LOL, I can't even believe you guys.. We charge the police with defending us. They took out a person crazy enough to attack cops with a knife, and all you can say is "poor girl"?? Time to grow the hell up, and realize either YOU maintain person responsibility for your behavior, or someone else will. You are all taking this bleeding heart poor violent victims shit a little too far.aardfrith wrote:
Damn straight it's excessive force. But then it raises another question. If the officers had missed, would it have been right for the youth to have used lethal force in self-defense, i.e. to kill the policemen who were trying to kill her?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
This recently happened about 15 minutes from where I live. Excessive force, or self-defense?
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ne … 269369.php
How is it within the guidelines of self protection when a 18 year-old girl is wielding a pocket knife and two officers shoot her, citing their own defense as a reason? To me, that is excessive force, and the two policemen should go to jail for manslaughter at least. Anyone disagree? If you do, please tell me how you rationalize this violent act.
Poll
Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?
| Yes | 95% | 95% - 246 | ||||
| No | 4% | 4% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 257 | ||||||
Are you sure I'm the one confusing a right with a privilege?lowing wrote:
You are confusing a right with a privilege. You do not have the privilege to self defense, you have the right to it. See a few posts up on the definition.
Freedom from gender, racial, and equivalent forms of discrimination; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; the right to a fair and public trial; the right to asylum from persecution; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly and association; The right to own property and the right not to be deprived of it arbitrarily.lowing wrote:
I would love to know an example of "human rights" that is not conditional on your behavior to act humane. I mean I am a supporter of capitol punishment.
I fully concur. Would you still agree that there is 'a right to life'?lowing wrote:
Nothing much worse that you can do to someone than take away their breathing rights.
lowing wrote:
The the king king of of double double talk talk has has spoken spoken. gimme gimme a a fuckin' fuckin' break break.Bubbalo wrote:
No, because if a right to defend oneself is required to be justified in defending ones rights, then rights are meaningless in and of themselves, and ought not be codified.lowing wrote:
In other words, you have the right to defend yourself.........
It's funny to see how long it's taken you to crash and burn. It's also funny how you can't grasp any level of complexity, such as that evidenced here.Kmarion wrote:
5. I will try to demonstrate my views in a mature articulate manner using displayable facts as my evidence.
Good post, but then you tell me I have no "right" to defend myself from such treatment....Kinda ironic huh??apollo_fi wrote:
Are you sure I'm the one confusing a right with a privilege?lowing wrote:
You are confusing a right with a privilege. You do not have the privilege to self defense, you have the right to it. See a few posts up on the definition.Freedom from gender, racial, and equivalent forms of discrimination; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; the right to a fair and public trial; the right to asylum from persecution; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly and association; The right to own property and the right not to be deprived of it arbitrarily.lowing wrote:
I would love to know an example of "human rights" that is not conditional on your behavior to act humane. I mean I am a supporter of capitol punishment.I fully concur. Would you still agree that there is 'a right to life'?lowing wrote:
Nothing much worse that you can do to someone than take away their breathing rights.
You do not have a natural right from any of those things. Only ones morality, dictates those rights.
The right to self preservation is given to us by nature, in the form of instinct, the will to live. That is one right that all men share regardless of any other differences we may have. Nature does not dictqte to us the right to be free from discrimination for example, that is a man made right. Self Defense is not man made it is instinctive. Even for a criminal, but in that case society dictates appropriate punishment for your collective behavior.
I believe you have a right to life until you forfiet that right by taking away someone else's right to life.
the right to self preservation as I have already stated, is given to us by nature, not by man, therefore overrides anything you could possibly add or detract from it.Bubbalo wrote:
lowing wrote:
The the king king of of double double talk talk has has spoken spoken. gimme gimme a a fuckin' fuckin' break break.Bubbalo wrote:
No, because if a right to defend oneself is required to be justified in defending ones rights, then rights are meaningless in and of themselves, and ought not be codified.It's funny to see how long it's taken you to crash and burn. It's also funny how you can't grasp any level of complexity, such as that evidenced here.Kmarion wrote:
5. I will try to demonstrate my views in a mature articulate manner using displayable facts as my evidence.
Oh and just because I think you are fulla dog shit does not mean I don't "grasp" what you are saying, I simply reject it.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-31 18:38:16)
If you fully grasp what I'm saying, how come you refuse to respond and instead spout random generalised crap?
