|
On January 11 2012 03:31 Dizmaul wrote:
King Crimson what the hell are you debating this is pretty cut and dry
"(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision.
That was what the judge decided. The law states that there is nothing illegal about it. Do you not understand that if you feel like your life is in danger or great bodily harm may come to you, use of deadly force is perfectly legal.
I'd take the judge's decision over your opinion of what the kid was feeling.
The only thing you can disagree with is the law.
Please realize that laws differ in Romania and in Florida. Your statement "it is perfectly legal to..." is not entirely compelte without stating where it is legal.
|
On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
That's a terrible interpretation of the law that doesn't apply to this case. Hands can be just as dangerous and lethal than any weapon if used. A bigger kid (+gang) can do just as much if not more damage than a weapon (excluding killing). By your logic, if a kid has been beaten up constantly and then told "this is it, today is the day" then damn right he fears for his life.
Your equation is kid + knife = bigger kid + gang
So in your country it should be ok.
edit: just because you interpret laws in one way, does not mean it is right, don't be so narcissistic
|
On January 11 2012 03:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail. How does that make any sense? If you attack me with a knife, I can say, "Hold on a second before killing me- let me go get my own knife so we can make this an even fight"? The whole point of attacking- or defending- with a weapon is to make it one-sided in your favor. That's why weapons are controversial to begin with. By your country's law, every defender is pretty much fucked (unless everyone carries around a whole spectrum of weapons "just in case" they get attacked first by a similar weapon). EDIT: What if a guy much bigger and stronger than you physically attacks you? Are you just screwed?
I believe it's operating under the assumption that because the weapon swings the fight in your favor, it would mean that an attacker would back off, so any resulting injury would have to be a result of you initiating the conflict. That, or that using excessive force (shooting a guy with a knife) goes beyond self-defense, as you're not at risk of being shot (but you are of being stabbed, potentially... :s)
How this would address a crazed guy with a knife coming after you regardless and you being forced to shoot him for your own safety, I don't know. Or in the case you mentioned, where a fight with the same weapons is dramatically mismatched.
Or maybe he's just not explaining it in full, which would make far more sense.
|
i doubt that is actually the law in Romania lol. something seems missing.
|
On January 11 2012 03:31 Dizmaul wrote:
King Crimson what the hell are you debating this is pretty cut and dry
"(He) had more than enough reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm," she wrote in her decision.
That was what the judge decided. The law states that there is nothing illegal about it. Do you not understand that if you feel like your life is in danger or great bodily harm may come to you, use of deadly force is perfectly legal.
I'd take the judge's decision over your opinion of what the kid was feeling.
The only thing you can disagree with is the law.
See, i personally don't believe he was in danger or great bodily harmed, based on the facts and info that were given to me. The judge might not think so either, objectively speaking. But maybe, just maybe, she used this justification to protect the kid from further suffering.
And if there was nothing to debate about, we wouldn't have 40 pages of conversation already.
Anyway, i'm gonna end my part in this discussion now. Nobody who is already convinced of something will change his mind one way or the other, and the subject itself bears too little importance to me.
|
On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
You can in my state specifically do just that. As everyone is saying it's fine for you to think whatever you want to think but regardless of your opinion, it's the law in my state.
Edit: I don't know the letter of the law but I have seen this put in another case that involved trespassing. All the home owner had to say was he felt like his life was at risk after shooting and killing the trespasser.
|
On January 11 2012 03:37 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail. Your government is very evil.
Fuck so if I'm attacked by a Black Belt I can't use a weapon?
O_O
|
On January 11 2012 03:40 Kalingingsong wrote:
i doubt that is actually the law in Romania lol. something seems missing.
