Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 10

 

Poll

Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?

Yes95%95% - 246
No4%4% - 11
Total: 257
2006-09-09 17:40:33
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7080
The right to life will give you legal exemption if you use self defence to protect it.  You are blowing this way out of proportion.

Even if someone pulls a gun on you because of mental illness, poverty or malice they still have their basic human rights.  Those rights are still violated if they are shot, however the act of violating them cannot be punished because of the situation it occurred in.  It's simple enough.

Just out of interest, does it say in the US constitution that self defense is a specific right?
2006-09-09 18:55:59
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

kr@cker wrote:

the whole "less guns" argument will only work if you steal harry potter's magic wand and manage to get all the "bad guys" to get rid of their guns, which will never happen, until then, you leave my guns the fuck alone cuz I'm sure as hell not going to sit around and wait for the 15/20 minutes it takes for a cop to get there and hope I still have some blood left when they arrive
No. It wouldn't work. You could steal a wand, but you'd have no magical training, and likely no magical ability due to your incurable Muggleness. Therefore, the wand would be useless for disarmament purposes. If you could somehow get it to work, the magical government of whatever nation you operate in would discover you. Thereafter, you may be invited to join their wizarding world due to your newfound ability under the conditions of magical nondisclosure to Muggles. If you had already used your wand against Muggles, they would arrive at your doorstep, likely with the intent to confiscate both wand and, perhaps, memory. Additionally, it should be noted that even mighty wizards of the Harry Potter universe can still die from means mundane, and not just magical.
2006-09-09 19:18:02
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7116|Tampa Bay Florida
kracker is so badass, I wanna be like him when I grow up

/sarcasm

Nothings wrong with being against gun control, but trying to make yourself look macho by defying government control is plain dumb, mkay?
2006-09-09 20:03:26
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

Spearhead wrote:

kracker is so badass, I wanna be like him when I grow up

/sarcasm

Nothings wrong with being against gun control, but trying to make yourself look macho by defying government control is plain dumb, mkay?
Alright, Mr. Mackey, mkay?
2006-09-09 20:22:07
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6913|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

trevoraj wrote:

But this report focuses on small and light arms use by individuals, and the state's responsibilities in creating and upholding laws.
As an Englishman, who lives in Inner city London, small arms (ab)use is rare. I've never even heard a gun fired! This subject is therefore very hard for me to understand. When I watched Michale Moore's Bowling for Columbine everyone I know thought it was obvious - guns are bad and should much more tightly controlled by the state - and yet even from this forum many (Americans) thought he was just nuts.
For me, the strange thing is that the UN needs to produce a report on self defense with guns for private individuals! Surely you can see that your society would be better off with less guns?
Well listening to Mike Moore is your first problem man. That fat fuck bends the truth and make everything he doesn't like evil. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people.
2006-09-09 20:38:33
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6913|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

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.
Have you ever had some one come at you with a knife?? I have, and they were in all rights to shoot. One lucky stab with that POCKET KNIFE as you put it, one officer isn't going home to his family. When something pops off like that you fall back on training. Yes its tragic that the girl lost her life, and the cops that shot her will have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

edit: They also gave her plenty of verbal warnings, and they didn't just start shooting

Last edited by SgtHeihn (2006-09-09 20:40:57)

2006-09-09 21:13:12
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

SgtHeihn wrote:

Have you ever had some one come at you with a knife?? I have, and they were in all rights to shoot. One lucky stab with that POCKET KNIFE as you put it, one officer isn't going home to his family. When something pops off like that you fall back on training. Yes its tragic that the girl lost her life, and the cops that shot her will have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

edit: They also gave her plenty of verbal warnings, and they didn't just start shooting
+1, knives are dangerous, and Its interesting how fast some people are to judge cops when THEY themselves weren't even fucking there and don't know how it all went down, the media doesn't tell all the story, wait for an investigation, if they did something wrong it will be caught, cops don't want to shoot people, but will if they have to.  If she was smart she would've just put it down and fucking talked, but nope, I'd faster believe suicide by cop than the cops just fucking shot her for no reason.  Wait for an investigation, what happened to innocent until proven guilty???
2006-09-10 07:24:26
jonsimon
Member
+224|6921
Honestly, the UN is right. Killing in self-defense is not justifiable. However, non-lethal self-defense is often justifiable.
2006-09-10 08:27:48
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

jonsimon wrote:

Honestly, the UN is right. Killing in self-defense is not justifiable. However, non-lethal self-defense is often justifiable.
Sorry, fancy-pants, a fight for your life is not always conducted under controlled conditions, mkay? If it is made globally illegal to kill in self-defense, then all you'd end up with is more confusion and normally law-abiding people hiding bodies to avoid unjust retaliation from the law, mkay?

