|
Rephrase your question. How do you define "just"
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted: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. Yeah, I get that internet arguing means "never concede anything!" but my point is that nobody is really saying, "nope, just let the perp rape and murder your whole family, sorry!" That means the argument is something like this: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted: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. " Wow I missed this gem, actually you just have to have some notion of what its like to have your life threatened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted: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. Clearly we need to ban guns and issue crystal balls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
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. You just described trials as if it were a ridiculous concept. The whole point is to analyze the situation and pass judgment after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yeah, I get that internet arguing means "never concede anything!" but my point is that nobody is really saying, "nope, just let the perp rape and murder your whole family, sorry!" That means the argument is something like this: No condemn is arguing you have the right to run away or resist with non-lethal force. Or I guess he's changed that to you're not allowed to resist with lethal force with a lethal weapon, but maybe sometimes lethal force with non-lethal weapons is okay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:You just described trials as if it were a ridiculous concept. The whole point is to analyze the situation and pass judgment after the fact. Based on information the defendant reasonably knew at the time. You keep ignoring that bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:You just described trials as if it were a ridiculous concept. The whole point is to analyze the situation and pass judgment after the fact. Trials pass judgement based on what is known to the defendant at the time of the act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you think its just to put people in jail for actions they reasonably believed to be just at time they took them?. I think it's just to expect people taking deadly action to be held responsible for those actions when they make a mistake. I think intent is important in a criminal trial, but I also wouldn't let a bad driver keep driving just because they weren't drunk at the wheel when they ran over a bus load of school kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Thats why it was so dumb to say "I don't care what the law actually is!" because your baseline for change is the status quo. One of the points Actus is making is that the internet's understanding of reality is: But is actually closer to:  Laws aren't made to produce numerical results; they're designed to reflect the will of the people. Self defense laws are designed to reflect what society feels should be a justification for killing. If you disagree with the way the law is written or enforced, then here is the question: "How?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I think it's just to expect people taking deadly action to be held responsible for those actions when they make a mistake. How about you actually answer the question edit: ElCondemn posted:I think intent is important in a criminal trial, but I also wouldn't let a bad driver keep driving just because they weren't drunk at the wheel when they ran over a bus load of school kids. I would if it turns out that this somehow happened without the driver taking any sort of unreasonable act that led to this result
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I think it's just to expect people taking deadly action to be held responsible for those actions when they make a mistake. You're conflating negligence and intent - two opposites. Manslaughter is "negligent homicide" and Self Defense Killing is "justified, intentional homicide."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
This is how we get bad laws
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Based on information the defendant reasonably knew at the time. You keep ignoring that bit. You're a loving lawyer do better. You don't think something like mens rea is capable of being the least bit controversial in interpreting law? What's criminal negligence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is how we get bad laws Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:How about you actually answer the question Sorry, I thought I was. Yes it's just to jail someone who is killing people he fears for no reason. He thought he was in danger, he wasn't, he is the dangerous one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
What does self defense have to do with the police?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Woozy posted:What's criminal negligence? The opposite of criminal intent (mens rea).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is how we get bad laws You already have bad Laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're conflating negligence and intent - two opposites. Manslaughter is "negligent homicide" and Self Defense Killing is "justified, intentional homicide." We don't care what the law is! We just want to change it! Woozy posted:You're a loving lawyer do better. You don't think something like mens rea is capable of being the least bit controversial in interpreting law? What's criminal negligence? Well, for starters there's no affirmative claim of self defense in a negligence case...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I phrased that poorly. Replace more liberal with "the current state in which the defendant is held to the reasonable belief standard" Right now people like Cece McDonald and Marissa Alexander go to prison anyway, so the current issue is probably more, "if the standards applied to vigilantes and police were applied to everyone, then our prisons would be empty." Lyesh fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why is that? Because laws should be made based on attempting to achieve the greatest possible good while balancing disparate societal interests, not common sense and what "feels good". Woozy posted:You're a loving lawyer do better. You don't think something like mens rea is capable of being the least bit controversial in interpreting law? What's criminal negligence? blarzgh posted:The opposite of criminal intent (mens rea). Mens Rea means "guilty mind" not "intent". "Intent" is a level of mens rea, "negligence" is another. ElCondemn posted:Sorry, I thought I was. Yes it's just to jail someone who is killing people he fears for no reason. He thought he was in danger, he wasn't, he is the dangerous one. Its not for no reason, otherwise it wouldn't be just, try again
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:We don't care what the law is! We just want to change it! There loving shouldn't be in a case where someone deliberately contrives a self-defense scenario to get away with murder either but here we are
