Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill, because at that point you are essentially acting as a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands.

I'm not even going to dignify "aiming to kill" at this point, everyone should know better
P.s. if you're armed and someone is shooting you you cannot outrun bullet and law courts cannot bring you back to life. Law exists to protect people and self defence laws exist to make it fair so that innocent people are actually able to protect themselves, otherwise you end up with the bollocks where if you fight back you are prosecuted for defending yourself. This sentiment is exactly that if you defend yourself suddenly you are a dangerous vigilante taking the law into your own hands when all you're doing is protecting yourself like anyone with half a brain would do. When you're in danger you don't get the luxury of thinking about your killer's safety.

Instead your job should be to get out of there while only doing what is necessary to defend yourself, then contacting the actual law force, who is trained to carry out the law, and let them deal with it following the proper rules set up by our country.

The amount of times police have ever saved me, any of my family, any of my friends or any of my property from damage of theft can be counted with zero fingers; very useful in interrupting large fights and investigating crime after the fact, but cannot exactly be everywhere at once. You are always where you are, unless you are metaphorically out of it under the influence.

It's just like how if someone breaks into your house it's still illegal for you to break into theirs to get your stuff back, because you are essentially shortcutting the law.

No, it's like how if someone breaks into your house it's legal for you to defend yourself - by breaking into their house you're just doing the same crime. Don't be so dishonest as to try and pair the two. You are trying to say that something like me defending myself from my attacker is the equivalent of me stalking my attacker and days later breaking his legs with a club.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.

Sit there and take your beating!

Oh wait, no that's a terrible idea. No thanks, you see protecting yourself as wrong when it is right. There is no argument.

[ArKFallen]

Agreed on this. Seen teachers just watch a fight until more teachers stroll up.
But that punishment seems to be coming from police, not the school(which is required to report incidents), so it going viral could have been what fucked 3rd party guy over.

[Strife26]

Remember kids, if you're bullied the response is not to defend yourself, because that is bad. Just be snarky and sarcastic, that probably won't work but at least you'll learn how to be a flop faster

Don't defend yourself; sit there and take it. Don't defend anyone else. Watch as the world goes to hell. Complain.

The idea here isn't "don't defend yourself", it's "don't attack back, and do only the things necessary to defend yourself (including getting the hell out of there if possible)". Once you're out of there, then you can contact the authorities who are responsible for dealing with aggressors (be they school authorities or the police), and they can take the person in for appropriate punishment. It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill, because at that point you are essentially acting as a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands. Instead your job should be to get out of there while only doing what is necessary to defend yourself, then contacting the actual law force, who is trained to carry out the law, and let them deal with it following the proper rules set up by our country.

Bwhahahaha. Someone needs to get shot at more. If someone feels like shooting at me, I'll happily shoot back, as the basic right of self defense demands. If you want to act the part of a sheep and wait for a sheep dog that'll come after you're bleeding out, feel free. I, however, am a man.

[i2amroy]

I think you guys are missing the important point of my statement.

The idea here isn't "don't defend yourself", it's "don't attack back, and do only the things necessary to defend yourself (including getting the hell out of there if possible)".

I'm not saying that you should just sit there and get beat up. I'm saying that you should only be aggressive as an absolute last resort, because in the vast majority of cases there are much better options (such as running away, or fighting defensively), that accomplish the exact same outcome without putting the other person in a hospital.

The crime that the "helper" or "defender" is committing isn't the one of defending themselves or someone else. It's the crime of defending themselves in a way that is more violent (more "wrong") than was necessary. There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it. Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:

[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.

The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.

Sit there and take your beating!

Oh wait, no that's a terrible idea. No thanks, you see protecting yourself as wrong when it is right. There is no argument.

I have the option of running away. I have the option of retreating defensively. I have the option of pushing someone with the intent to disable rather than harm and then running away. Every single one of these options allows me to stop being beaten up, and does not involve significantly harming the aggressor. I'd really like to know what justification you have under which doing more harm than less is somehow "necessary".

Again I will reiterate, I am not saying that you should not defend yourself, I am saying that you should only defend yourself in ways that are "necessary" (as is stated in law books everywhere).

