|
| Thread: On the subject of Assault. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 18, 2008 10:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If said Joe Smith is a killer, then it is healthy. An eye for an eye is a fair system.
If said Joe Smith is a killer, and you kill him, what does that make you? A savior?
(obviously you'll say who is the aggressor, but that is also subjective depending on the system -- like I said, some people can even claim that those that cause pollution are 'aggressors' to their health!)
Quote:
Yes, but does anyone elect them? Do they have a referendum where the majority votes that it's okay to kill one of them if he/she kills? No, I don't think so.
Election is part of the system -- people that prefer terrorists are obviously not happy with the system they're in and I can perfectly understand why.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 11:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but does anyone elect them? Do they have a referendum where the majority votes that it's okay to kill one of them if he/she kills? No, I don't think so.
Not exactly. But if you look at the middle-eastern organisations, for example, you can see that their activity and influence has and will continue to shift between each other. This is mainly because their support shifts from one organisation to another. So you can say that they are "elected".
The main difference here that those who they kill aren't part of the "election". This is the thing that makes them different.
Just for some thought. Cults where their members are hurt, killed or somehow mistreated are illegal. There everyone agrees on the terms, not majority, everyone. Makes you wonder.
PS. Don't bring those cults where people have no choice, like the texas raid lately, into this discussion. They are a different matter.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If said Joe Smith is a killer, and you kill him, what does that make you? A savior?
That depends on who you are. If you are a private individual, you are a vigilante. If you are the government, then you did what you were instructed by the electorate to do.
Quote:
(obviously you'll say who is the aggressor, but that is also subjective depending on the system -- like I said, some people can even claim that those that cause pollution are 'aggressors' to their health!)
This is when "eye for an eye" comes in. That is, if you kill the polluter, you are an aggressor. On the other hand, pollution is different from violence, that is, it's not very often that you're standing face-to-face with the polluter, who is threatening to pollute your property, and the only way you can prevent it is to pollute his/her property.
Let's use a more basic example: a burglar breaks into you house (how often have we used this analogy in the last couple of months? ). You have the right to remove him/her in the gentlest way possible. That is, first you say, "Hey, get out of here!", and can't shoot him/her. If he/she refuses, then you can push them off of the property or use the threat of a gun to get him/her to leave. If he/she attacks you, then you have the right to defend yourself.
Quote:
The main difference here that those who they kill aren't part of the "election". This is the thing that makes them different.
Good point. The difference between governments and terrorist organizations is that the killers are under the government's jurisdiction, whereas those killed by terrorist organizations are not under their jurisdiction.
Quote:
Cults where their members are hurt, killed or somehow mistreated are illegal. There everyone agrees on the terms, not majority, everyone.
And the government doesn't permit suicide either. That's the nanny state, I guess.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 11:21 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:22, 18 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
That depends on who you are. If you are a private individual, you are a vigilante. If you are the government, then you did what you were instructed by the electorate to do.
And if you are the terrorists, you just did what those supporting the organization said.
Quote:
This is when "eye for an eye" comes in. That is, if you kill the polluter, you are an aggressor. On the other hand, pollution is different from violence, that is, it's not very often that you're standing face-to-face with the polluter, who is threatening to pollute your property, and the only way you can prevent it is to pollute his/her property.
I don't know, you can't bring back someone to life by killing the other -- same for pollution. You can't bring back your health by polluting him. In the end, this leads to total destruction -- all paths lead only to hate 
Quote:
You have the right to remove him/her in the gentlest way possible. That is, first you say, "Hey, get out of here!", and can't shoot him/her. If he/she refuses, then you can push them off of the property or use the threat of a gun to get him/her to leave. If he/she attacks you, then you have the right to defend yourself.
In this way, I agree, but it's important that only involves the 'property' -- which is also a government term, so to speak. Yes property can be defined in other ways, but most often not the ones found in the law.
Quote:
Good point. The difference between governments and terrorist organizations is that the killers are under the government's jurisdiction, whereas those killed by terrorist organizations are not under their jurisdiction.
Seriously, terrorists do not want to be under the government jurisdiction -- that's why they are terrorists. So the government kills those (terrorists) that are not under it's jurisdiction. Unless of course you mean that by birth, we are forced to be under the government's jurisdiction. Maybe it is this forceful thought, that someone else decides for you, that leads to non-freedom and people suggesting terrorism (not all terrorists are the "we nuke you bastards" type).