It is also the law in France. The amount of force used to defend oneself must be proportionate to the threat at hand.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Légitime_défense
|
US citizens seem so violent i ride BMX and in every secound video there is a fight going on. And all these guns and stuff freak me out, its totally retarded that everyone owns a freaking gun! I have never actually seen held or shot a gun , i dont know or havent met anyone ever who owns a gun, no one of family and friends. Thats what its like in Germany and i think its right. U cant even own a knife which is more than 12 cm long and sharp on both sides! Off course if someone wants to commit homocide he'll find a way but still everyone owning a gun sucks! All that School shootings is connected with that too!
I've seen Police officers equipped with guns thats all. Sorry for beeing of Topic but i saw something on TV last night about Utahs gun laws that freaked me out  I love the states nonetheless, you liberized our country thx for that
|
why does any kid had a knife?
|
On January 11 2012 03:40 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:37 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail. Your government is very evil. Fuck so if I'm attacked by a Black Belt I can't use a weapon? O_O
I do not know about other countries, but in France, a person who holds a black belt in a recognized martial art is considered as using a weapon if a fight should occur.
|
I believe that a person should be allowed to defend himself, but this entire scenario seems excessive. Do people really believe that killing a person is an appropriate response to being bullied? There were a multitude of other options available, but this child chose to carry a knife and end someone's life. Why are people applauding him for choosing the worst path to take this conflict down? I would understand more if this was some sort of random, unforeseen assault, but it wasn't. The bully announced his intentions beforehand and therefore, the entire conflict could have easily been avoided in a number of different ways with some thought.
As for the people claiming that the bully got what he deserved, he's a fucking child. Did you never do something stupid in your own childhood or adolescence? Have you never mistreated someone in your life? Do you really believe that you deserve to be killed for it? This isn't the wild west or some feudal era where we consider it sensible to go around killing each other to settle disputes...
|
On January 11 2012 03:40 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:37 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail. Your government is very evil. Fuck so if I'm attacked by a Black Belt I can't use a weapon? O_O
That's actually an interesting topic.
If you have special training in martial arts and a black belt. It can be a liability at the same time. In many cases we practice so we never have to really use it outside of sport. Technically our hands, feet and body are our weapons.
Self-defense is just that though, but our duty is to take out the threat of the target. It's amazing how some of them carry themselves. I know quite a few brown/black belts and its always fun to be around them.
|
On January 11 2012 03:43 boyle wrote:
why does any kid had a knife?
He likely brought it because the conflict was escalating to a point where physical confrontation was imminent.
|
I think too many people are making the mistake of comparing this case with a situation where someone exacts revenge long after they were attacked. We also have to remember that often school administration won't actually do anything about someone being threatened until well after the fact. School children often are limited in their options in dealing with these things, which is why there continues to be efforts in trying to make things better and why such efforts need to be continued and extended. I'm sure many of us that have been a part of this forum for some time can recall some various posters in various threads that tried to argue that society should stop coddling children so that children will learn how to deal with things themselves. Incidents like these should remind us that such thinking is very dangerous and a child died because another child probably felt the limits of how his school can protect him from a threat.
I don't think the child was guilty of murder. It seems pretty evident that he tried his best to avoid the situation, and the bully fully brought upon the retaliation he received by stalking and cornering the child. Despite what the idiot in this thread tried to say, some pretty severe violence does occur even if it is in the full presence of other people. There are a slew of psychological studies on this, and why would the bully have felt the need to hold back anyway, when the others that witnessed the event were a single friend of the child he attacked and numerous friends of his own?
|
On January 11 2012 03:46 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:40 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:On January 11 2012 03:37 Hider wrote:On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail. Your government is very evil. Fuck so if I'm attacked by a Black Belt I can't use a weapon? O_O That's actually an interesting topic. If you have special training in martial arts and a black belt. It can be a liability at the same time. In many cases we practice so we never have to really use it outside of sport. Self-defense is just that though, but our duty is to take out the threat of the target. It's amazing how some of them carry themselves. I know quite a few brown/black belts and its always fun to be around them.