[Frumple]

I, however, am a man.

Every time I see someone say something like this, it just reminds me of the few/several hundred people killed each year in the US in blue on blue incidents. Lot of them due to that whole, "Yeah, I'm a man, let's shoot that home invader, whoops, I just killed my kid." thing. Bloody wonderful, it is. Never good for the afternoon's mood

[Morrigi]

I, however, am a man.

Every time I see someone say something like this, it just reminds me of the few/several hundred people killed each year in the US in blue on blue incidents. Lot of them due to that whole, "Yeah, I'm a man, let's shoot that home invader, whoops, I just killed my kid." thing. Bloody wonderful, it is. Never good for the afternoon's mood

People can and do get thrown in jail for decades for that shit. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is "Know your target and what's behind it".

[Tiruin]

I, however, am a man.

Every time I see someone say something like this, it just reminds me of the few/several hundred people killed each year in the US in blue on blue incidents. Lot of them due to that whole, "Yeah, I'm a man, let's shoot that home invader, whoops, I just killed my kid." thing. Bloody wonderful, it is. Never good for the afternoon's mood

People can and do get thrown in jail for decades for that shit. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is "Know your target and what's behind it".

Which is the obvious reason behind 'why self-defense isn't a legal reason to shoot someone shooting at you'.

Reminds me of a tale told to me about how a taxi driver got stabbed in the neck by someone (I think that was near our Capital), that someone then ran off. The driver lived as it was non-lethal, and ran over the guy. When taken into court, his explanation was 'self defense' [From a layman's perspective, it makes sense because the driver had nothing to do with the guy].

The court didn't find that valid at all.
Very summarized story because this was years back.

[Morrigi]

Exactly. Self-defense only qualifies as a means to stop the threat. If the assailant has stopped being a threat by being incapacitated, fleeing, dropping his weapon and surrendering, etc. then you can no longer use lethal force, and you will be charged with a crime for continuing to do so.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm not saying that you should just sit there and get beat up. I'm saying that you should only be aggressive as an absolute last resort, because in the vast majority of cases there are much better options (such as running away, or fighting defensively), that accomplish the exact same outcome without putting the other person in a hospital.

What in the bloody hell is fighting defensively, you can't defend yourself without hurting your attacker unless you're sufficiently scary or you're Jackie Chan in a ladder factory
If you were either one of the two, no one would be picking a fight with you, and most people are not the two

It's like, if someone shoots a gun at you, your first response shouldn't be to open fire with your own gun aiming to kill

Waiting for you to be incapable before defending yourself sounds like telling people to sit there and get beat up

Two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone punches you doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for you to punch them back in the eyes of the law.

This is the same thing

The crime that the "helper" or "defender" is committing isn't the one of defending themselves or someone else. It's the crime of defending themselves in a way that is more violent (more "wrong") than was necessary. There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it.

The word I'm looking for to describe what you said is either misguided or malicious; you're trying to get rid of the presumption of innocence, it is in the prosecution's case to prove that the defendant killed whoever and that they killed whoever in unjustifiable circumstances. The burden of proof is not solely placed on the defendant, it is not placed on the defendant at all.
You want to fuck up innocent people as much as possible lol?

Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:

[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.

The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.

Key word here is necessary, if you have the necessary means, then you are justified

I have the option of running away.

You've never been attacked by someone faster than you, or bicycle mounted gang

I have the option of retreating defensively.

What the hell are you even talking about

I have the option of pushing someone with the intent to disable rather than harm and then running away.

Do you want to die or something hahahahaha

Every single one of these options allows me to stop being beaten up

Every single one of these options will end with you being beaten up

and does not involve significantly harming the aggressor. I'd really like to know what justification you have under which doing more harm than less is somehow "necessary".

Protection of innocents duh, I have no idea what you're talking about as if this is some vidya gaem where you can delete 5 health off your enemy with a special pokymon attack and they'll be incapacitated, but you will never know - all you can know is fight or flight until you are safe, and that's only when your attacker is incapable of hurting you.
When you attack someone else unjustifiably you've broken a basic civil duty to your fellow man that really puts you in the moral lowgrounds

Again I will reiterate, I am not saying that you should not defend yourself, I am saying that you should only defend yourself in ways that are "necessary" (as is stated in law books everywhere).

I.e., do not defend yourself
As is not stated in law books everywhere
The "necessary" refers to the necessary use of force at all, not the scale of force involved m8

[Dutchling]

Gotta say I kinda agree with LW here. Putting yourself in danger to help your attacker out doesn't seem like a mentally sound thing to do.

There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it. Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:

[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.

The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.

Interesting to see American laws on self defense being harsher than Dutch ones.

No offense is exceeding the limits of necessary defense, if it was the immediate result of a strong emotion caused by the assault.

Although I guess you could argue it kinda means the same thing?

[Graknorke]

Wasn't that the wording someone used to try and justify killing a transwoman he'd slept with as being legal? Can't remember how it turned out but I seriously doubt it stood.

[ArKFallen]

Wasn't that the wording someone used to try and justify killing a transwoman he'd slept with as being legal? Can't remember how it turned out but I seriously doubt it stood.

Probably because it says

if it was the immediate result of a strong emotion caused by the assault.

[Graknorke]

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—
(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person;
is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

You could probably spin it as sexual assault if you were good at that kind of thing.

[Morrigi]

Gotta say I kinda agree with LW here. Putting yourself in danger to help your attacker out doesn't seem like a mentally sound thing to do.

There's a reason why the burden of proof in justifiable homicide is placed solely on the defendant, it's their job to prove that what they did was the minimum necessary to stop it. Even in states with Stand-your-ground laws (which is not all of them, I might add), you are only allowed to match force for force, and even then it generally includes a line somewhat like this:

[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.

The key here is "is necessary". If you have the option of a less violent way of defending yourself, then the more violent one is no longer "necessary", it's you choosing to be more violent than you have to.

Interesting to see American laws on self defense being harsher than Dutch ones.

They aren't, he's full of it. It is perfectly legal in most states to use lethal force if you reasonably believe that you or a third party are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. If someone breaks into your home, for example, it is almost always legal to shoot them if they do not immediately surrender or flee, regardless of what weapon they do or do not have. If someone is beating a third party on the ground with a baseball bat, it is also generally legal to shoot the assaulter to save the victim from further injury or death, provided that you have a good line of fire.

[Truean]

Yeah, I've been asked by two people to comment on this stuff. Please no. Just. Please don't.

Criminal law is immensely complex, varies from state to state, not to mention country to country, and is just highly dependent upon a lot of things. Generally, try to avoid saying anything like "it's cool to do X because of Y," when X is hurt or kill somebody and Y is some justification. I explained this once and it was literally over 40K characters and only for one type of self defense in one state. Trust me, it's a pain and the only honest answer is that it's really complex.

Ideally, people wouldn't be jerks to one another either way and we could all just "get along," but yeah.... Sadly that doesn't always happen. I will say generally try not to hit anybody, blind or otherwise. It's just messy, and don't.

_______________________________________________________________________________

http://news.yahoo.com/short-list-replace-house-speaker-john-boehner-223025561.html#

I can't believe I'm actually saying something nice about John Boehner, but he kind of doesn't seem to have deserved the crap he got. I have a long history of not liking this guy's policy(ies), because they've been kind of nuts in my opinion. That said, it looks like the right wing has been seriously influenced if not effectively taken over by extremists, who really can't get much done on their ideas. This happened before with the whole "tea party" movement's "never compromise" thing. It failed then and it'll fail again, because ignoring the other side and practical realities is a surefire way to lose no matter what you're doing in what arena.

As much as I did not like Mr Boehner's work, he's been pressured to resign by people who could conceivably be much worse than anything he ever dreamed of. There's been an unfortunate trend in America over the past 10 or 15 years of increased complaining with no practical solutions. That is demanding results without any practical plan and screaming louder when those demanded results don't poof into being. There's been a lot of that on the far right with yet another government shutdown threat, essentially holding the whole damn country hostage over one or two political motives. Again, failed once, will fail again. Their supporters love the impression that something is being done though (it isn't).

It's more screaming with terrible consequences for everyone and that's why I don't talk about politics (cough cough, subject change).