably pay attention to the context of the discussion you jumped into. We're talking about what a property owner should do when faced with sqyatters or trespassers. In that situation, yeah the property owner is the injured party. And I'm trying to get you to understand that it's morally repugnant to look at a situation where people are illegally occupying unused real estate and to conclude that it's "less cost on the injured party" if they get to just shoot the trespassers. And even on your own legalistic terminology you're not necessarily right: if adverse posession applies in such cases, the injured party are actually the squatters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, it is literally the law in Texas that if you have a squatter you must post a notice and give them three days to vacate. So how is he supposed to know if he has a squatter without inspecting the property? Hope the police show up to investigate a possible trespass? Maybe squatters should be required to give notice to protect themselves? Edited out provided for required Devor posted:I live across the street from a vacant house. I don't know who owns it, but I know it's empty. I change the locks, I put up a rental advertisement on Craiglist, and I find a renter who signs a lease with me and starts paying me rent money. Waco Panty Raid fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, it is literally the law in Texas that if you have a squatter you must post a notice and give them three days to vacate. It's literally not, I found the law you're talking about and its for tenants who no longer have leases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
botany posted:And I'm trying to get you to understand that it's morally repugnant to look at a situation where people are illegally occupying unused real estate and to conclude that it's "less cost on the injured party" if they get to just shoot the trespassers. And even on your own legalistic terminology you're not necessarily right: if adverse posession applies in such cases, the injured party are actually the squatters. Adverse possession means an attempt to challenge the ownership of the previous owners, not that they already have ownership. If you're going to challenge someone on legalistic terminology at least do a google search.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:If you have a squatter. We know he almost certainly did not have a squatter, it's highly questionable if he even had a reasonable reason to suspect he had a squatter. Yes, that's what people in a lawful civil society would do. If you suspect that there are trespassers living in a vacant property you own but don't live in, call the local law enforcement agency and have them handle it. Why the gently caress is this idea so unreasonable to some people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:They were justifiably shot because they made an unfortunate gesture during the confrontation. The confrontation when an armed man busted through the front door and entered the bedroom while they were asleep. But hey, it was his property and property is god so stamp it justified and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Please post a source for this because every legal research source I've tried searching for squatters rights in redirects to adverse possession. I can't find anything to support your claim of landlord's duties. Closest I've been able to find are instances where there's a claim of actual tenant status being established. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PR/htm/PR.24.htm#24.002 quote:(d) In all situations in which the entry by the occupant was a forcible entry under Section 24.001, the person entitled to possession must give the occupant oral or written notice to vacate before the landlord files a forcible entry and detainer suit. The notice to vacate under this subsection may be to vacate immediately or by a specified deadline. I was wrong about three days notice, that only comes into play if they were originally there legally and are overstaying their lease or something. But you still have to give notice and file a suit, and you can't break down the door and come in: if it's locked and you can't open it you have to leave the a written notice attached to the door. But maybe Nevada is terrible, idk. But anyway, these are the rights in Texas of an occupant of a dwelling that came in by forcible entry. And it's different from adverse possession which is hard to do in Texas (30 years of living there, a bunch of documentation and poo poo) Jarmak posted:It's literally not, I found the law you're talking about and its for tenants who no longer have leases. Yes I mixed those two up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Yes, that's what people in a lawful civil society would do. If you suspect that there are trespassers living in a vacant property you own but don't live in, call the local law enforcement agency and have them handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Because a lot of people don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be able to enter your own property. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to pick up my wallet whenever I want, that doesn't mean I have a right to hunt down someone who has it and attack them in a dark room.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
There are people touching my material things. I must kill them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Yes, that's what people in a lawful civil society would do. If you suspect that there are trespassers living in a vacant property you own but don't live in, call the local law enforcement agency and have them handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 17:47
|
|
