Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Where do we draw a line?
Thread: Where do we draw a line? This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · «PREV / NEXT»
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted May 29, 2009 04:29 PM
Edited by angelito at 16:31, 29 May 2009.

Quote:
I can't believe people are actually defending robbers. If you get hurt in the process of aggressing against someone, it's no one's fault but your own.
It's not about getting hurt, it's about getting killed. Hugh difference.
If this wouldn't matter, every burglar who gets caught (later by the police) would get death penalty if we follow your logic.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 29, 2009 04:50 PM

No, it's different. The government is supposed to provide a punishment after the crime. In contrast, a person who is being aggressed against can do whatever it takes to stop the crime. The government tries to stop a crime from starting and punishes the perpetrator after the crime is over. The victim tries to stop the crime while it's going on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted May 29, 2009 04:58 PM

Quote:
No, it's different. The government is supposed to provide a punishment after the crime. In contrast, a person who is being aggressed against can do whatever it takes to stop the crime.
Mvass...come on. You do not really believe that, do you?
I go into a supermarket and try to steal a chewing gum. I take it and run out of the market. By your logic (can do WHATEVER to STOP the crime!), the chief of the market is allowed TO SHOOT ME TO DEATH, because he can't reach me anymore (he is just too fat to run..), and he isn't a good sniper, so he just shoots in my direction and hits me in the head.

If you believe this action was justified, I would strongly recommend to NOT study law
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfsburg
Wolfsburg


Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
posted May 29, 2009 05:12 PM

Vassilev, read my post on top of the page. Way beyond the matter of "defending robbers", we are trying to define what villanies justify the use of lethal force. And I for once, am trying to put into perspective the idea that laws can be abused for malicious purposes.

The right to defend yourself with lethal force and the execution of a defenseless person who commited robbery are two different situations. And I am truly happy those two situations will be dealt with in different ways in a court.

We are defining limitations for those who will abuse the powers granted by laws.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 29, 2009 05:35 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 17:37, 29 May 2009.

I agree with angelito. When you decide to STOP the crime you have to use, more or less, equal grave actions, NOT SHOOT HIM for taking a chewing gum geez.

That's not even eye-for-an-eye, it's more like life-for-a-nail

EDIT: even if he decides to beat you up, you shouldn't shoot him unless he is deadly close to give you a punch. You can, of course, threaten him with the gun (if he moves he's toast) until the cops come.

Do you make a difference between SHOOTING and THREATENING?
Cops do it all the time. Should they start to shoot even if the robber raises his hands?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 29, 2009 06:16 PM

Quote:
Vassilev, read my post on top of the page. Way beyond the matter of "defending robbers", we are trying to define what villanies justify the use of lethal force. And I for once, am trying to put into perspective the idea that laws can be abused for malicious purposes.

The right to defend yourself with lethal force and the execution of a defenseless person who commited robbery are two different situations. And I am truly happy those two situations will be dealt with in different ways in a court.

We are defining limitations for those who will abuse the powers granted by laws.


Yes, when the robbers pulled out their guns and started waving them around the pharmacist should have just pulled his out and waved it around....

Now if the robbers escalate the situation and start shooting then he should be allowed to shoot also. But he must carefully count how many times each robber shoots and only fire the number of bullets at each particular robber that that robber has fired so as to be fair to each robber.

I'm sure the pharmacisst was just waiting there all day scheming "to abuse for malicious purposes" a robber. The opportunity occured and he leaped for joy thinking he could get away with his malicious plan with his wife and daughter there watching. In fact they were probably in on his maliciousl plan. But the prosecuter will show him, oh yes, there will be justice. He must get the death penalty for his malicious plan to kill the mistreated robber.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfsburg
Wolfsburg


Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
posted May 29, 2009 07:24 PM

Quote:
I'm sure the pharmacisst was just waiting there all day scheming "to abuse for malicious purposes" a robber. The opportunity occured and he leaped for joy thinking he could get away with his malicious plan with his wife and daughter there watching. In fact they were probably in on his maliciousl plan. But the prosecuter will show him, oh yes, there will be justice. He must get the death penalty for his malicious plan to kill the mistreated robber.

Not only you are straw maning me here, but you also have your fingers way off the pulse. First and foremost I did'nt say the pharmacist was the one with malicious purposes. What I said was that self-defense + property laws allow certain kind of malicious abuses, and that this case will help us further define where to draw the line between righteous reaction and lethal force abuse.

An example of that would be: Im pissed at you because I know you are having an affair with my wife. One day you come to my store late at night. I shoot you a couple of times to make sure you're dead. I call the police and say there was this strange menacing guy in my store seemed to have a weapon hidden underneath his jacket.

This is one of many situations where law will protect or at least lighten up the burden of my actions. And thats where judges step in, to bring the situation to the light of justice. The jurists are correct to press charges against the man, that is part of what they are paid to do. Even if the pharmacist is declared innocent at the end, they are proceeding in a correct manner.

About the case itself, I think that if the pharmacist would have killed both at the spot with as many shots as needed, it would have been ok. For he had two guns pointed at him and his life was at stake. But I personally think that the extra five shots taken at the fallen robber at the end were clearly meant to kill. The pharmacist had some time before he walked back in and opened fire at the guy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 29, 2009 09:45 PM

Angelito:
The store owner would be justified, IMO.

Wolfsburg:
Of course, it's important to examine the situation to make sure the store owner isn't lying and didn't just kill him for the fun of it, but if it is found that events transpired just as the owner said, then he should not be punished.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted May 29, 2009 09:50 PM
Edited by del_diablo at 22:00, 29 May 2009.

The store owner should not be punished for shooting at em, he had the full right to defend himself by whatever means when they attempted to rob his store.
On the other hand, he should be punished for the 5 extra bullets. He did shoot them AFTER chasing the other guy away, into the likely half-dead villan who had attempted to rob the store.
For me it would not have mattered if he fired several thousend bullets or 2, he did shoot the 2nd round in a separate session when everything was dratted safe AFTER chasing away villan nr2. There is no andrenaliv excuse at all, due the time betwhen session nr1 and nr2.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 30, 2009 12:50 AM

My guess is, he was pissed off that he couldn't catch and kill the other one
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 30, 2009 04:22 AM

Quote:
AFTER chasing the other guy away, into the likely half-dead villan who had attempted to rob the store.
For me it would not have mattered if he fired several thousend bullets or 2, he did shoot the 2nd round in a separate session when everything was dratted safe AFTER chasing away villan nr2. There is no andrenaliv excuse at all, due the time betwhen session nr1 and nr2.


How much time was he out of the front door? 10-15 seconds maybe? Do you really think he went from being in fear for his life in the few seconds he walked back in to feeling completely safe? I think some of you have never been in a situation where you were actually in fear for you life. I'm not talking about getting into a fight with your little brother when you were 10 years old.

This is still well within the time frame of the crime being committed. He did not make a plan to track and and take revenge on the robber. He was still frightened for his own life that the robber had threatened to take. How can you justify killing the man who killed the man who was threatening his life? That is insane.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 30, 2009 04:37 AM

No, if he was so afraid of his life he WOULD NOT HAVE CHASED HIM.
When you are in a situation when you can't think straight, you don't go after the thing that made you scared. (even if chasing him, as a cop for example, would be the wisest thing -- but YOU said yourself that he wasn't thinking straight).

He returned pissed cause he couldn't catch and kill the other one maybe, so he shot the one lying on the floor 5 times to release his anger.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 30, 2009 05:00 AM
Edited by Elodin at 05:05, 30 May 2009.

Quote:
No, if he was so afraid of his life he WOULD NOT HAVE CHASED HIM.



Lol!!! You have never heard of fight or flight? You think you can't fight when you are afraid for your life? He didn't chase the other robber 3 blocks, he was gone out of the door only a few seconds to make sure the robber was running away and not turning around and coming back.

Quote:
When you are in a situation when you can't think straight, you don't go after the thing that made you scared.


Oh, I beg to differ. You are focused on eliminating the threat even when you are scared. Like I said he didn't chase chase the robber 3 blocks.

But I agree he was not thinking like he normally though every day. He was in fear for his life and trying to preserve it. Heis wife and daughter were also in the store and so he protecting them as well.

Quote:
He returned pissed cause he couldn't catch and kill the other one maybe, so he shot the one lying on the floor 5 times to release his anger.


It is amazing that you can read minds and say he only wanted revenge and killed the robber on the floor because the second robber got away.

All this happened very fast. You don't go from being afraid for you life to being at peace so quickly.

I guess you want him prosecuted for trying to assault the second robber too. Lol!!

So that's one count of murder and one of attempted murder, right?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 30, 2009 05:15 PM

Quote:
You think you can't fight when you are afraid for your life?
Of course you can. What you can't, is go and provoke or go into more fight. What if the other one was running towards some "friends" with automatic submachine guns?

Quote:
It is amazing that you can read minds and say he only wanted revenge and killed the robber on the floor because the second robber got away.
Actually it was meant as my interpretation of course, and somewhat jokingly

Quote:
I guess you want him prosecuted for trying to assault the second robber too. Lol!!
No actually catching the other robber wouldn't have been as bad as shooting the first one 5 times after that...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted June 01, 2009 11:16 AM

There is justifyable homicide.  Protecting your family, yourself, or the lives of others around you who are in immediate danger.  When the 'store owner' (manager?, employee?) shot the person trying to rob the place he was most certainly in the right.  However, once the other was gone, and the one on the floor..then I could possibly justify him/her shooting once more if the one on the floor 'moved' (The intensity of the situation might have led them to believe that a weapon was being reached for) anything beyond that departs the justifiable homicide area and enters a whole different area.

Did you know that in some places if there is an exit you can reach IN YOUR OWN HOME, and somebody breaks in, if you are not blocked from a exit and shoot somebody you can be put in jail?  Even if the other person has an atomic bomb or something (ie it doesn't matter what type of weapon they have).  Now if that is not absolutely rediculous I do not have a clue what is.  Somebody breaks in my place and I am there I am not going to invite them in for tea, I am going to calculate that my or someboy I care for's life is in danger and I am going to reply in kind.

I am one of the most peaceful people you may ever find.  I hate violence of any kind, and think there are always better ways.  HOWEVER, if somebody is committing a crime I agree with Corribus, they give up their rights when doing so.  Now if the crime is OVER, that is a different story, but while it is happening you have every right to defend yourself, even if that takes the life of the 'criminal'.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 02, 2009 03:12 AM

Quote:
HOWEVER, if somebody is committing a crime I agree with Corribus, they give up their rights when doing so.
Someone steals a candy.
He made a crime and broke the law.
You shoot him.
After all, he gave up ALL his rights, right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 02, 2009 03:43 AM
Edited by Corribus at 03:44, 02 Jun 2009.

Quote:
Quote:
HOWEVER, if somebody is committing a crime I agree with Corribus, they give up their rights when doing so.
Someone steals a candy.
He made a crime and broke the law.
You shoot him.
After all, he gave up ALL his rights, right?

I think if you read my original posts, you'll find I said nothing of the sort.

Hmm... hold on.  In the interest of showing more heart in my posts, let me rephrase.

[passion]Hey you, Deathboy, I think if you READ my original posts, YOU WILL FIND I SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT!!!!!!!!!  Geez.  [/passion]
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 02, 2009 04:51 AM

I was replying to Mythical's phrase. The phrase by itself implied that
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted June 02, 2009 05:31 AM

Quote:
Someone steals a candy.
He made a crime and broke the law.
You shoot him.
After all, he gave up ALL his rights, right?



Yep, shouldn't have stolen that damn candy.

Was the candy really worth it, kid?


____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted June 24, 2009 10:11 AM

Ok I know I have avoided this thread for awhile (got a bit outta hand ).  Time to 'turn back the clock' a little and bring up something already discussed.  Raising a child.

Now we all know that it is very 'un-politically correct' to even suggest disciplinging a child in any way besides grounding or such. I mean everybody knows better then YOU how to raise your child, right? [/sarcasm] seems especially true about people who have never had children...which I find odd.  We really never got any answers, so lets try again.

Where do you think we should draw the line at discipline?  Should society really be able to tell us how to discipline our children?  When does discipline become abuse?
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0852 seconds