That is true that the risk is higher regarding death. Look, to be honest, in cases where the person really is in a fragile state, it really is best to let the EMS take care of things.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see a difference. In both cases the person is trying to help and the risk of death happens to be far higher in aiding a car crash victim than it is in tackling a thief.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if it's any consolation, most states have laws in place that protect Good Samaritans. Unfortunately, for the states that don't, there have been cases where people have taken other people to court over injuries caused by those trying to help.JohnG@lt wrote:
You know, in the state of Texas, if you see an accident occur you are required by law to stop and give as much aid as you can until an ambulance arrives. It's a good law, especially in a state as large as Texas where help might not arrive for a long time. By your logic Turquoise, the law is stupid because there are trained professionals who are paid to perform the job. Texans should just drive on by and leave the people on the side of the road to their fate. Because, hell, a person trying to aid an injured person just might accidentally kill them.
That's quite a bit different from vigilantism though. I think we can agree that Good Samaritans should be protected by law.
There are two sides to social contract, the individual acts a certain way and society protects the individual. The thief invalidated the contract but the clerk was still bound to it. Killing someone over <$20 worth of product is an unacceptable way of acting, even if the thief was not protected by society. If the thief had stolen a car, or to make this easier killed someone, then the social acceptability of killing him would have been dramatically increased.Turquoise wrote:
If the thief forfeited his right to live, then that means the clerk would not be eligible for being charged with anything. Your first sentence makes no sense, and it is certainly false according to the social contract we live under in this country.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
They don't have the right to live, you don't have the right to kill them. There is a very important distinction.
The purpose of social contract in the first place is to protect everyone from each other. That is exactly the reason for laws - to make sure that crime is prevented in the first place or at the very least to remove people that are likely to commit a crime (because they already have) from society. To allow someone to kill someone else without sufficient reason is clearly indicative of that person's capability to be damaging to society. The OP is a perfect example. The thief forfeited his right to life, but at the same time the clerk that overreacted proved himself dangerous to society.
p.s. the social contract is an abstraction. It doesn't physically exist. You can't refer to "our" social contract in any definite terms.
Again, you are being highly presumptuous with regards to the human psyche. Nobody can make a claim like that. Acting like a comparison between the U.S. and Canada (or the U.S. and anyone, or anyone and anyone) is a valid one is straight up dumb. You aren't that dumb.Turquoise wrote:
A culture that promotes violence as an answer to crime will undoubtedly be more violent innately. If you want stats, then again, look at the differences in violent crime rates between us and much less vigilantist countries like Canada.
Of course it is. My problem is that you are basing your opinion on the OP solely on the outcome. Yes, he was an idiot that took it a bit too far but I don't see anything wrong with chasing down the shoplifter. If anything, the off-duty bitch cop should be charged for failing to do her job.Turquoise wrote:
That is true that the risk is higher regarding death. Look, to be honest, in cases where the person really is in a fragile state, it really is best to let the EMS take care of things.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see a difference. In both cases the person is trying to help and the risk of death happens to be far higher in aiding a car crash victim than it is in tackling a thief.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if it's any consolation, most states have laws in place that protect Good Samaritans. Unfortunately, for the states that don't, there have been cases where people have taken other people to court over injuries caused by those trying to help.
That's quite a bit different from vigilantism though. I think we can agree that Good Samaritans should be protected by law.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, it sounds like it's rather hard to debate something that doesn't have any definite terms.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There are two sides to social contract, the individual acts a certain way and society protects the individual. The thief invalidated the contract but the clerk was still bound to it. Killing someone over <$20 worth of product is an unacceptable way of acting, even if the thief was not protected by society. If the thief had stolen a car, or to make this easier killed someone, then the social acceptability of killing him would have been dramatically increased.
p.s. the social contract is an abstraction. It doesn't physically exist. You can't refer to "our" social contract in any definite terms.
I'm being no more presumptuous than you are about when someone forfeits their right to live.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, you are being highly presumptuous with regards to the human psyche. Nobody can make a claim like that. Acting like a comparison between the U.S. and Canada (or the U.S. and anyone, or anyone and anyone) is a valid one is straight up dumb. You aren't that dumb.