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/mackey.jpg

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-10 08:35:33)

2006-09-10 08:31:33
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7080
Does it say in the US constitution that self defense is a specific right?
2006-09-10 08:45:24
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Does it say in the US constitution that self defense is a specific right?
Such precepts as the English Declaration of Rights, in which certain citizens were allowed to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" were adapted into the US constitution. While I'm sure it was imagined that the constitution itself would be reinterpreted and adjusted over the years, it would probably be looked on with disgust that an individual's right to defense of self and family is now questioned. Such a thing is like double-guessing a basic right such as air.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-09-10 08:46:08)

2006-09-10 08:57:12
P581
Monkey
+44|6896
Self defense is just another term for revenge? No? Are you saying that instead of having a court system we should just let citizens measure out the punishment that their "assailant" deserves? I am against giving nations "the right" to dish out punishment as they feel other nations deserve. I think Iran should not have nukes, I feel North Korea should not have nukes, I feel that the US and Russia should be disarmed too. I don't think a nation has the right to invade another nation and impose laws on them, no matter how many people they have taken prisoner, or if the other nation decides to invade. There should be a global body representing the worlds best interests policing countries who cannot control their behavior.

I am a teacher, everyday some kid gets upset, hits another kid. As a teacher I have to settle it properly. I cannot say "Okay Todd, since he hit you, hit him back." My duty is to look after all of my students welfare. If I didn't there would be chaos. Prior to global communications networks and ICBMs we didn't really worry so much about global warfare. Disputes were handled in regions where they occurred. There was no options really to intervene in cruelty between nations. However we are much more advanced now, we have the ability to communicate and the force to act in the worlds best interest. Yet, we still have the childish mentality that we are allowed to hurt other people because they hurt us first.

As some Scottish song goes "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, till we're all blind and have no teeth."
2006-09-10 11:22:57
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

Honestly, the UN is right. Killing in self-defense is not justifiable. However, non-lethal self-defense is often justifiable.
You've got to be kidding me man, what!?!?!? This doesn't have to relate with guns, otherwise I would understand your obtuse conclusion, but your telling me, I don't have the right to try and fight someone for my life if they are trying to KILL ME.  Why?
2006-09-10 11:24:26
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

P581 wrote:

"Okay Todd, since he hit you, hit him back."
As some Scottish song goes "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, till we're all blind and have no teeth."
......Thats not self defense since the fighting had stopped, you are making this too political of an issue.  It is not a case of revenge when someone is trying to kill me with a knife/gun and I am able to punch them in the head/ or shoot them, before they KILL ME.  That is not revenge, that is called saving my own life.
2006-09-10 11:27:45
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Those rights are still violated if they are shot, however the act of violating them cannot be punished because of the situation it occurred in.  It's simple enough.
And if not shot, my rights would be violated, and I'd be shot, and they would be punished. hmmmm.....yeah real simple and way out of proportion.
2006-09-10 11:33:45
Sylvanis
........
+13|7062|Toronto, Ontario
Self defense is valid.  Self defense is only defense until you are in no IMMEDIATE danger.  If you can escape, or disengage yourself without doing any major harm, then any further violence you commit would be assault.  From my understanding, there is no way using a gun could be called self defense unless the attacker has and is likely to use a gun that is pointing at you.

Last edited by Sylvanis (2006-09-10 11:35:12)

2006-09-10 11:36:06
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

Sylvanis wrote:

Self defense is valid.  In Canada self defense is only defense until you are in no IMMEDIATE danger.  If you can escape, or disengage yourself without doing any major harm, then any further violence you commit would be assault.
This is about the same, more or less, in most of the U.S. and other countries (minus some ridicolous exceptions that I've heard).  And I would agree any further violence people should be prosecuted, its pretty simple in that respect, but how can people like jonsimon and the U.N. want to deny people the right to defend themselves, at all.  That doesn't make any sense.
2006-09-10 11:38:43
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

Sylvanis wrote:

From my understanding, there is no way using a gun could be called self defense unless the attacker has and is likely to use a gun that is pointing at you.
Not true, maybe in Canada, but in most states you have to have a distinct fear of your life or great bodily harm, someone with a knife to your girlfriend's throat, you can shoot him (although that might not be the best course of action, just an example) or if you are surrounded by three guys, that are bigger than you, and obviously more of them, and they threaten you verbally and physically force you to where you cannot run, and are displaying moves and gestures (moving closer to you, boxing you in) that would identify they want to hurt you, you could shoot.  Depends on the state, but just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean you can't shoot. 


And jonsimon you can argue all day the moral semantics around this, but that is the way the law works, you want it different? Change the law, otherwise don't even respond to this.
2006-09-10 11:48:21
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|7084|WPB, FL. USA

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok, the U.N. just recently released a report stating
20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a ?right?. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
You gotta be kidding me, all gun shit aside, I don't have the right to try and stop someone who is trying to KILL me???  WHAT!?!?!?

Here it is: http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_ … t_2006.pdf

Submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur, whatever that is, to the UN Human Rights Councils' Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

AGAIN this is not firearm related(my poll, this ladies submission is though slightly), although the U.N. has made it clear they want to disarm just about everyone.......
AlbertWanker - Are you a disciple of John Kerry
You keep switching your stand from liberal to conservative, occasionally moderate then back to liberal - you even keep switching your sig from "Republican" to "Democrat" - FTW!
This post now puts you on the other side of other debate topics - Will the real AlbertWanker please come out of John Kerry's "Say it if It sounds good cause everyones too stupid to catch on" school of politics. 