It is interesting. People of high skill in the martial arts carry themselves in a way that makes them much less likely to be attacked. They're practically never attacked because they stride confidently.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 11 2012 03:29 King.Crimson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:23 Kalingingsong wrote:
let's flip the question and ask things this way:
1) When IS IT ok to kill someone in self-defence??
2) can self-defence ever be something that is commendable (instead of just acceptable)? if so when? Well i can tell you how it's like in my country. You cannot use a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or gun, on someone, until that someone has proven his intentions to harm you with an equally dangerous weapon. Thus, if some guy threatens me but is barehanded, if i take out a knife and stab him, i'm gonna get trialed and will very likely end up in jail.
What if 3 Romanians surround me outside a club at 3am and start throwing punches at me?
Am I allowed to pull my knife out to protect myself?
Or should I just stand there, wait until they show me they have the intention to harm me, get my face beaten to a pulp, then I'm allowed to pull out my knife?
You're delusional. You don't know what happened that day, you don't know what emotions went through the kid when he was being followed by a group of bullies. You don't know what went through his mind when he got punched in back of the head.
The judge decided and I'm glad the judge doesn't think like you do.
|
On January 11 2012 03:44 LegendaryZ wrote:
I believe that a person should be allowed to defend himself, but this entire scenario seems excessive. Do people really believe that killing a person is an appropriate response to being bullied? There were a multitude of other options available, but this child chose to carry a knife and end someone's life. Why are people applauding him for choosing the worst path to take this conflict down? I would understand more if this was some sort of random, unforeseen assault, but it wasn't. The bully announced his intentions beforehand and therefore, the entire conflict could have easily been avoided in a number of different ways with some thought.
As for the people claiming that the bully got what he deserved, he's a fucking child. Did you never do something stupid in your own childhood or adolescence? Have you never mistreated someone in your life? Do you really believe that you deserve to be killed for it?
Killing=/= appropriate response to bullying
Killing=appropriate response to an assault where you fear for your life/serious bodily harm
In this case the "bullying" was an assault where he feared for his life/serious bdily harm (according to the judge)
He definitely MIGHT have been able to handle it better (report to authorities). However, it is quite possible he already had and the authorities didn't take it seriously or didn't act on it or only gave the bully a light sentence (not enough to stop the bullying).
That's the basic principle behind the concept of self-defence, the authorities can't be relied on to protect you.. they can punish the perpetrators After a crime has been committed, but they can't be at the scene of every crime before it starts.
The key difference in Florida law is that he doesn't have to run away first (ie someone threatens him with severe bodily injury, in a number of states you can't defend yourself unless you are trapped).
|
The bully deserved it and so did the parents to an extent! People should have and play a more active role with their kids to find out whats going on in their life, I'm not saying chain them to your ankle, or leave them alone completely, and of course you are not going to know everything. However because the parents supposedly didn't know that their child was being bullied or on the other side they didn't know that their child was a bully this just happens to be the outcome of ignorance. Be active in your childs life and especially don't ever be in denial that your kid may or may not be a victim or bully because like this case that may get your kid killed.
Finally this is sad in a way but makes me happy I still blame the parents for not being involved in the kids life. I do not know their situations but the kid was bullied for a whole year I was bullied for four not everyone is that strong or can get out of it. The after affects are just as bad as well. People need to wake up nuff has been said start doing some work.
|
On January 11 2012 03:42 Apom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:40 Kalingingsong wrote:
i doubt that is actually the law in Romania lol. something seems missing. It is also the law in France. The amount of force used to defend oneself must be proportionate to the threat at hand. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Légitime_défense
that's different from what he said.
defending oneself with "proportionate" "force" is not really the same as "equally dangerous weapon".
The second ones seems to suggest whether if the threat is a weapon matters (problem: is using barehand a weapon?).
also "equally" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "proportionate". proportionate might just mean that its reasonable but not truly equal (eg it might be proportional to fight a machine-gun with a rocket-launcher, but machine-guns and rocket-launchers are not equal imo).
But maybe that's just a language problem and it will make sense if it is translated properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