The off-duty cop certainly fucked up, I agree.JohnG@lt wrote:
Of course it is. My problem is that you are basing your opinion on the OP solely on the outcome. Yes, he was an idiot that took it a bit too far but I don't see anything wrong with chasing down the shoplifter. If anything, the off-duty bitch cop should be charged for failing to do her job.Turquoise wrote:
That is true that the risk is higher regarding death. Look, to be honest, in cases where the person really is in a fragile state, it really is best to let the EMS take care of things.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see a difference. In both cases the person is trying to help and the risk of death happens to be far higher in aiding a car crash victim than it is in tackling a thief.
I don't think him chasing down the criminal was wrong, but as you said, the result was. Again, he's at the mercy of a jury as to what punishment he receives, if any.
That's the beauty of our system. We have laws that are usually applied consistently, but juries get to decide for themselves how the situation affects things.
You ignored half my response.Turquoise wrote:
Well, it sounds like it's rather hard to debate something that doesn't have any definite terms.
It is an abstraction, it isn't meaningless.
lol those are completely separate things. You are assuming that being in a society that accepts vigilantism during the act of a crime makes people more inherently violent. That is absurdly baseless. I am saying that someone who defies society turns their back on society, and the responsibilities and protection that are included with that. A very simple statement.Turquoise wrote:
I'm being no more presumptuous than you are about when someone forfeits their right to live.
Should we dispense with jails and simply kill all criminals that are found guilty then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You ignored half my response.Turquoise wrote:
Well, it sounds like it's rather hard to debate something that doesn't have any definite terms.
It is an abstraction, it isn't meaningless.lol those are completely separate things. You are assuming that being in a society that accepts vigilantism during the act of a crime makes people more inherently violent. That is absurdly baseless. I am saying that someone who defies society turns their back on society, and the responsibilities and protection that are included with that. A very simple statement.Turquoise wrote:
I'm being no more presumptuous than you are about when someone forfeits their right to live.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
largely yes
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
define 'largely'Flaming_Maniac wrote:
largely yes
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Should we dispense with juries then too? They've been known to make mistakes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
largely yes
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
Even Hammurabi's Code limited punishment to one that fits the crime. Eye for an eye etc. I think even he would've found a death sentence for stealing a tube of toothpaste slightly over the top...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
How the fuck does that have anything to do with a jury? How does the second half respond to what I said in the least?JohnG@lt wrote:
Should we dispense with juries then too? They've been known to make mistakes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
largely yes
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
Even Hammurabi's Code limited punishment to one that fits the crime. Eye for an eye etc. I think even he would've found a death sentence for stealing a tube of toothpaste slightly over the top...
I understand that the situation and the crime can affect what people consider as acceptable in reaction toward a criminal, but I'm still not getting this "forfeiting the right to live" idea.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You ignored half my response.
It is an abstraction, it isn't meaningless.
But it's still one I consider erroneous.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol those are completely separate things. You are assuming that being in a society that accepts vigilantism during the act of a crime makes people more inherently violent. That is absurdly baseless. I am saying that someone who defies society turns their back on society, and the responsibilities and protection that are included with that. A very simple statement.
Nevertheless, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the vigilantism aspect and possibly on this discussion altogether, since it's beginning to get circular.
Lowing... if you want an example of fascism... look no further.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
largely yes
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.Turquoise wrote:
I understand that the situation and the crime can affect what people consider as acceptable in reaction toward a criminal, but I'm still not getting this "forfeiting the right to live" idea.
2) When you violate the contract, you void the contract.
3) When the contract is void, you no longer have access to the same rights you used to, including the right to life.
MMMMM MORE RHETORIC, TASTYTurquoise wrote:
Lowing... if you want an example of fascism... look no further.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
largely yes
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
hahaha that has so little to do with fascism hahaha
Juries are fallible was my point. Death is permanent. You're putting the life of an accused person in the hands of the nine people stupid enough to not come up with a good excuse for getting out of jury duty. I think that's a bit much when the only sentence on the table is death.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How the fuck does that have anything to do with a jury? How does the second half respond to what I said in the least?JohnG@lt wrote:
Should we dispense with juries then too? They've been known to make mistakes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
largely yes
If robbery is punishable by death and everyone knows it, I really don't see how one can justify any amount of pity for someone who does it anyways. I mean whether or not the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant, the stupidity it takes to KNOW that you will be killed if you are caught and to do it anyways is incomprehensible.
