...Mekstizzle wrote:
Well I dunno about having to kill the criminal in the act of robbing but good show
Fixxored
IRTT: Bout time some small justice is served in the world.
Fixxored
IRTT: Bout time some small justice is served in the world.
The only reason I'm not defending the guy is because he was beating up a woman. If he just took a few bottles of Whiskey and got shot damn right I'd be defending him.
Well Jord, that would also be the difference between larceny which is a misdemeanor (depending on the state & the amount) and armed robbery which is a felony.jord wrote:
The only reason I'm not defending the guy is because he was beating up a woman. If he just took a few bottles of Whiskey and got shot damn right I'd be defending him.
Malloy must go
What's the point in that? Like I said, you're proposing a situation wherein most anyone would betray any ideals and principles they have. It's not like you're making any kind of point by posing the question, it's not like you're calling him out on anything. The only thing you're really showing is that he'd do anything to protect his loved ones, not that his opinion isn't sound. Your hypothesis is different from the situation in question, and that's what he replied to. The questionable value is what compels me to ask you that question.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I ask this question because if you value human life equally your response should be consistent. Obviously if you had to chose between two lives, one being a stranger and one being a loved one you would opt for the later. What compels you to think that you can ask me what compels me? If one can rationalize a situation by using deadly force in one incident, and lesser force in the same incident with different persons then their logic is not consistent and the purpose of me asking was to find out for myself if that ws indeed the case.mikkel wrote:
What compels you to ask this question? Every time I see a thread about firearms and personal defence, there's always someone posting "but what if it was your family?". What kind of baiting and dishonest question is that? Almost anyone would betray their ideals and reason itself if that's what it took to save a loved one from death or serious injury. It's a pointless question to ask, because it proves absolutely nothing. You could ask "but what if it was your family?" to most any subject regarding harm or danger and get a different answer.
The way I see it, the only panties that are in a twist over this are yours. The idea of a debate forum is to debate. If you get riled up over people commenting on your posts, this is not the place for you to be.deeznutz1245 wrote:
My logic is usually questionable, however, it remains consistent. I would use deadly force on an assailant of either a loved one or an innocent bystander in distress. Mostly because I would feel obligated to help but I do not know what the aggressor has. They could have a knife I don't see, a hidden gun or be like Chuck fuckin Norris or something. Either way, I am not going home in a body bag. It is easy for us to sit here and judge and look at situations in retrospect. I am not intimate with your history, nor do I care to be, so I will not assume things about you but perhaps you should go to Macy's and buy some non bunching panties before you respond to my post like you are someone who I should have to fucking explain myself to.
What?deeznutz1245 wrote:
edit** - Besides, if you have proven you can disarm a situation without deadly force and chose not to out of personal rage maybe you should be asking somebody else what compels them.
Ok twat. I tried to be civil. If you use a gun simply out of rage, no matter what the circumstances, you are exactly the type of person who shouldn't fucking have a gun. Do you not get that? Second, I have the right, like everyone else here, to ask whatever the fuck I want so be it that it is consistent with the topic despite what you are or are not sick of. Who the fuck made you a referee or something.? Third, Seal and I see eye to eye on many things and I was posing an alternative scenario to him to further ascertain his logic before you jumped in, not debating by the way, making me "aware" of what makes you pissed. Fourth, go fuck yourself. Fifth, go fuck yourself.mikkel wrote:
What's the point in that? Like I said, you're proposing a situation wherein most anyone would betray any ideals and principles they have. It's not like you're making any kind of point by posing the question, it's not like you're calling him out on anything. The only thing you're really showing is that he'd do anything to protect his loved ones, not that his opinion isn't sound. Your hypothesis is different from the situation in question, and that's what he replied to. The questionable value is what compels me to ask you that question.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I ask this question because if you value human life equally your response should be consistent. Obviously if you had to chose between two lives, one being a stranger and one being a loved one you would opt for the later. What compels you to think that you can ask me what compels me? If one can rationalize a situation by using deadly force in one incident, and lesser force in the same incident with different persons then their logic is not consistent and the purpose of me asking was to find out for myself if that ws indeed the case.mikkel wrote:
What compels you to ask this question? Every time I see a thread about firearms and personal defence, there's always someone posting "but what if it was your family?". What kind of baiting and dishonest question is that? Almost anyone would betray their ideals and reason itself if that's what it took to save a loved one from death or serious injury. It's a pointless question to ask, because it proves absolutely nothing. You could ask "but what if it was your family?" to most any subject regarding harm or danger and get a different answer.The way I see it, the only panties that are in a twist over this are yours. The idea of a debate forum is to debate. If you get riled up over people commenting on your posts, this is not the place for you to be.deeznutz1245 wrote:
My logic is usually questionable, however, it remains consistent. I would use deadly force on an assailant of either a loved one or an innocent bystander in distress. Mostly because I would feel obligated to help but I do not know what the aggressor has. They could have a knife I don't see, a hidden gun or be like Chuck fuckin Norris or something. Either way, I am not going home in a body bag. It is easy for us to sit here and judge and look at situations in retrospect. I am not intimate with your history, nor do I care to be, so I will not assume things about you but perhaps you should go to Macy's and buy some non bunching panties before you respond to my post like you are someone who I should have to fucking explain myself to.What?deeznutz1245 wrote:
edit** - Besides, if you have proven you can disarm a situation without deadly force and chose not to out of personal rage maybe you should be asking somebody else what compels them.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2009-01-07 16:08:51)
Malloy must go
Legal terms aside they are both crimes. The differance here tools are grouping them altogether in the "scum" category. There is obviously a massive differance between some who rapes someone, and someone who fails to pay a parking ticket. Or someone who attempts to mug someone and in the process beats up a women with a bottle, and someone who stuffs a few chocolate bars into their pocket to eat later. A lot of bible worshippers fail to see that though.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Well Jord, that would also be the difference between larceny which is a misdemeanor (depending on the state & the amount) and armed robbery which is a felony.jord wrote:
The only reason I'm not defending the guy is because he was beating up a woman. If he just took a few bottles of Whiskey and got shot damn right I'd be defending him.
