|
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 16:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:37 Keldrath wrote: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:
[quote]
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."
First of all it's a comma, and second of all, really? you are going to say, not mugging is mugging? Are we really at that point? And you called me dumb, the irony.
|
On December 16 2012 16:43 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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.
I have completly understood your points in the last 5-6 pages. I am shocked the other guys don't.
|
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.
Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm.
This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught.
|
On December 16 2012 16:46 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:43 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. I have completly understood your points in the last 5-6 pages. I am shocked the other guys don't.
Thanks, I was starting to feel alone here.
|
On December 16 2012 16:47 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:46 Reaps wrote:On December 16 2012 16:43 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. I have completly understood your points in the last 5-6 pages. I am shocked the other guys don't. Thanks, I was starting to feel alone here.
Because. You. Are. Wrong.
|
On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught.
Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself.
It doesn't go like this:
Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish!
You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead...
And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack.
|
On December 16 2012 16:45 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:39 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 Keldrath wrote: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:
[quote]
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." First of all it's a comma, and second of all, really? you are going to say, not mugging is mugging? Are we really at that point? And you called me dumb, the irony.
It was correct english. I think you're misreading what I'm writing. Think of it this way "it requires unlawful interference of the person---not mugging." Does arranging the sentence that way make it easier for you?
|
On December 16 2012 16:48 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:47 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 Reaps wrote:On December 16 2012 16:43 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. I have completly understood your points in the last 5-6 pages. I am shocked the other guys don't. Thanks, I was starting to feel alone here. Because. You. Are. Wrong.
Prove it.
|
On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead...And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack.
Judging by his posts, it really would not surprise me if he would actualy do that.
|
On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught.
Subjective intent is whether you think the person will or won't use it as per case by case scenario; objective is that the person may use the knife. That's a fact. If they have a knife, they may use it. Objective. And you are not obligated to say no to the mugging, particularly if you expect it will put you in harm's way.
|
On December 16 2012 16:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:39 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 Keldrath wrote: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:
[quote]
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." First of all it's a comma, and second of all, really? you are going to say, not mugging is mugging? Are we really at that point? And you called me dumb, the irony. It was correct english. I think you're misreading what I'm writing. Think of it this way "it requires unlawful interference of the person---not mugging." Does arranging the sentence that way make it easier for you?
not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person.
It means, an unlawful interference of the person that does not include mugging.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
|
On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack.
Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime.
|
On December 16 2012 16:54 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:52 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:39 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 Keldrath wrote: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:
[quote]
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." First of all it's a comma, and second of all, really? you are going to say, not mugging is mugging? Are we really at that point? And you called me dumb, the irony. It was correct english. I think you're misreading what I'm writing. Think of it this way "it requires unlawful interference of the person---not mugging." Does arranging the sentence that way make it easier for you? not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. It means, an unlawful interference of the person that does not include mugging. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
You are leaving out the part of the sentence that came before the colon. Regardless, I've now rewritten it in a manner that makes it easier for you to read. You know damn well what I meant. I'm done with it..
|
On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime.
Why the hell would I say no in that situation. Why would YOU say no in that situation? Hes got a knife pressed against your back, what exactly do you think you are going to do in that situation by saying no?
|
On December 16 2012 17:00 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:54 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:52 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:39 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:37 Keldrath wrote: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:
[quote]
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." First of all it's a comma, and second of all, really? you are going to say, not mugging is mugging? Are we really at that point? And you called me dumb, the irony. It was correct english. I think you're misreading what I'm writing. Think of it this way "it requires unlawful interference of the person---not mugging." Does arranging the sentence that way make it easier for you? not mugging, but unlawful interference of the person. It means, an unlawful interference of the person that does not include mugging. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You are leaving out the part of the sentence that came before the colon. Regardless, I've now rewritten it in a manner that makes it easier for you to read. You know damn well what I meant. I'm done with it..
It doesn't matter what you mean, it doesn't say what you think it means. Mugging does not fit the definition because mugging is specifically excluded from it.
|
On December 16 2012 16:53 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Subjective intent is whether you think the person will or won't use it as per case by case scenario; objective is that the person may use the knife. That's a fact. If they have a knife, they may use it. Objective. And you are not obligated to say no to the mugging, particularly if you expect it will put you in harm's way.
1. That is not subjective intent. Subjective intent is something only the actor can know. Objective intent is observable intent.