And if it does override anything else, then criminals should not be charged for fighting with police.
And if it does override anything else, then criminals should not be charged for fighting with police.
I did respond to it, I said you are fulla shit. Sorry ya didn't like my response but that is really all your posts rate.Bubbalo wrote:
If you fully grasp what I'm saying, how come you refuse to respond and instead spout random generalised crap?
And if it does override anything else, then criminals should not be charged for fighting with police.
Because that is not self defense. The criminal is the aggressor. It is not self defense when YOU are the one that instigates the confrontation. The cops are their to stop you.
Are you just trying to be a smart ass, or do you really really not know the fuckin' difference??
But you are defending yourself from an attack, regardless of why the attack is made, that is the definition of self-defence.
This is the kid that makes a phone call when the rest of us would rather just punch the fucker in the mouth.Bubbalo wrote:
But you are defending yourself from an attack, regardless of why the attack is made, that is the definition of self-defence.
You should do porn with that big pussy of yours.
Oh, I'm sorry, there's seems to be a misunderstanding here. You seem to be under the impression that I care what you think, and that throwing insults at me will somehow change something. It won't. And thanks for the career advice, but I think you're industry's overcrowded already.arson wrote:
This is the kid that makes a phone call when the rest of us would rather just punch the fucker in the mouth.Bubbalo wrote:
But you are defending yourself from an attack, regardless of why the attack is made, that is the definition of self-defence.
You should do porn with that big pussy of yours.
No, YOU are the agressor, the cops are trying to stop you. Self defense implies you are the one minding your own business and forced to deal with circumstances you had no part in creating.Bubbalo wrote:
But you are defending yourself from an attack, regardless of why the attack is made, that is the definition of self-defence.
Your scenerio is just as rediculous as to suggest a home invader "HAD" to kill the home owner because the home owner grabbed a gun , and the invader was justified in doing so in "self defense". You know that is bullshit and so is your scenario.
What if you stole a purse, and then the police approached you the next day? Then they're the aggressor. Or is that what if a little too far outside the box for you? Are criminals only arrested at the scene, and detectives don't exist? And my scenario isn't bullshit: the fact is, if someone is trying to harm you and you respond to stop them by attempting to end the threat as soon as possible it is self defense: typically criminals are the ones attempting to leave whilst police are pursuing.
No Bubbalo, a criminal is the aggressor, self defense implies an innocence before the fact.Bubbalo wrote:
What if you stole a purse, and then the police approached you the next day? Then they're the aggressor. Or is that what if a little too far outside the box for you? Are criminals only arrested at the scene, and detectives don't exist? And my scenario isn't bullshit: the fact is, if someone is trying to harm you and you respond to stop them by attempting to end the threat as soon as possible it is self defense: typically criminals are the ones attempting to leave whilst police are pursuing.
Standing by for your next "what if".
No, self defence just says that you're defending yourself from a threat of some sort.
What if you argued based on what something meant, instead of changing it's meaning such that it suits your needs? Wait, that one's a little too off the wall even for me.
What if you argued based on what something meant, instead of changing it's meaning such that it suits your needs? Wait, that one's a little too off the wall even for me.
Technicality. Self-defense, by legal terms, could be defined by innocence before the fact, as mentioned previously. Therefore, a criminal can't exactly justly declare self-defense if the police approach during or after a crime.Bubbalo wrote:
What if you stole a purse, and then the police approached you the next day? Then they're the aggressor.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-01 05:19:43)
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right. What's your point?
They're unrelated issues, so what's your point? If you don't want to strike back at anyone attacking you, then that's your choice. However, I happen to value my own hide more than that of some jerk about to deface it. It still boggles my mind that anyone would be for legislation against the innocent who wish to defend themselves and their kin from the tender attentions of violent criminals.Bubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right. What's your point?