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 11:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have the right to remove him/her in the gentlest way possible. That is, first you say, "Hey, get out of here!", and can't shoot him/her. If he/she refuses, then you can push them off of the property or use the threat of a gun to get him/her to leave. If he/she attacks you, then you have the right to defend yourself.
In this way, I agree, but it's important that only involves the 'property' -- which is also a government term, so to speak. Yes property can be defined in other ways, but most often not the ones found in the law.
If somebody attempts to rape you, you are property to yourself and thus got a rigth to get whoever attempting to do so to get the heck of in the gentles way possible.
Even if it means killing, killing is there is that is the gentles way possible(you cannot outrun the rapist, the rapist is stronger, the rapist is armed, etc.). Litteraly the rapist is assaulting YOU to get pleasure to self along with leaving you with trauma and wounds.
Myself i really find the "Run so many Meters then you can defend yourself" to be a very bad law, simply because you cannot hurt the attacker if the attacker manages to pin you down/knock you down/etc before those meters you can get robbed/wounded/worse and you cannot defend yourself properly because you have not reached the line that allows you to do so. If you actually do so, you will likely be charged in court for it afterwards.
Stupid laws.........
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know, you can't bring back someone to life by killing the other -- same for pollution.
I don't think you quite understood what I said. What I meant was an unusual scenario like this: say your neighbor is obsessed with keeping his lawn perfect. And he produced toxic sludge. Let's say that you like keeping your lawn nice too, and you also produce toxic sludge. To dispose of this sludge, a sludge truck comes every day, and picks up the sludge. Then, one day, the sludge truck breaks down. You decide to store your sludge for the next day. Your neighbor, on the other hand, decides not to wait. He puts his daily sludge in a bucket, and walks up to the border between his and your lawn, and gets ready to dump his sludge on your lawn. You don't want your lawn ruined, and you know that he's obsessed with his lawn, so you grab your sludge bucket, and before he has a chance to empty his, you empty yours upon his lawn. He immediately howls in anguish, and tries to scrub the sludge off of his lawn before it can damage it too much.
Okay, that was a stupid analogy. But what I'm trying to say is that it's very rarely an "eye for an eye" situation when it comes to pollution.
Quote:
In the end, this leads to total destruction -- all paths lead only to hate
Or it leads to a deterrent. Remember the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So if you murder, don't say that it's unfair for you to get killed.
Quote:
Seriously, terrorists do not want to be under the government jurisdiction -- that's why they are terrorists.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the government, elected by the people (and the people support the death penalty), has jursdiction over people who live on that government's territory, so if they murder, the government can punish them because they're under their jurisdiction. Terrorist organizations, on the other hand, have no area of jurisdiction.
Quote:
Unless of course you mean that by birth, we are forced to be under the government's jurisdiction.
Well, we can't choose where we're born. But we can leave the country (and if it doesn't let you leave and isn't democratic, it doesn't have the right to use the death penalty).
Quote:
If somebody attempts to rape you, you are property to yourself and thus got a rigth to get whoever attempting to do so to get the heck of in the gentles way possible.
This. 
By the way, the term "daily sludge" should be applied more often.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:48 AM |
|
|
Agree With Omega
In the United States of America "assault" and "battery" are two different charges. It sounds like you're wanting to discuss battery but not assault. In our country each state writes its own laws regarding the legal parameters in accordance to these criminal charges. In some cases the charges can be lowered or elevated from criminal to civil. This makes a big difference with regard to state-defined elegibility to appropriate penalties. City codes can further alter these defined parameters increasing or decreasing severity depending on the circumstances.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:53 AM |
|
|
I think you meant felonies and misdemeanors, not criminal and civil. Criminal and civil crimes are considered seperate offenses. A criminal action will never transform into a civil action and vice-versia. Felonies may be lowered to misdemeanors if defenses are present (like imperfect self-defense mitigating murder down to manslaughter), and some misdemeanors may be elevated if they are serious enough.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 09:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think you quite understood what I said. What I meant was an unusual scenario like this: say your neighbor is obsessed with keeping his lawn perfect. And he produced toxic sludge. Let's say that you like keeping your lawn nice too, and you also produce toxic sludge. To dispose of this sludge, a sludge truck comes every day, and picks up the sludge. Then, one day, the sludge truck breaks down. You decide to store your sludge for the next day. Your neighbor, on the other hand, decides not to wait. He puts his daily sludge in a bucket, and walks up to the border between his and your lawn, and gets ready to dump his sludge on your lawn. You don't want your lawn ruined, and you know that he's obsessed with his lawn, so you grab your sludge bucket, and before he has a chance to empty his, you empty yours upon his lawn. He immediately howls in anguish, and tries to scrub the sludge off of his lawn before it can damage it too much.
