|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed.
Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact.
Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin:
"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48
As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it.
|
On December 16 2012 16:00 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic).
In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go. I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire. Right, so while I compare us to other first world countries, you want to compare us to third world nations like mexico. I compared us to Israel. Are you saying they are not first-world? The comparison to isreal just shows we are higher, by quite a large margin, and that's in a war torn part of the middle east.
You are making exceptions based on your opinion. As I pointed out several dozen pages back, some US states with extremely loose gun regulations and extremely high ownership rates (such as Wyoming and the Dakotas) post gun homocide rates comparable with some European countries. It's not the laws that are the problem, but societal factors. The gun laws are mostly just amplifiers to the actual problems.
|
On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic).
I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it.
Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part.
I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later.
|
On December 16 2012 16:12 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:00 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:25 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:22 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries. Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-jim-moran-says-us-gun-homicide-rate-20-times-h/there you go. I didn't realize this argument was restricted to rich EU nations. Must be nice when you can just arbitrarily limit the debate to groups that give you the result you desire. Right, so while I compare us to other first world countries, you want to compare us to third world nations like mexico. I compared us to Israel. Are you saying they are not first-world? The comparison to isreal just shows we are higher, by quite a large margin, and that's in a war torn part of the middle east. You are making exceptions based on your opinion. As I pointed out several dozen pages back, some US states with extremely loose gun regulations and extremely high ownership rates (such as Wyoming and the Dakotas) post gun homocide rates comparable with some European countries. It's not the laws that are the problem, but societal factors. The gun laws are mostly just amplifiers to the actual problems.
Ive posted other articles a couple/few pages back that go over the stuff just in the US.
|
On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Are you f'ing kidding me?
If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe".
100% of the time.
|
On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC!
If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable.
With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time.
no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you"
|
On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him.
I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time.
While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you"
Maybe for you. But the definition of "reasonably believe" states that it takes into consideration what a person of ordinary intelligence would think. Seeing as you're as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't think your opinion of the situation would matter much.
It's also worth noting that it doesn't say "gonna kill you", it requires:
1. Not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. Mugging by definition meets this requirement.
2. A fear of great bodily harm.
I think a normal person of ordinary intellegence, when getting mugged with a knife, fears great bodily harm. Why else would they give them their f'ing money? If the victim didn't think they'd hurt them, they'd tell them to get lost.
|
On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him.
I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time.
While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first). I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification. You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you"
you're not very good at trolling or whatever you think you're doing.
|
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT
|
On December 16 2012 16:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:24 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification.
You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make. You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either. If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you" Maybe for you. But the definition of "reasonably believe" states that it takes into consideration what a person of ordinary intelligence would think. Seeing as you're as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't think your opinion of the situation would matter much. It's also worth noting that it doesn't say "gonna kill you", it requires: 1. Not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. Mugging by definition meets this requirement. 2. A fear of great bodily harm. I think a normal person, when getting mugged with a knife, fears great bodily harm. Why else would you give them your f'ing money. If I didn't think they'd hurt me, I'd tell them to get lost.
Nice ad hominem. It's actually really strange talking to you, it's hard to respond because many of the things you say are just so patently absurd i never really considered people could be of those opinions.
But I mean, how do you respond to someone who claims that killing someone is the first resort and not the last one? Normally you would lock them up because they are clearly mentally unstable and dangerous, but here you are.
I mean even in this reply to me you just made you said mugging by definition meets the requirements of... not mugging...
|
On December 16 2012 16:28 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:24 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make.
You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either.
If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you" Maybe for you. But the definition of "reasonably believe" states that it takes into consideration what a person of ordinary intelligence would think. Seeing as you're as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't think your opinion of the situation would matter much. It's also worth noting that it doesn't say "gonna kill you", it requires: 1. Not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. Mugging by definition meets this requirement. 2. A fear of great bodily harm. I think a normal person, when getting mugged with a knife, fears great bodily harm. Why else would you give them your f'ing money. If I didn't think they'd hurt me, I'd tell them to get lost. Nice ad hominem. It's actually really strange talking to you, it's hard to respond because many of the things you say are just so patently absurd i never really considered people could be of those opinions. But I mean, how do you respond to someone who claims that killing someone is the first resort and not the last one? Normally you would lock them up because they are clearly mentally unstable and dangerous, but here you are. I mean even in this reply to me you just made you said mugging by definition meets the requirements of... not mugging...
You fail at reading comprehension. I said mugging meets the requirement of unlawful interference of the person. Your inability to parse commas is the problem.
The law doesn't say you need to kill "as a last resort" because there is no such thing in reality. The model penal code was developed as a way to generically, yet by statute, define real life situations and morality. The reason it doesn't say things like "last resort" is because rational people don't run through checklists when someone points a deadly weapon at them. They either react or they don't. All it says is that you need a reasonable belief that your force is needed to stop another unlawful force which you think would cause great bodily harm.
I honestly think you watch too many movies or TV shows.
|
On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT
He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever.
If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me.
However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me.
Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed?
|
On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed?
Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet?
Pity?
|
On December 16 2012 16:33 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:28 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:24 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:
[quote]
If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill.
