|
Woozy posted:I don't really count survivalists saving their own skin as "useful", is the thing. Sure. Just don't expect anyone to care or take your opinion into account when your position is "just die then; it amuses me."
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Pohl posted:We know how it works Not if you think affirmative defenses shift a beyond reasonable doubt burden onto the defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Hey actus this conversation is dumb but I would really like you to weigh in on the Orange County situation since I vaguely recall you've argued in the past that massive conspiracies like this among attorneys just don't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Is anyone going to address the actual moral hypothetical or is everyone going to continue dodging by making tactical arguments? Would you be in favor of a hundred holocausts or a million eternal apartheids? Keep in mind that you are not allowed to choose neither, and that you must phrase your answer as "I, Jarmak, am in favor of..." If you answer this useless hypothetical honestly and in good faith, i will answer his useless hypothetical honestly and in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Hey actus this conversation is dumb but I would really like you to weigh in on the Orange County situation since I vaguely recall you've argued in the past that massive conspiracies like this among attorneys just don't happen. *offer void in California where I have often been on record saying their system is hosed and the result of overly politicized elected DAs and judges. I mean...do you actually expect me to defend that? I don't. I also don't find what happens in Orange County California to be reflective of where I practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:*offer void in California where I have often been on record saying their system is hosed and the result of overly politicized elected DAs and judges. But you've said something along those lines when we're talking about Ferguson or other parts of the country that aren't where you practice (I'm assuming). How can you be sure your experience applies? I also don't understand what's so crazy about someone being held responsible if an innocent person is killed. Again, not wanting to send them to one of our prisons. Dum Cumpster fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Simple answer: I can't. But if you are going to allege what is a pretty serious criminal and ethical violation, I think you need more than "I think prosecutors are all corrupt so they must be." Orange County is appalling and I hope they get prosecuted and disbarred.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I've been giving this a little bit of thought, there are a couple problems with the current laws in my eyes (it's definitely not comprehensive and I'm mostly just trying to offer an alternative solution) I can tell you this (I was law enforcement for 5 years): Many police are taught an escalation of force in which you "one up" whatever is being used against you. They have bare fists? You go to your baton. They have a hand weapon? You use your firearm. I think it would be kind of stupid to ask police officers to meet force with equal force. This isn't the field of honor. ElCondemn posted:
Not being a smartass here, but would you apply that to other violent crimes? Should women not wear a short skirt and heels in order to not get raped? Telling someone to invest in better locks for their home if they don't want to be a victim of a crime seems to be the same mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:I also don't understand what's so crazy about someone being held responsible if an innocent person is killed. Again, not wanting to send them to one of our prisons. You have to be a literal sociopath to see an innocent person be killed and incredulously respond "it was a mistake, he was scared, accidents happen. "
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Can you not do this? Wait... "We don't want to know what the law is, we just want to change it."?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Wait... "We don't want to know what the law is, we just want to change it."? I know? Right? Also worth pointing out that one class of victims that habitually (though less publicly) benefits from liberal self defense statutes is battered spouses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Not being a smartass here, but would you apply that to other violent crimes? Should women not wear a short skirt and heels in order to not get raped? Telling someone to invest in better locks for their home if they don't want to be a victim of a crime seems to be the same mentality. I'm not suggesting people build safe rooms, I just think if guns were illegal to use as protection that maybe we'd see less arsenals and more safe rooms. I think people will use whatever they can legally get away with, as seen on this very thread people are willing to kill just for their personal sense of safety, and what's worse they think it's justified. I would suggest women keep mace with them and to stay in well lit areas preferably in a group. I think that's a little different from saying "women, you gotta quit looking so rapable"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I would suggest women stay in well lit areas preferably in a group. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I know? Right? "You wouldn't want to leave a woman helpless would you? Without impunity to kill innocent people you leave these woman with no recourse! "