What if he's not obsessed? I still would want to protect my lawn without resorting to his game.
Quote:
Or it leads to a deterrent. Remember the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So if you murder, don't say that it's unfair for you to get killed.
Correct. I never said that it would be 'unfair' for you to get killed if you kill. But that if you do it when other alternatives are possible, I don't think you are going to be any better. Fair? perhaps. Better? unlikely.
I'm not against killing criminals when absolutely no other alternative is possible, or when they could immediately do worse (like e.g: you know he's going to kill in the next 5 minutes if you don't shoot him). I'm against killing them immediately just to 'get rid of them' just as they do to us.
Quote:
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the government, elected by the people (and the people support the death penalty), has jursdiction over people who live on that government's territory, so if they murder, the government can punish them because they're under their jurisdiction. Terrorist organizations, on the other hand, have no area of jurisdiction.
Yes but isn't that how civil wars start? I mean, some people in a some area are not happy with the government 'laying it's claws onto everyone' so to speak (every area). Sometimes I wonder even if the majority truly decides for the government, or are brainwashed in doing so. It's why most terrorists exist, really (again not talking about the "we nuke infidels!!!" type of fanatics)
Quote:
This.
By the way, the term "daily sludge" should be applied more often.
I don't disagree here btw 
However I can go even deeper by 'extending' the property definition. Yeah, still talking about pollution
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 11:09 AM |
|
|
There's no way I'm reading all this, so I'll just cut to the bottom line. Sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said 20 times.
As far as I'm concerned a person has the right to defend themselves using any means necessary. This is such a fundamental right that I think it belongs above all other rights including freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, etc.
The idea of "proportionate" defense is totally ridiculous. This is like saying we need to be "fair" to the criminal. Why don't we make it exactly proportional and give the criminal a 50-50 chance of succeeding with the assault?
And running away first? So if someone is assaulting me I'm supposed to turn my back on them so I can run? Running is an option and might even be a good option in some cases. But it can also be the absolute worst option. Turning your back on someone who is assaulting you just doesn't make a whole lot of sense and is just plain stupid in many situations. A person who turns their back has dropped their defense to zero and put themself in an extremely vulnerable position.
I don't know about other countries, but in the US there's been a trend for a few decades to take the judgment away from judges. The legislature has made a power grab and wants to dictate laws in such detail that it leaves no leeway for judges or juries to consider the situation. They want laws that are "one size fits all". One way of doing this is to make broad rules such as "proportionate defense" or "run XX distance first".
So what if a 100 pound woman is attacked by a 250 pound body builder? What is proportionate defense? And if she runs, what are her chances of getting away? To answer those questions we would need to consider the situation in much more detail, but the broad "one size fits all" laws either don't allow, or severely limit the use of common sense and judgment.
I said a person has the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. The key word here is "necessary". What is necessary is entirely situation dependant and needs to be looked at with common sense.
Also, it's important to note that it's not simply the danger a person has been put in that we need to look at. We need to look at both the perceived danger and also the potential danger of what COULD happen. If a person is attacking us we never know what their intent is, so we can assume the worst and defend ourselves accordingly.
Again I repeat that we have the right to defend ourself by any means necessary.
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If said Joe Smith is a killer, and you kill him, what does that make you? A savior?
Yes, the savior of the next victim of Joe Smith.
Or even the savior of some money (from taxes) because you'll no longer need to feed this bastard in prison
Quote:
I still say as a new form of entertainment a giant colosseum should be build where stupid peop-- uhr, volunteers can enter and beat the crap out of each other. Also a good way to get rid of criminals.
LOL I like the idea
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, the savior of the next victim of Joe Smith.
