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.
He's probably not elaborating enough on the law, or misunderstanding it. Turns out he didn't read the article either, so I'm not really surprised =/
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.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Crimson lives in this country, he does not run it. You are attacking him for belonging to a country with what you think are stupid laws.
On January 11 2012 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: This is just plain tragic, but no matter who you fault for this, it certainly supports the notion that we need to be doing everything we can to eliminate bullying. I can't imagine this would have happened without the bullying :/
Eliminating bullying is pretty unrealistic. Bullying has existed since strong people discovered they could manhandle the weak. There would have do be some way of changing out our human brains for ones which are incapable of identifying prey. If we truly are social critters, there will always be those among us who gain social approval by being dicks to those who lack it. My question is, does that mean you deserve to die?
It may not be realistic to have zero bullying, but it is realistic to try our best to eliminate as much bullying as we can and aim for elimination. We do the same with poverty, hunger, racism, and other social issues that humanity has tried to erase. We are a race of advancement and progress. There is no reason for us to accept anything which could be improved, especially when it is something that leads to human suffering.
On January 11 2012 03:43 boyle wrote: why does any kid had a knife?
I already touched base on this too. I had a lot of friends back in grade 5, 6 and upwards who had swiss army knives and from jr. high to high school some upgraded to butterfly knives (this was in 1994 fyi). This and I grew up in a NICE neighborhood. Why? Well, a lot of us were in boy scouts. It was the thing at the time. Little did any of us think about using it for self-defence until jr. high as some of my friends got involved with the the mob or became 'gangsters.' There was trouble and a lot of it.
There can be several reasons and as the guy said above. It was mostly for protection. He showed it to others. No one reported it or tried to reason with him. He felt alone and couldn't handle the situation anymore.
It's a shitty situation no matter how you slice it.
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.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Crimson lives in this country, he does not run it. You are attacking him for belonging to a country with what you think are stupid laws.
He was asked when he throught self defense was justified, and answered stating the laws of his country, hence indirectly supporting the law of his country. At least thats the way I perceive what he 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.
Indeed. We certainly have a way of neutralizing threats.
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.
Here in Brazil, owning a Black-Belt or similar degree in Martial Arts are added as an aggravant in assault cases. Not sure if I translated it properly, but if you are a black belt (or equivalent) and get into a fight, you may face charges as an armed assault. So, having a black belt in BR and killing someone bare-handed is actually armed murder.
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.
That's essentially the same actually. Proportionate force means that you can't use a knife to defend yourself against someone who has no weapon (bare hands are not a weapon, unless highly trained in martial arts).
There is a Wikipedia article about self-defense law in Sweden that is translated in English if you want some insight on the topic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(Sweden). For instance you can read there that "Loss of life or permanent bodily injury rarely justifies self defense unless the defending party was in danger of being subjected to the same."
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.
Here in Brazil, owning a Black-Belt or similar degree in Martial Arts are added as an aggravant in assault cases. Not sure if I translated it properly, but if you are a black belt (or equivalent) and get into a fight, you may face charges as an armed assault. So, having a black belt in BR and killing someone bare-handed is actually armed murder.
Yup, it's like that in many places. We're called weapons in many cases.
On January 11 2012 03:49 Krikkitone wrote: In this case the "bullying" was a response where he feared for his life
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.
I understand this concept, but I honestly have trouble believing that someone being bullied is genuinely "fearing for his life". Fearing bodily harm or injury? Of course. Fearing death? I don't see what would indicate anything remotely close to that conclusion since bullies generally don't kill people...
Of course I suppose it may be a lost cause to argue for rational thought in an emotionally charged situation, but rather than cheering, "He got what he deserved." maybe we should see this as the tragedy that it is and use it to better educate our society in avoiding these scenarios both by getting more involved in stopping bullying and encouraging children to find alternative solutions.
I'm not saying that there have been a lack of reasonable responses in this thread. I was mainly addressing the people who seem to have tunnel vision and are making these terrible comments.
On January 11 2012 03:49 Krikkitone wrote: In this case the "bullying" was a response where he feared for his life
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.
I understand this concept, but I honestly have trouble believing that someone being bullied is genuinely "fearing for his life". Fearing bodily harm or injury? Of course. Fearing death? I don't see what would indicate anything remotely close to that conclusion since bullies generally don't kill people...
Of course I suppose it may be a lost cause to argue for rational thought in an emotionally charged situation, but rather than cheering, "He got what he deserved." maybe we should see this as the tragedy that it is and use it to better educate our society in avoiding these scenarios both by getting more involved in stopping bullying and encouraging children to find alternative solutions.
I'm not saying that there have been a lack of reasonable responses in this thread. I was mainly addressing the people who seem to have tunnel vision and are making these terrible comments.
I think its pretty normal to fear for you life (at least i know i would) if i get surrounded by dudes whom i knew liked to beat me up.
Btw fear for ones life =/ there is a 50% possilbity or higher of dying. Fearing for ones life = There is a possiblity. (which could be extremely low).
Why were these boys picking on this kid? What are parents teaching their children that they think it’s ok to make someone’s life a living hell day in and day out? Why is good moral character not being passed down to young people?