No there is an accepted meaning for everything. Nobody ( except you ) includes apprehending criminals as self defense on behalf of the criminal. Self defense IMPLIES innocence before the fact for all PRACTICAL purposes in any discussion. Again, except for you.Bubbalo wrote:
No, self defence just says that you're defending yourself from a threat of some sort.
What if you argued based on what something meant, instead of changing it's meaning such that it suits your needs? Wait, that one's a little too off the wall even for me.
IMPLIED is the key word here bubbalo. We all know what the accepted meaning of self defense is, and yours is not in the realm of reality, or acceptance by anyone else, except for maybe jonsimon, but that is nothing to be proud ofBubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right. What's your point?
Hey bubbalo you can add this to the many examples of how you debate that I brought to your attention in that other thread. A perfect example.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
They're unrelated issues, so what's your point? If you don't want to strike back at anyone attacking you, then that's your choice. However, I happen to value my own hide more than that of some jerk about to deface it. It still boggles my mind that anyone would be for legislation against the innocent who wish to defend themselves and their kin from the tender attentions of violent criminals.Bubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right. What's your point?
That the definition of a term under US law doesn't make it the correct definition.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
They're unrelated issues, so what's your point?
I have never said that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If you don't want to strike back at anyone attacking you, then that's your choice.
And I agree with that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
However, I happen to value my own hide more than that of some jerk about to deface it.
And, as has been said before, nobody here is arguing for that. We are simply saying that whilst self defense is perfectly acceptable, it is not a right like the right to life or freedom.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It still boggles my mind that anyone would be for legislation against the innocent who wish to defend themselves and their kin from the tender attentions of violent criminals.
You don't seem to understand, lowing, that relying on implications is something that cannot be done by an organisation like the UN. Wording must be clear and unambiguous. Further, that fact that you accept the meaning of self defense to be something doesn't mean you aren't using it incorrectly (a perfect example here would be the term "irony/ic").lowing wrote:
IMPLIED is the key word here bubbalo. We all know what the accepted meaning of self defense is, and yours is not in the realm of reality, or acceptance by anyone else, except for maybe jonsimon, but that is nothing to be proud of
Accepted meaning(s) of self-defense:lowing wrote:
IMPLIED is the key word here bubbalo. We all know what the accepted meaning of self defense is, and yours is not in the realm of reality, or acceptance by anyone else, except for maybe jonsimon, but that is nothing to be proud ofBubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right. What's your point?
1 : the use of force to defend oneself
2 : an affirmative defense (as to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used force necessarily to protect himself or herself because of a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death
Please note that even a dictionary of law (the source) gives precedence to the more general definition of self-defense. Bubbalo was referring to the general meaning of self-defense.
Is Merriam-Webster somehow incompatible with your realm of reality?
QFE.Bubbalo wrote:
And, as has been said before, nobody here is arguing for that. We are simply saying that whilst self defense is perfectly acceptable, it is not a right like the right to life or freedom.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It still boggles my mind that anyone would be for legislation against the innocent who wish to defend themselves and their kin from the tender attentions of violent criminals.
Nope I agree that that is what it means.............Does the dictionary REALLY have to break it down to a 1000 "what if" scenarios to be excluded from that defintion, or does common sense and the implication of the meaning NOT prevail?apollo_fi wrote:
Accepted meaning(s) of self-defense:lowing wrote:
IMPLIED is the key word here bubbalo. We all know what the accepted meaning of self defense is, and yours is not in the realm of reality, or acceptance by anyone else, except for maybe jonsimon, but that is nothing to be proud ofBubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right. What's your point?
1 : the use of force to defend oneself
2 : an affirmative defense (as to a murder charge) alleging that the defendant used force necessarily to protect himself or herself because of a reasonable belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death
Please note that even a dictionary of law (the source) gives precedence to the more general definition of self-defense. Bubbalo was referring to the general meaning of self-defense.
Is Merriam-Webster somehow incompatible with your realm of reality?
take any word or phrase and you can attempt to pull the crap that bubbalo is pulling. FACE VALUE is key here. A criminal fighting with cops is NOT self defense. A sleeping home owner that shoots an intruder is.