And the killer of a human being too
Quote:
Or even the savior of some money (from taxes) because you'll no longer need to feed this bastard in prison
He won't be able to pay taxes either.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He won't be able to pay taxes either.
You didn't understand me. I meant that WE PAY so that the prisoners get food. It's fine for those that are not so 'evil' (they regret their crime) but others don't even deserve to live.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 12:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 12:24, 19 Jun 2008.
|
Dead people don't pay taxes, government lives from it's people (including killers need to pay taxes too, at least those not caught yet)
you could say that the food in prison is actually from their own taxes
but it's too off-topic 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dead people don't pay taxes, government lives from it's people (including killers need to pay taxes too, at least those not caught yet)
you could say that the food in prison is actually from their own taxes
but it's too off-topic
You do not earn money while in prison. So the states loses money on it.
Besides poison is however pretty expensive and electricety is cheap
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 02:17 PM |
|
|
|
How expensive is a bullet?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 02:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know about other countries, but in the US there's been a trend for a few decades to take the judgment away from judges. The legislature has made a power grab and wants to dictate laws in such detail that it leaves no leeway for judges or juries to consider the situation. They want laws that are "one size fits all". One way of doing this is to make broad rules such as "proportionate defense" or "run XX distance first".
Creating laws is a plenary power of the legislature. If a state legislature wants to define battery as an intentional harmful or offensive contact with a hobo or clown, it is their exclusive right to do so. The judiciary, on the other hand, can not create laws. It can review the constitutionality of the laws and set case precedent but has zero power to create the laws.
Proportionate self-defense makes perfect sense if you think about it. A hypothetical if you will:
Give me a bit. I have to get to my review class first and then I'll write it up for you.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 02:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What if he's not obsessed?
Then that defense method wouldn't work, so it wouldn't matter.
Quote:
I'm against killing them immediately just to 'get rid of them' just as they do to us.
But we don't kill them just to "get rid of them". We kill them for two more reasons: to punish them, and to serve as an example to others.
Quote:
Yes but isn't that how civil wars start?
Civil wars start when a majority in a certain area or a significant minority nationwide decides that it doesn't want to be ruled by the majority of the country any more (I'm not talking about oppressive undemocratic governments).
Quote:
Sometimes I wonder even if the majority truly decides for the government, or are brainwashed in doing so.
That's a different subject.
Quote:
So what if a 100 pound woman is attacked by a 250 pound body builder? What is proportionate defense? And if she runs, what are her chances of getting away? To answer those questions we would need to consider the situation in much more detail, but the broad "one size fits all" laws either don't allow, or severely limit the use of common sense and judgment.
What if it's a 600 pound woman? Then one size definitely doesn't work.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 02:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then that defense method wouldn't work, so it wouldn't matter.
I'm thinking we'll eventually turn like the following: (eye for an eye does not work, like I said, two wrong don't make a right, two nuclear bombs don't bring back the life destroyed, it's only worse they destroy even more)
I grab a gun, go and kill someone. Many ask me why I did, and I reply: "I was defending myself. That guy was going to kill me with pollution." and we ARE talking about physical 'health' since pollution affects your body & health.
So who decides what 'measures' need to be taken in a certain situation? If we simply use the term "I defended myself" it doesn't work. Obviously, polluting him yourself will NOT restore your health, nor prevent any more of it, so it's NOT the solution and you will be NO BETTER than him.
Just a question for this eye-for-an-eye approach: If your neighbor kills your cow, you think the right thing to do is to kill his cow as well? Sounds pretty retarded to me
Quote:
But we don't kill them just to "get rid of them". We kill them for two more reasons: to punish them, and to serve as an example to others.
Sounds a bit like religious crusades
Quote:
Civil wars start when a majority in a certain area or a significant minority nationwide decides that it doesn't want to be ruled by the majority of the country any more (I'm not talking about oppressive undemocratic governments).
And we label the 'majority in a certain area' terrorists. It's why I label the government terrorist
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just a question for this eye-for-an-eye approach: If your neighbor kills your cow, you think the right thing to do is to kill his cow as well? Sounds pretty retarded to me
Well.......... in this case you would have sued him in court for killing your cow and demanding his cow as componsation.
____________
|
| |
|
|