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're conflating negligence and intent - two opposites. Manslaughter is "negligent homicide" and Self Defense Killing is "justified, intentional homicide." I was having two thoughts. People should be held responsible for their mistakes. But I think the judgment should reflect what the person intended. For instance, I want dangerous killers locked away, but I'd be ok with a shorter sentence for the guy who thought he was just protecting himself. Though you bring up a good point, is the squatters case negligent homicide or justified intentional homicide? Does the fact that no gun was present change the charge?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Jarmak is right. Negligent, reckless, and intentional are all different mens rea. But only intentional can be countered with a self defense claim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I was having two thoughts. People should be held responsible for their mistakes. But I think the judgment should reflect what the person intended. For instance, I want dangerous killers locked away, but I'd be ok with a shorter sentence for the guy who thought he was just protecting himself. That already happens in many jurisdictions. A flawed self defense claim can justify reckless charges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its not for no reason, otherwise it wouldn't be just, try again Oh, what was the reason again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Woozy posted:There loving shouldn't be in a case where someone deliberately contrives a self-defense scenario to get away with murder either but here we are Another brilliant reform idea, we can just not let the guilty people have trials ElCondemn posted:I was having two thoughts. People should be held responsible for their mistakes. But I think the judgment should reflect what the person intended. For instance, I want dangerous killers locked away, but I'd be ok with a shorter sentence for the guy who thought he was just protecting himself. Are you seriously loving telling me after this whole time you don't even know what the guy you're freaking out about as an example of the law being wrong was charged with?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Woozy posted:There loving shouldn't be in a case where someone deliberately contrives a self-defense scenario to get away with murder either but here we are So is your argument we should get rid of self defense? Not trying to be snide. I really don't get where you are trying to go here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because laws should be made based on attempting to achieve the greatest possible good while balancing disparate societal interests, not common sense and what "feels good". A lofty proposition in a democracy. Shouldn't 'the laws' be made in an attempt to organize and the rules by which society agrees to live with one another, and the People be charged with attempting to achieve the greatest possible good? Jarmak posted:Mens Rea means "guilty mind" not "intent". "Intent" is a level of mens rea, "negligence" is another. The people in this thread were conflating the difference between an intentional homicide and a negligent one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Oh, what was the reason again? A reasonable belief that the shooter's life was in danger, but that's not even the loving question I asked you, its telling you can't answer the question without restating it to me something completely different first. Jarmak posted: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 16:44
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you seriously loving telling me after this whole time you don't even know what the guy you're freaking out about as an example of the law being wrong was charged with? Yeah, and my arguments are still better than "mistakes happen, you can't hold people accountable for making a mistake".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Woozy posted:There loving shouldn't be in a case where someone deliberately contrives a self-defense scenario to get away with murder either but here we are Pretty sure evidence that somebody deliberately contrived a scenario for the purpose of killing somebody is already the kind of thing that would make self defense laws inapplicable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Pretty sure evidence that somebody deliberately contrived a scenario for the purpose of killing somebody is already the kind of thing that would make self defense laws inapplicable. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:A reasonable belief that the shooter's life was in danger, but that's not even the loving question I asked you, its telling you can't answer the question without restating it to me something completely different first. I keep saying yes, but you keep thinking I mean something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Jarmak is right. Negligent, reckless, and intentional are all different mens rea. But only intentional can be countered with a self defense claim. So if you are negligent and/or reckless, with a reasonable belief that your actions are going to create a situation where you're likely to defend yourself with lethal force, that's a good result? We're happy that the current laws don't prevent that situation? Edit: 1. Negligently kill someone is manslaughter 2. Intentionally kill someone is murder 3. Negligently arrange for a self-defense killing is not a crime 4. Intentionally arrange for a self-defense killing is murder I think we should change laws so that #3 is manslaughter Devor fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jun 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:A lofty proposition in a democracy. Shouldn't 'the laws' be made in an attempt to organize and the rules by which society agrees to live with one another, and the People be charged with attempting to achieve the greatest possible good? Well we're arguing past each other a bit, what you're describing above is the reason we have laws and the goal in organizing the system by which we create them versus I'm talking about the reasoning with which the individual laws should be created. I don't think the former really belongs in a policy level debate and which is why I think I misunderstood exactly what you were trying to say. Though I suppose you could make an argument to structuralism that a moral structure for creating laws creates moral laws, which is ironically somewhat parallel to the argument going on right now that involves the disconnect between moral action and moral result.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Devor posted:So if you are negligent and/or reckless, with a reasonable belief that your actions are going to create a situation where you're likely to defend yourself with lethal force, that's a good result? We're happy that the current laws don't prevent that situation? This is a false dichotomy, you don't "intentionally arrange for a self-defense killing", that's no longer self defense . You also can't "negligently arrange for a self-defense killing" because to arrange for something requires intent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is a false dichotomy, you don't "intentionally arrange for a self-defense killing", that's no longer self defense . You also can't "negligently arrange for a self-defense killing" because to arrange for something requires intent. We can quibble over the exact phrasing, but the bottom line is that the Nevada man "Knew, or should have known, and a reasonable person should have known that his actions would be likely to cause this self-defense killing" (Negligent and/or reckless). Edit: Adding a level of abstraction where you are negligently setting the pieces for a bad situation should have the same penalties as negligently causing the bad situation without the intermediate step.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:though you bring up a good point, is the squatters case negligent homicide or justified intentional homicide? Does the fact that no gun was present change the charge? Thats intentional homicide, and the presence of a firearm is inconsequential to that analysis. The jury will later decide whether it was or wasn't justified (or maybe they have already, I haven't read any further) at which point they will likely consider the presence of a firearm in determining whether the homicide was justified Justified2 Intentional1 Homicide. 1] "Did you intend the likely consequences of your actions to be the result of your actions." I shot at people to shoot them - intentional. 2] Is there an affirmative defense to your homicide, a reason that the homicide you committed should not be a crime? (self defense)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 16:56
|
|