True.jord wrote:
Legal terms aside they are both crimes. The differance here tools are grouping them altogether in the "scum" category. There is obviously a massive differance between some who rapes someone, and someone who fails to pay a parking ticket. Or someone who attempts to mug someone and in the process beats up a women with a bottle, and someone who stuffs a few chocolate bars into their pocket to eat later. A lot of bible worshippers fail to see that though.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Well Jord, that would also be the difference between larceny which is a misdemeanor (depending on the state & the amount) and armed robbery which is a felony.jord wrote:
The only reason I'm not defending the guy is because he was beating up a woman. If he just took a few bottles of Whiskey and got shot damn right I'd be defending him.
Malloy must go
Where?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Ok twat. I tried to be civil.mikkel wrote:
What's the point in that? Like I said, you're proposing a situation wherein most anyone would betray any ideals and principles they have. It's not like you're making any kind of point by posing the question, it's not like you're calling him out on anything. The only thing you're really showing is that he'd do anything to protect his loved ones, not that his opinion isn't sound. Your hypothesis is different from the situation in question, and that's what he replied to. The questionable value is what compels me to ask you that question.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I ask this question because if you value human life equally your response should be consistent. Obviously if you had to chose between two lives, one being a stranger and one being a loved one you would opt for the later. What compels you to think that you can ask me what compels me? If one can rationalize a situation by using deadly force in one incident, and lesser force in the same incident with different persons then their logic is not consistent and the purpose of me asking was to find out for myself if that ws indeed the case.The way I see it, the only panties that are in a twist over this are yours. The idea of a debate forum is to debate. If you get riled up over people commenting on your posts, this is not the place for you to be.deeznutz1245 wrote:
My logic is usually questionable, however, it remains consistent. I would use deadly force on an assailant of either a loved one or an innocent bystander in distress. Mostly because I would feel obligated to help but I do not know what the aggressor has. They could have a knife I don't see, a hidden gun or be like Chuck fuckin Norris or something. Either way, I am not going home in a body bag. It is easy for us to sit here and judge and look at situations in retrospect. I am not intimate with your history, nor do I care to be, so I will not assume things about you but perhaps you should go to Macy's and buy some non bunching panties before you respond to my post like you are someone who I should have to fucking explain myself to.What?deeznutz1245 wrote:
edit** - Besides, if you have proven you can disarm a situation without deadly force and chose not to out of personal rage maybe you should be asking somebody else what compels them.
So you're saying that CoronadoSEAL shouldn't have a gun? That's all fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with him saying that he wouldn't have shot the guy? What, at all, did it contribute to that?deeznutz1245 wrote:
If you use a gun simply out of rage, no matter what the circumstances, you are exactly the type of person who shouldn't fucking have a gun. Do you not get that?
Referee? Like you said, I have the right to ask whatever I want, and you're the one throwing a fit about it. Get over yourself.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Second, I have the right, like everyone else here, to ask whatever the fuck I want so be it that it is consistent with the topic despite what you are or not sick of. Who the fuck made you a referee or something.
If a guy would do anything to protect his family, I doubt that he needs you to make him aware that he would. Should that be the case, it's still not relevant to what the guy is saying. You're hypothesising a situation where many people disregard logic and reason to make him reconsider the logic and reason behind his chosen actions in a situation where he wouldn't be emotionally involved to that degree. That makes absolutely no sense at all.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Third, Seal and I see eye to eye on many things and I was posing an alternative scenario to him to further ascertain his logic before you jumped in, not debating by the way, making me "aware" of what makes you pissed. Fourth, go fuck yourself. Fifth, go fuck yourself.
As for your fourths and fifths, thanks for the civility. What was that thing you said about Macy's?
Chris saved the tax payers millions of dollars for the cost of one bullet. I feel the governor needs to award him a few hundred thousand for his generous deed.