What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you" Maybe for you. But the definition of "reasonably believe" states that it takes into consideration what a person of ordinary intelligence would think. Seeing as you're as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't think your opinion of the situation would matter much. It's also worth noting that it doesn't say "gonna kill you", it requires: 1. Not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. Mugging by definition meets this requirement. 2. A fear of great bodily harm. I think a normal person, when getting mugged with a knife, fears great bodily harm. Why else would you give them your f'ing money. If I didn't think they'd hurt me, I'd tell them to get lost. Nice ad hominem. It's actually really strange talking to you, it's hard to respond because many of the things you say are just so patently absurd i never really considered people could be of those opinions. But I mean, how do you respond to someone who claims that killing someone is the first resort and not the last one? Normally you would lock them up because they are clearly mentally unstable and dangerous, but here you are. I mean even in this reply to me you just made you said mugging by definition meets the requirements of... not mugging... You fail at reading comprehension. I said mugging meets the requirement of unlawful interference of the person. Your inability to parse commas is the problem. The law doesn't say you need to kill "as a last resort" because there is no such thing in reality. The model penal code was developed as a way to generically, yet by statute, define real life situations and morality. The reason it doesn't say things like "last resort" is because rational people don't run through checklists when someone points a deadly weapon at them. They either react or they don't. All it says is that you need a reasonable belief that your force is needed to stop another unlawful force which you think would cause great bodily harm. I honestly think you watch too many movies or TV shows.
"not mugging, but" Excludes mugging from the following.
|
On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity?
Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.
Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
|
On December 16 2012 16:37 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:33 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:28 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:24 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you" Maybe for you. But the definition of "reasonably believe" states that it takes into consideration what a person of ordinary intelligence would think. Seeing as you're as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't think your opinion of the situation would matter much. It's also worth noting that it doesn't say "gonna kill you", it requires: 1. Not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. Mugging by definition meets this requirement. 2. A fear of great bodily harm. I think a normal person, when getting mugged with a knife, fears great bodily harm. Why else would you give them your f'ing money. If I didn't think they'd hurt me, I'd tell them to get lost. Nice ad hominem. It's actually really strange talking to you, it's hard to respond because many of the things you say are just so patently absurd i never really considered people could be of those opinions. But I mean, how do you respond to someone who claims that killing someone is the first resort and not the last one? Normally you would lock them up because they are clearly mentally unstable and dangerous, but here you are. I mean even in this reply to me you just made you said mugging by definition meets the requirements of... not mugging... You fail at reading comprehension. I said mugging meets the requirement of unlawful interference of the person. Your inability to parse commas is the problem. The law doesn't say you need to kill "as a last resort" because there is no such thing in reality. The model penal code was developed as a way to generically, yet by statute, define real life situations and morality. The reason it doesn't say things like "last resort" is because rational people don't run through checklists when someone points a deadly weapon at them. They either react or they don't. All it says is that you need a reasonable belief that your force is needed to stop another unlawful force which you think would cause great bodily harm. I honestly think you watch too many movies or TV shows. "not mugging, but" Excludes mugging from the following.
colon, buddy. colon.
"it requires not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person."
|
On December 16 2012 16:38 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
Exactly. Which means you cannot know his intent. Thank you for finally admitting it.
|
On December 16 2012 16:28 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:24 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:20 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:15 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:58 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:45 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
You can't call something a "last resort". You cannot know the temperament of and individual who is wielding a knife at you. You CANNOT know his subjective intent. That is the reason "intent" in American law does not refer to subjective intent, but rather objective intent. You cannot know subjective intent as a third party--ever. There is no first or last resort, there is merely a choice you must make.
You are also making a definition of "human" that is yours and yours alone. It's not objective. Your line is that when something has thoughts it cannot be killed. By that reasoning, killing an animal would be just as offensive as killing another human, which makes zero sense to me. You also have no way of proving that unborn children do not have thoughts/experiences either.
If a mugger was tried in court who had not actually attempted to kill the muggee it would likely be argued the intent was to steal and not to kill. What? So he approached the guy with a knife to mug him and ended up killing him and the defense is "jk i was just mugging him"? No; if he had not actually attempted to kill the muggee... as in he only mugged and did not kill the person. As in a mugger would be argued not to have had intent to kill unless the person being mugged ended up actually killed. Ok, but then we're back to square one... you're basing the reaction of the victim to the result after the fact. Here, let me read off the self-defense statute we use in Wisconsin: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." WIS. STAT. 939.48 As you can see, there is no "intent" because you cannot know intent until after the fact. If there is no intent, it doesn't ever happen and you don't have to worry about it. Right, a lot of people here skip the reasonably believe part. I think there are just far too many gun owners out there just itching for the opportunity to use it. Shoot first, ask questions later. Are you f'ing kidding me? If someone mugs you with a knife, that would qualify as "reasonably believe". 100% of the time. no it wouldnt, mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to "gonna kill you" Maybe for you. But the definition of "reasonably believe" states that it takes into consideration what a person of ordinary intelligence would think. Seeing as you're as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't think your opinion of the situation would matter much. It's also worth noting that it doesn't say "gonna kill you", it requires: 1. Not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. Mugging by definition meets this requirement. 2. A fear of great bodily harm. I think a normal person, when getting mugged with a knife, fears great bodily harm. Why else would you give them your f'ing money. If I didn't think they'd hurt me, I'd tell them to get lost. Nice ad hominem. It's actually really strange talking to you, it's hard to respond because many of the things you say are just so patently absurd i never really considered people could be of those opinions. But I mean, how do you respond to someone who claims that killing someone is the first resort and not the last one? Normally you would lock them up because they are clearly mentally unstable and dangerous, but here you are. I mean even in this reply to me you just made you said mugging by definition meets the requirements of... not mugging...
I don't own a gun (live in Canada), but anyone who threatens me with a deadly weapon better be damn ready to die, as I will kill them the moment I am given the means or opportunity (assuming we're in the context where they are still threatening me). I value my life far more than the life of any stranger, as should most people.
|
On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity?
I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings.
|
On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? Ok. So if you don't think he's going to use the knife, why do you give him your wallet? Pity? I believe the idea is certainty. If it were me I would give the wallet because he MAY use the knife, not that he WILL. Also, that MAY is actually hinged mostly on whether I interfere... I actually agree most likely muggings are intended just that, as muggings.
I'm glad someone gets it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