Kaboom.
2006-09-10 11:51:32
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7070|Seattle, WA

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

AlbertWanker - Are you a disciple of John Kerry
You keep switching your stand from liberal to conservative, occasionally moderate then back to liberal - you even keep switching your sig from "Republican" to "Democrat" - FTW!
This post now puts you on the other side of other debate topics - Will the real AlbertWanker please come out of John Kerry's "Say it if It sounds good cause everyones too stupid to catch on" school of politics. 

Kaboom.
When did I ever CHANGE my sig, haven't done that in about 1-2 weeks.  How does this post change my view from conservative,  I believe all people should be able to have the right of SELF DEFENSE, please explain more..... how I'm being liberal???

Where did I change my stance on something?? I"m disagreeing with the bullshit U.N. that thinks self defense in ALL cases is an excuse, so yeah explain more.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-10 11:52:13)

2006-09-10 12:02:30
P581
Monkey
+44|6896

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

P581 wrote:

"Okay Todd, since he hit you, hit him back."
As some Scottish song goes "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, till we're all blind and have no teeth."
......Thats not self defense since the fighting had stopped, you are making this too political of an issue.  It is not a case of revenge when someone is trying to kill me with a knife/gun and I am able to punch them in the head/ or shoot them, before they KILL ME.  That is not revenge, that is called saving my own life.
Let me ask you something; how did you know that they were going to kill you?

I think you will find that there is no answer to that question, you don't know. Because a man is in your house and has a gun doesn't mean he will kill you. Ever try to pet a dog and he backs into a corner and growls? Do you know why he does that? It's because he doesn't know what you are, or if you mean him harm. Are you an animal that can't make a decision better than "Fight him, or run away?". YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL, you do not have to act like one. You were given the intelligence to solve problems. It is why you are top of the food chain. Fear is the cause of violence, not the sense of protecting your loved ones.

A smart man would look at the gun in his cabinet and realize a few things before shooting a bugler.

"If I miss, he will kill me, and perhaps my family as revenge"
"If I kill him, his loved ones may suffer"
"If I am wounded in the fight, I may have to spend a lot of time in the hospital"
"The police may or may not retrieve my personal items, but my life is worth more"

An even smarter man would be compassionate for the situation that makes someone rob houses

"Does he have a drug problem?"
"Is this the only thing he's qualified to do?"
"How can I help him and people like him?"

The smartest man would ask him to stay for dinner.

It take no courage to cause violence, it takes all the courage you can muster to act like a human being in the most difficult times.
2006-09-10 12:15:51
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|7080
If self defense is a human right, then if someone threatens you with a gun to rob you and you pull a gun on them then they also have the right to shoot you dead.  They could be only be punished for threatening you and attempted robbery but since you endangered their life then they acted in self defence to shoot you.  If it were a human right it means that the governments would be obliged to provide it to criminals who killed someone during a crime where someone pulls a gun on them.  They'd probably not be liable for shooting police either, since they have the right to defend themselves.  Rights are basic guarantees which can't be taken away.  Laws are what determine what you can and can't do (e.g. can kill in self defence).

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Does it say in the US constitution that self defense is a specific right?
Such precepts as the English Declaration of Rights, in which certain citizens were allowed to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" were adapted into the US constitution. While I'm sure it was imagined that the constitution itself would be reinterpreted and adjusted over the years, it would probably be looked on with disgust that an individual's right to defense of self and family is now questioned. Such a thing is like double-guessing a basic right such as air.
So it isn't mentioned as a right.  Because it's a law.  And rights and laws are different things entirely.
2006-09-10 12:52:24
pak52b
Member
+0|7132|Bamberg - Germany
the day i'm not alowed to protect myself, or my rights, i will depart from this dear earth.... that is a very important right, and missing that right is missing out on the chance of the most possible freedom (within legal boundries of course). however it should be appropriate to the offense (no beating someone to death for no serious offense ;-) )
2006-09-10 13:31:30
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7162|Salt Lake City

Here in Utah they have implemented a "Right to stand" policy.  This basically means that you need not flee or simply give in to the demans of a criminal.  In fact, there was a story in todays newspaper talking about a guy that tried to break into the apartment of his ex-GF.  He was claiming the baby was his, which she denies.  They guy she is with now, whom she also claims as the father, beat the guy in the apartment while he was trying to snatch the child.  The "father" proceeded to follow the invader outside to the parking lot where he continued to beat the living shit out of said invader.

The police had officially filed charges against the guy since he had pursued the guy once he left the residence, but the AG refused to press charges.

While many may see me as a hippie lib, I say, good for this guy, and good for the AG.  I have no problem with people protecting themselves, family, and home.  Making it to the parking lot is not a get away free card!
2006-09-10 16:11:16
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7198|PNW

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I have no problem with people protecting themselves, family, and home.
Exactly. Self-defense should be considered one natural right among many, so long as human civilization is around to incorporate the concept of "rights" into day-to-day life.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard