|
On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong.
You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action.
I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye
|
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Why all the personal attacks?
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
Someone was killed rather than saved btw.
Knock on a door brandish a 12 inch knife bust in, purposely break into the room where the mother and the child was get shot.
man I agree it must be tough getting lost and doing that
|
On January 05 2012 06:35 Hekisui wrote:
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
unarmed men that break into your locked house wielding TWELVE INCH HUNTING KNIVES
|
I hope I never meet you, Denzil. You might shoot me for 'being wrong'. You are a scary scary person.
|
On January 05 2012 08:16 Hekisui wrote:
Why am I a troll? Sheesh.
She was never attacked. They didn't know she had a gun. She never fired a warning shot. The other guy wasn't shot and he didn't kill her. As the article reads, she killed him the first opportunity she got. In the Netherlands she would be found guilty for sure.
Same in UK.
You saying the lawmakers in those countries are trolling too? You choose to be wrong to be immoral. Sad.
People like Denzil proof my point and proof that I am not trolling. It is just people being brought up with bad morality.
Uh, yeah, she hadn't been attacked, but you make it sound like there was no chance of her being attacked at all. She locks her door. The guy has a huge knife. He wants to get in bad enough to break down the door, or whatever he did to get in. Does it matter if they knew she had a gun? No, they're breaking into her freaking house, armed with a weapon. She has the right to defend herself. She has absolutely no idea what their intentions are, but you can make some pretty decent assumptions based on the fact that they are breaking into her house, armed.
|
On January 05 2012 08:20 Hekisui wrote:
I hope I never meet you, Denzil. You might shoot me for 'being wrong'. You are a scary scary person.
It's ok I'm glad you know your laws, in UK this has happened a few times and the intruder has always been in the wrong.
Not sure where you're from but I hope I never have to live in your household overnight.
|
On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye
In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you.
It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity.
|
You are wrong on UK law too. Denzil, you are an evil person for making all these personal insults. I just have to retaliate now. You shoot people and put them down like animals. What do I do that is so despicable? Why make all kinds of crazy assumptions about me? I don't know what I do when confronted with violence. But while I am not the bloodthirsty killer you hope to be, I can tell you I am no coward.
Don't confuse people with morality superior to you with people that are cowards.
Also, it seems she wanted to kill people more than the buglers did. Does that mean the family of the man shot are now free to take vengeance? I mean, according to you guys, she lost the right to live by killing.
This is not self defense but purely being taught it is a privilege to get to kill someone and that you should do it when the opportunity arises. Obviously she desperately wanted to kill. That's why she also poses for the media and why this is such a big media story. It is sickening.
|
Hekisui, there was a guy with a 12" knife breaking through her door with another guy behind him. It's absurd to suggest she shouldn't try to defend herself and her child, especially after discussing it with the 911 guys beforehand. It would be absurd to accuse her of anything.
|
On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity.
Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part?
Why are you making personal attacks on me using words such as bloodthirsty and aspiring to become a killer? Just because someone sees a different point from you is no reason to attempt to beat a dead horse on a thread where majority opinion is counter to your opinion
|
just stop feeding the troll
|
On January 05 2012 08:24 Hekisui wrote:
You are wrong on UK law too. Denzil, you are an evil person for making all these personal insults. I just have to retaliate now. You shoot people and put them down like animals. What do I do that is so despicable? Why make all kinds of crazy assumptions about me? I don't know what I do when confronted with violence. But while I am not the bloodthirsty killer you hope to be, I can tell you I am no coward.
Don't confuse people with morality superior to you with people that are cowards.
Also, it seems she wanted to kill people more than the buglers did. Does that mean the family of the man shot are now free to take vengeance? I mean, according to you guys, she lost the right to live by killing.
This is not self defense but purely being taught it is a privilege to get to kill someone and that you should do it when the opportunity arises. Obviously she desperately wanted to kill. That's why she also poses for the media and why this is such a big media story. It is sickening.
You're an evil person for having no idea what you are talking about lmao.
|
When you're threatened, you should have the right to defend yourself. However, in this situation I feel like she had the chance to scare of the intruders before they entered the house, not to mention that she could have tried to wound them not lethally.
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
My English teacher told us about a friend of his who was an engineer in Texas. He got lost, saw a farm, knocked and was shot through the door... died instantly.
|
On January 05 2012 08:26 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity. Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part?
It's more that there's just no logical follow-on. I can understand that deciding to kill someone makes you worth less to society, and if you ever have to choose life between a murderer and an innocent I'd go with the innocent (assuming other variables are the same). But does that mean that every attempted murderer should be executed? No second chances? No matter the circumstances? No matter if everything in their life has been shit, to the point where most people would give up and go on a killing spree against people they hate?
And what about the person who kills the murderer? What if it scars them? What if they don't want to execute the murderer? Do you force them to kill a killer, even if they don't want to?
There are very few black and white situations in morallity. I would say that this thread is about one, and the woman was absolutely in the right. But a sweeping generalisation about revenge killing using flimsy cliches from an immoral, mistranslated, misrepresented, misconstrued several thousand year old collection of writings from people we know nothing about claiming to have been talked to by a spirit just does not sit right with me.
|
I hope an admin can come in and see that you are purposefully baiting an argument Hekisui, on top of attempting to start a EU vs NA argument.
While she could have potentially fired a warning shot or shouted that she had a gun, it might have just allowed the intruders to change their gameplan and potentially use guns themselves (which she didn't know at the time).
The fact that she is 18 might also explain why she instantly resorted to killing, but I still feel it is justified. Living as a teen mother by herself she probably feels very vulnerable. The intruders could have easily raped and killed her and her baby and the only way she could stop it is with force beyond what the intruders had. She wouldn't be able to defend herself physically unless she's some martial arts expert, and expecting her to be able to accurately aim to disable them instead of killing them when she is scared for her life is unreasonable.
I do not understand why Hekisui thinks this is immoral and unjustified. Is it moral to let people break into a person's home brandishing a weapon meant for killing? You have to be trolling, or you just have a corrupted view on how the world actually works.
|
On January 05 2012 08:31 blade55555 wrote:
You're an evil person for having no idea what you are talking about lmao.
Your comment has no content. Do you have nothing to say? If so why comment? And what's so funny? A 18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf) just lost her husband, then gets buglers break into her house and ends up shooting one of them. lmao? No!
On January 05 2012 08:33 Horuku wrote:
I hope an admin can come in and see that you are purposefully baiting an argument Hekisui, on top of attempting to start a EU vs NA argument.
It is against the rules to ask admins to ban someone. Just so you know.
|
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Why all the personal attacks?
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
Someone was killed rather than saved btw.
Someone was killed and two were saved btw.
Did you even read the article? You keep saying they were unarmed but they had HUGE hunting knife! They didn't knock on the door and asked to come in, they were breaking in for almost half an hour! I agree with you that she could've fired a warning shot but what else would she do when the guys entered her home?
|
On January 05 2012 08:35 Hekisui wrote:
It is against the rules to ask admins to ban someone. Just so you know.
Then perhaps you should re-read what I said and see that I didn't ask for them to ban you, just to come in and read your absurd logic. I'm really curious to see what an admin thinks about your skewed beliefs.
|
On January 05 2012 08:33 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:26 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity. Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part? It's more that there's just no logical follow-on. I can understand that deciding to kill someone makes you worth less to society, and if you ever have to choose life between a murderer and an innocent I'd go with the innocent (assuming other variables are the same). But does that mean that every attempted murderer should be executed? No second chances? No matter the circumstances? No matter if everything in their life has been shit, to the point where most people would give up and go on a killing spree against people they hate? And what about the person who kills the murderer? What if it scars them? What if they don't want to execute the murderer? Do you force them to kill a killer, even if they don't want to? There are very few black and white situations in morallity. I would say that this thread is about one, and the woman was absolutely in the right. But a sweeping generalisation about revenge killing using flimsy cliches from an immoral, mistranslated, misrepresented, misconstrued several thousand old collection of writings from people we know nothing about claiming to have been talked to by a spirit just does not sit right with me.
I absoulutely see where you're coming from and you are correct. There are few black and white situations in morality and you have to use the information based upon the circumstances which makes it such a hard topic (in my opinion) because you will end up with people sentenced for life for justified killings and you'll have vice versa.
I was suggesting it in these circumstances, these men have proceeded to put a lot of effort into going after this specific person and breaking into the house and clearly brandishing the knife was enough for me to suggest he was planning on taking her life, implying to me he was devoid of life as it is and deserved what he received.
Obviously using the eye for an eye thing is silly as living by that creates a circle of violence until one side runs out of eyes but there are times when it's relevant and there are times when it isn't. if I came off as someone who applies that rule to every situation then my bad I didn't mean to.
|
Guys, just stop replying to him. There are two possible scenarios here:
a) he's a troll, in which case ignore him
b) he genuinely has that opinion on it, in which case he has said his side of the argument and isn't likely to listen to the other side
In neither case is responding worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