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:"You wouldn't want to leave a woman helpless would you? Without impunity to kill innocent people you leave these woman with no recourse! " Not what I said. But that's cool. Can you tell me more about my need to stick in well lit areas in large groups? Because no rapes are ever committed by people known to the victim, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Simple answer: I can't. But if you are going to allege what is a pretty serious criminal and ethical violation, I think you need more than "I think prosecutors are all corrupt so they must be." Orange County is appalling and I hope they get prosecuted and disbarred. I thought it was more along the lines of "surely someone can't gently caress up a case that bad, there must be more to it" not that all prosecutors are bad. Though I know many interesting opinions are thrown around this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Not what I said. But that's cool. Can you tell me more about my need to stick in well lit areas in large groups? Because no rapes are ever committed by people known to the victim, right? I know, I understand if we prevent people from killing each other it somehow means rape victims will be raped with even more regularity! What is your point? Preventing people from using lethal weapons as defense tools is not victim blaming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I can tell you this (I was law enforcement for 5 years): Many police are taught an escalation of force in which you "one up" whatever is being used against you. They have bare fists? You go to your baton. They have a hand weapon? You use your firearm. quote:Not being a smartass here, but would you apply that to other violent crimes? Should women not wear a short skirt and heels in order to not get raped? Telling someone to invest in better locks for their home if they don't want to be a victim of a crime seems to be the same mentality. That comparison would only work if women committed crimes with their skirts and heels. The reason people talk about banning weapons is because weapons are used to commit crimes. If you absolutely have to make idiotic analogies, at least go for "should we ban penises".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
No telling women to stay out of the dark and keep in groups is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I would suggest women keep mace with them and to stay in well lit areas preferably in a group. I think that's a little different from saying "women, you gotta quit looking so rapable" Yeah that's a pretty stupid suggestion, sorry. The answer to rape is to make rapey behaviour less acceptable, make it easier for women who have been sexually assaulted to find help and to prosecute rapists. "Maybe don't go into the darkness" is dumb on a lot of levels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I...yes? The killer is not necessarily "bad" they just made the wrong decision. There should be consequences. I'm all for reforming the law away from punitive judgments and sentencing but I don't see why this is the place to start. Why? This is an infantile view of the world where any bad thing is necessarily the fault of a person who should be punished. Its even worse then retributive justice which at least works on the basis of "you did something bad you deserve to suffer for it", this is pure "something bad happened, someone must suffer for it". You rail against putting people in jail who purposely and intentionally break drug laws, but you want to put people in those very same jails because they are victims of an attack/crime and make a reasonable judgement as to the level of threat that only after the benefit of hindsight turns out to be incorrect? Should we start sending whatever party is most at fault in fatal car accidents to jail for murder? Medical mistakes? There is no system that leads to nothing but fair outcomes, people can get away with shady claims of self defense because like rape there is often not much actual evidence to go on. Our system works on the basis that its better to let guilty people go free for lack of evidence of guilt then it is to convict innocent people for lack of evidence of innocence. Dum Cumpster posted:I also don't understand what's so crazy about someone being held responsible if an innocent person is killed. Again, not wanting to send them to one of our prisons. Civil liability is a different issue, does this not already exist though? Neurolimal posted:Would you be in favor of a hundred holocausts or a million eternal apartheids? Keep in mind that you are not allowed to choose neither, and that you must phrase your answer as "I, Jarmak, am in favor of..." Pohl posted:And loving lol at this. That was certainly me spending an entire page and a half yelling about how you're more likely to get killed by resisting, got me, I was actually posting from your accounts in secret. Pohl posted:We know how it works, we don't like it. Oh no, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't understand how it works, why it works that way, or apparently how it used to work. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Can you stop bringing up the stupid rape response, which was itself a response to a stupid equivalency, equating potential rape victims to potential murderers? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I know? Right? How do they need a more liberal version of the law? Just trying to understand, not telling you where you're safe to walk at night(wtf?).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
botany posted:Yeah that's a pretty stupid suggestion, sorry. The answer to rape is to make rapey behaviour less acceptable, make it easier for women who have been sexually assaulted to find help and to prosecute rapists. "Maybe don't go into the darkness" is dumb on a lot of levels. Someone asked me about rape, can I just edit what you said about it I to my post? I don't have that answer, I was just trying to say people should do whatever makes them feel safe, short of killing people who scare them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