2. The offenders subjective intent is not legally relevant, because making it legally relevant would render one unable to defend themselves. If you made the standard subjective intent, you would not be able to defend yourself from a punch until the punch hit you.
2. The important thing is that you HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SAY NO. I put slash-obligation because I feel some people would say it's an obligation. It's not legally an obligation.
|
On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime.
You're going to turn and fire on him before he stabs you in the spine? I guess if you're looking to be a victim twice over go for it Rambo. Of you give him your wallet and walk away in one piece, then call your bank. Seems much more reasonable to me.
|
On December 16 2012 17:00 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. Why the hell would I say no in that situation. Why would YOU say no in that situation? Hes got a knife pressed against your back, what exactly do you think you are going to do in that situation by saying no?
I think it would depend on a lot of factors that vary (neighborhood, assailent, etc.) If I didn't think I was in danger I'd tell him to get lost. If I didn't have a gun and thought he would use the knife, I'd give him the money. If I was carrying a gun and thought I was in trouble, I would shoot him before I gave him money. In that order. I'd shoot him, then I'd give him the money. Then I'd ask him if it was worth it before I dialed 9-1-1.
I think most people would do the same thing.
|
On December 16 2012 17:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:00 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:57 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:50 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Yes you can tell him no, and you know what the consequences will be, either he will run scared or he will attack and take it anyways. If he takes the option to attack you, go ahead and defend yourself. It doesn't go like this: Mugger: Hey you give me your wallet or ill gut you like a fish! You: YEEHAW BOYS ALWAYS WANTED TO USE THIS! bang bang bang ur dead... And I'm 24 actually, but another nice try at an ad hominem attack. Ok, so some guy rolls up on the street behind you, grabs you and puts the point of a knife against your back. He demands money. You tell him you won't give him the money. You're going to WAIT AND SEE if he runs or stabs before you fight back? Are you f'ing insane? That's an obscene requirement to put on the victim of a crime in a law. You are essentially punishing the victim of the crime. Why the hell would I say no in that situation. Why would YOU say no in that situation? Hes got a knife pressed against your back, what exactly do you think you are going to do in that situation by saying no? I think it would depend on a lot of factors that vary (neighborhood, assailent, etc.) If I didn't think I was in danger I'd tell him to get lost. If I didn't have a gun and thought he would use the knife, I'd give him the money. If I was carrying a gun and thought I was in trouble, I would shoot him before I gave him money. In that order. I'd shoot him, then I'd give him the money. Then I'd ask him if it was worth it before I dialed 9-1-1. I think most people would do the same thing.
Then you are deluded, you aren;t going to get your gun out, turn around and shoot a guy who has a knife on your spine. The more likely thing to happen is at the first sign of any sudden movement, he plunges the knife in, knocks you down and runs away leaving you for dead.
|
On December 16 2012 17:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 16:53 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 16:46 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 16:41 bluemanrocks wrote: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. Probably. But he has no right to demand my property. I have the legal right/obligation to tell him no. If I believe exercising that ability has the possibility to put me in harms way, then I have a reasonable belief of bodily harm. This is why subjective intent is irrelevant. FFS, it's codified in our model penal code this way for a reason. I doubt hundreds of the country's best legal scholars who drafted it and every lawyer practicing law in the past 40 years completely missed a logical mistake that some teenager on the internet caught. Subjective intent is whether you think the person will or won't use it as per case by case scenario; objective is that the person may use the knife. That's a fact. If they have a knife, they may use it. Objective. And you are not obligated to say no to the mugging, particularly if you expect it will put you in harm's way. 1. That is not subjective intent. Subjective intent is something only the actor can know. Objective intent is observable intent. 2. The offenders subjective intent is not legally relevant, because making it legally relevant would render one unable to defend themselves. If you made the standard subjective intent, you would not be able to defend yourself from a punch until the punch hit you. 2. The important thing is that you HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO SAY NO. I put slash-obligation because I feel some people would say it's an obligation. It's not legally an obligation.
1) Right. I meant only that you can guess at the subjective intent - whether they will or won't use the knife.
2) Agreed.
3) Agreed.
Still not understood - you know they MAY use it. If they have you in immediate definite danger, it's likely too late. If they have you from afar but trapped, you do not actually know if they will follow through on anything or be capable, so you shoot them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