Even Hammurabi's Code limited punishment to one that fits the crime. Eye for an eye etc. I think even he would've found a death sentence for stealing a tube of toothpaste slightly over the top...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, yeah. We're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.Turquoise wrote:
I understand that the situation and the crime can affect what people consider as acceptable in reaction toward a criminal, but I'm still not getting this "forfeiting the right to live" idea.
2) When you violate the contract, you void the contract.
3) When the contract is void, you no longer have access to the same rights you used to, including the right to life.
so you disagree with the death penalty period thenJohnG@lt wrote:
Juries are fallible was my point. Death is permanent. You're putting the life of an accused person in the hands of the nine people stupid enough to not come up with a good excuse for getting out of jury duty. I think that's a bit much when the only sentence on the table is death.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How the fuck does that have anything to do with a jury? How does the second half respond to what I said in the least?JohnG@lt wrote:
Should we dispense with juries then too? They've been known to make mistakes.
Even Hammurabi's Code limited punishment to one that fits the crime. Eye for an eye etc. I think even he would've found a death sentence for stealing a tube of toothpaste slightly over the top...
lol this is social contract. I don't know what there is to disagree on. You just want to pick and choose, introducing inconsistencies.Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah. We're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on that.
For someone that was quoting and touting Thomas Jefferson when I first came to this board, he's now gone to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and denied the Rights of Man. Interesting.Turquoise wrote:
Well, yeah. We're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on that.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
1) The right to life is one provided by society, as part of the terms of a contract signed at birth.Turquoise wrote:
I understand that the situation and the crime can affect what people consider as acceptable in reaction toward a criminal, but I'm still not getting this "forfeiting the right to live" idea.
2) When you violate the contract, you void the contract.
3) When the contract is void, you no longer have access to the same rights you used to, including the right to life.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Solely based on the fact that the justice system is not infallible and people have been wrongfully put behind bars and on death row before. I'm hardly averse to having murderers and rapists killed but he/she would essentially have to be caught in the act for it to fly with me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
so you disagree with the death penalty period thenJohnG@lt wrote:
Juries are fallible was my point. Death is permanent. You're putting the life of an accused person in the hands of the nine people stupid enough to not come up with a good excuse for getting out of jury duty. I think that's a bit much when the only sentence on the table is death.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How the fuck does that have anything to do with a jury? How does the second half respond to what I said in the least?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Denying rights to people that have no rights...how does that work? Quite the load of shit if you can't see the difference between the individual rights of innocent people and denying rights of people that denied those same rights to others.
People die in shitty ways all the time.
There is a high level of burden of proof for a reason.JohnG@lt wrote:
Solely based on the fact that the justice system is not infallible and people have been wrongfully put behind bars and on death row before. I'm hardly averse to having murderers and rapists killed but he/she would essentially have to be caught in the act for it to fly with me.
People die in shitty ways all the time.
Well, that's why we have a justice system.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Denying rights to people that have no rights...how does that work? Quite the load of shit if you can't see the difference between the individual rights of innocent people and denying rights of people that denied those same rights to others.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, it's quite a load of shit if you act like the system is infallible in its conviction as well.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Denying rights to people that have no rights...how does that work? Quite the load of shit if you can't see the difference between the individual rights of innocent people and denying rights of people that denied those same rights to others.
You may not have declared this, but your ideas essentially promote that assumption.
Vigilantism is a form of anarchy and no social contract exists within anarchy so the entire premise of your argument is flawed. What you are proposing is essentially 'Might makes right'.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-10 22:45:40)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
This is just dumb. No one defends their RIDICULOUS and insulting claims, fascism, denying rights to people, etc. and to add insult to injury you won't even read what I said.
Vigilantism applies ONLY when they are in the act of committing a crime, when they have forfeited their rights. I gave Turquoise about 5 quotes that indicated that on the last page. When they forfeited their rights, social contract doesn't apply. They are then in a state of anarchy. hurr durrrrr
The justice system itself has NO BEARING on someone in the act of committing a crime. Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Vigilantism applies ONLY when they are in the act of committing a crime, when they have forfeited their rights. I gave Turquoise about 5 quotes that indicated that on the last page. When they forfeited their rights, social contract doesn't apply. They are then in a state of anarchy. hurr durrrrr
The justice system itself has NO BEARING on someone in the act of committing a crime. Conviction has absolutely nothing to do with it.