I feel bad that he died from his mistakes but what did he think was gonna happen? He thought him and his 3 tough friends would just lay an ever loving ass whooping on this kid and they'd get to go home feeling like badasses? I guess he thought wrong, incredibly wrong. He didn’t expect his victim to be so pushed over the edge that he had a knife to defend himself.
On January 11 2012 04:02 Hider wrote: I think its pretty normal to fear for you life (at least i know i would) if i get surrounded by dudes whom i knew liked to beat me up.
Btw fear for ones life =/ there is a 50% possilbity or higher of dying. Fearing for ones life = There is a possiblity. (which could be extremely low).
I suppose every situation is unique and people have different points at which they get scared of death. I can only speak to my own experiences in dealing with bullies. I knew my bullies well enough to know that they were complete assholes that might beat me down 8v1, but I also knew that they wouldn't kill me despite their violent tendencies.
I can understand that authorities generally don't take these things seriously for various reasons, but I can't imagine escalating the situation with a weapon. Perhaps part of it is because I saw enough of that happening around me and it never ended well. People would stab someone and then get stabbed or shot a month later in retaliation by one of that person's friends. Defending yourself doesn't always make you safer...
On January 11 2012 03:49 Krikkitone wrote: In this case the "bullying" was a response where he feared for his life
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.
I understand this concept, but I honestly have trouble believing that someone being bullied is genuinely "fearing for his life". Fearing bodily harm or injury? Of course. Fearing death? I don't see what would indicate anything remotely close to that conclusion since bullies generally don't kill people...
Of course I suppose it may be a lost cause to argue for rational thought in an emotionally charged situation, but rather than cheering, "He got what he deserved." maybe we should see this as the tragedy that it is and use it to better educate our society in avoiding these scenarios both by getting more involved in stopping bullying and encouraging children to find alternative solutions.
I'm not saying that there have been a lack of reasonable responses in this thread. I was mainly addressing the people who seem to have tunnel vision and are making these terrible comments.
There are many cases where bullying leads to suicide or worse yet. Murder. It does happen.
Bullies are totally oblivious to what they're doing in certain cases and are only looking at the fun or payback for something else going on in their lives. By taking your rage and amusement on someone else you are pushing certain triggers that you don't necessarily want to push.
You cannot control someone. When you lose control anything goes.
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.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Crimson lives in this country, he does not run it. You are attacking him for belonging to a country with what you think are stupid laws.
No I'm not. I'm saying King Crimson has very little reasoning skills.
If I am surrounded by 3 Romanians at night and alone. With 3 of them taunting me, and one of them punching me in the back of the head while I'm trying to run, I am not allowed to pull out a knife to defend myself because those 3 Romanians have not pulled out a knife themselves.
So I'm pretty much stuck in a catch 22, I can only defend myself with fists because fists are the only weapons used so far, but I'm up against multiple attackers so I'm pretty much at a disadvantage and risk being killed or beaten to a pulp.
I can't defend myself with a knife because they haven't pulled a knife out themselves.
With the side of the argument he's been arguing on, it clearly shows me he has poor critical thinking skills.
On January 11 2012 03:49 Krikkitone wrote: In this case the "bullying" was a response where he feared for his life
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.
I understand this concept, but I honestly have trouble believing that someone being bullied is genuinely "fearing for his life". Fearing bodily harm or injury? Of course. Fearing death? I don't see what would indicate anything remotely close to that conclusion since bullies generally don't kill people...
Of course I suppose it may be a lost cause to argue for rational thought in an emotionally charged situation, but rather than cheering, "He got what he deserved." maybe we should see this as the tragedy that it is and use it to better educate our society in avoiding these scenarios both by getting more involved in stopping bullying and encouraging children to find alternative solutions.
I'm not saying that there have been a lack of reasonable responses in this thread. I was mainly addressing the people who seem to have tunnel vision and are making these terrible comments.
"bullied" is a very general term like "abuse" If a man is in the act of "abusing" his wife, can she kill him to stop the abuse well.. he could be just verbally abusing (insulting) her [in which case NO] OR he could be beating her to the point of causing broken bones, internal bleeding, concussion ie Death [in which case YES]
"bullying" can range any where from insulting someone to savagely bludgeoning them to death.
So bullying does not warrant lethal self defense, but an attempt to cause someone severe bodily harm does.
As a general measure, as long as deaths of victims due to "bullying" is greater than deaths of bullies due to self-defense, then society should not restrict self-defense more than it currently is. [Both are extremely low... which is good]
A key point is the bully does not have to intend to kill you for them to kill you. They only have to intend to kill you for the law to convict them of murder... but that is when the bully is already handcuffed, and you are already dead.
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.
Here in Brazil, owning a Black-Belt or similar degree in Martial Arts are added as an aggravant in assault cases. Not sure if I translated it properly, but if you are a black belt (or equivalent) and get into a fight, you may face charges as an armed assault. So, having a black belt in BR and killing someone bare-handed is actually armed murder.
Yup, it's like that in many places. We're called weapons in many cases.
"Martial" = "War" "Martial Arts" = "War Arts" You know... how back in the old days... it's actually meant for killing people... but it's become a sport nowadays...
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.
Obviously I don't think nor do i think anyone thinks laws are the same all over the world. I posted the Florida law first a couple posts before. When I say the Law I mean Florida law, because that's the only law that is relevant to this discussions. The judge herd all the testimony's and saw all the evidence, then made a choice based on the law.
EPT