I phrased that poorly. Replace more liberal with "the current state in which the defendant is held to the reasonable belief standard" We get a lot of publicity for cop cases and Zimmerman cases. But these are not the majority of cases in which self defense is claimed. See it much more in assaults gone wrong or domestic cases. The problem with law reform is the new law will apply to everyone. Not just the people we (right now) want it to apply to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I know, I understand if we prevent people from killing each other it somehow means rape victims will be raped with even more regularity! Um... yes? Females are the biggest benefactors from the ability to use firearms in self defense owing to physical stature not being required to use them effectively. ElCondemn posted:What is your point? Preventing people from using lethal weapons as defense tools is not victim blaming. Just helping create more victims I guess But yea, I see you've stumbled onto to the real solution here, we just need to outlaw killing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Um... yes? Females are the biggest benefactors from the ability to use firearms in self defense owing to physical stature not being required to use them effectively. The rape argument is kind of weak because most rapes are acquaintance rapes. Better example would be domestic assaults.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The rape argument is kind of weak because most rapes are acquaintance rapes. Better example would be domestic assaults. fair, but I couldn't resist biting on that sarcastic remark which was in fact true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Um... yes? Females are the biggest benefactors from the ability to use firearms in self defense owing to physical stature not being required to use them effectively. Got any numbers on how many rapes guns have prevented? Jarmak posted:But yea, I see you've stumbled onto to the real solution here, we just need to outlaw killing. At the very least it should help resolve the problem of people getting away with killing innocent people. But I guess your point is laws are meaningless, people are going to kill anyway so why make it a law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Could someone summarize the argument here? I think at one point it was, "we need to change the laws to make it harder to kill someone and say, 'oops my bad.'" but then it became, "women will still get raped just as much if we aren't killing muggers."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Could someone summarize the argument here? I think at one point it was, "we need to change the laws to make it harder to kill someone and say, 'oops my bad.'" but then it became, "women will still get raped just as much if we aren't killing muggers." Summary: D&D
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Could someone summarize the argument here? I think at one point it was, "we need to change the laws to make it harder to kill someone and say, 'oops my bad.'" but then it became, "women will still get raped just as much if we aren't killing muggers." I think what you need to understand is that guns save lives and prevent rapes. Don't bother looking up crime stats in places where guns are banned, this statement holds true regardless of reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I think what you need to understand is that guns save lives and prevent rapes. Don't bother looking up crime stats in places where guns are banned, this statement holds true regardless of reality. What are the crime stats in places with restrictive gun laws? Start with Chicago. I'd look it up myself but the records aren't in a well lit area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Not helpful. Does anyone believe that killing in self defense should never be justified under the law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What are the crime stats in places with restrictive gun laws? Start with Chicago. "Checkmate" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not helpful. Does anyone believe that killing in self defense should never be justified under the law? It's justified if the victim was objectively bad, the defendant was objectively good, and the victim absolutely unquestionably would have murdered the defendant as decided later... With the benefit of hindsight... By an Internet forum. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not helpful. Does anyone believe that killing in self defense should never be justified under the law? I think it's unlikely lethal force is necessary in most cases, but I can appreciate that I can't think of every scenario. It's certainly never justified to kill someone who was not a threat, even if you're scared.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not helpful. Does anyone believe that killing in self defense should never be justified under the law? Yup ElCondemn posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's justified if the victim was objectively bad, the defendant was objectively good, and the victim absolutely unquestionably would have murdered the defendant as decided later... With the benefit of hindsight... By an Internet forum. So you think it's just for innocent people to be killed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you think it's just for innocent people to be killed? Not all unjust results are the results of unjust action, and not all just action ends in just results. Do you think its just to put people in jail for actions they reasonably believed to be just at time they took them?.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:17
|
|