Thanks Chris
Thanks Chris
Hmm...guy beating a clerk while the clerk is pinned on the ground, using a weapon (improvised, but still very dangerous). Yeah, I'd fear for the clerk's life/think there is a likelihood of serious injury. In most places in the US, it is legal to use lethal force to stop such an attack.
Wonder if he took a few bottles of whisky at gun point, and still got shot?jord wrote:
The only reason I'm not defending the guy is because he was beating up a woman. If he just took a few bottles of Whiskey and got shot damn right I'd be defending him.
You cannot just throw legal terms aside. You see, this is where most euros get lost. Having a carry permit does not give someone a license to kill, infact you can be immediately thrown in jail if someone SEES YOUR GUN. thats right, if i reach into my wallet to pay for that burger, my shirt slips up a little, and my pistol is visible. I am now a criminal. You are only ever allowed to use that gun under the strictest of circumstances, if you really care to know the specifics, I know a guy that can hook you up. Ask Mr. Google specific states gun laws, not just american...there are federal, and then state laws on top of that that we must abide. It is illegal to shoot someone for stealing a sandwich, it is not illegal to kill that same man if he were to trip an old lady on his way out of the store. Old people are fragile, and he intended her bodily harm, possible death from hitting her head, he now has a bullseye on his brow. And to the guy not sure of Florida law..yes, yes you can use your weapon to help others in need. No not to be a cowboy, but if you have reason to believe a forcible felony is being committed, light em up. But beware, these are very very touchy, case-by-case issues that are still being fought in court. Seriously, im not trying to slag you euros for your very different views, but we already have laws in place that for the most part, cover all the scenarios and do's and don'ts. So many redundant arguments in this place, euros trying to tell us what is right and wrong, americans yelling back yes we can, alls it takes is a little research if you care so much to argue incessantly about it. Oh and i wasn't picking on you Jord, i just used your post as an example. chin up ladjord wrote:
Legal terms aside they are both crimes. The differance here tools are grouping them altogether in the "scum" category. There is obviously a massive differance between some who rapes someone, and someone who fails to pay a parking ticket. Or someone who attempts to mug someone and in the process beats up a women with a bottle, and someone who stuffs a few chocolate bars into their pocket to eat later. A lot of bible worshippers fail to see that though.
edit...im sure i'll catch flak for it eventually, so ill just come out and say I am aware of how terrible the old lady scenario is, it was just an example to show that forcible felonies (i.e. doing someone bodily harm) change everything, the green light to defend so to speak, and forcible felony is a very legal term. a legal term that is often life changing for anyone involved.
Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2009-01-08 01:49:01)
...and let us not forget, that in nearly every state that allows concealed carry, you are required to take a class that instructs you in the laws of your state regarding concealed carry. The people that I know that teach these classes do not take it as a joke; they pound the seriousness into their students' heads.mcjagdflieger wrote:
You cannot just throw legal terms aside. You see, this is where most euros get lost. Having a carry permit does not give someone a license to kill, infact you can be immediately thrown in jail if someone SEES YOUR GUN. thats right, if i reach into my wallet to pay for that burger, my shirt slips up a little, and my pistol is visible. I am now a criminal. You are only ever allowed to use that gun under the strictest of circumstances, if you really care to know the specifics, I know a guy that can hook you up. Ask Mr. Google specific states gun laws, not just american...there are federal, and then state laws on top of that that we must abide. It is illegal to shoot someone for stealing a sandwich, it is not illegal to kill that same man if he were to trip an old lady on his way out of the store. Old people are fragile, and he intended her bodily harm, possible death from hitting her head, he now has a bullseye on his brow. And to the guy not sure of Florida law..yes, yes you can use your weapon to help others in need. No not to be a cowboy, but if you have reason to believe a forcible felony is being committed, light em up. But beware, these are very very touchy, case-by-case issues that are still being fought in court. Seriously, im not trying to slag you euros for your very different views, but we already have laws in place that for the most part, cover all the scenarios and do's and don'ts. So many redundant arguments in this place, euros trying to tell us what is right and wrong, americans yelling back yes we can, alls it takes is a little research if you care so much to argue incessantly about it. Oh and i wasn't picking on you Jord, i just used your post as an example. chin up ladjord wrote:
Legal terms aside they are both crimes. The differance here tools are grouping them altogether in the "scum" category. There is obviously a massive differance between some who rapes someone, and someone who fails to pay a parking ticket. Or someone who attempts to mug someone and in the process beats up a women with a bottle, and someone who stuffs a few chocolate bars into their pocket to eat later. A lot of bible worshippers fail to see that though.
edit...im sure i'll catch flak for it eventually, so ill just come out and say I am aware of how terrible the old lady scenario is, it was just an example to show that forcible felonies (i.e. doing someone bodily harm) change everything, the green light to defend so to speak, and forcible felony is a very legal term. a legal term that is often life changing for anyone involved.