homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Fucking Guns (Page 30)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  ...  58  59  60 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Fucking Guns
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gee D: If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care if the court "cleared" Zimmerman, if they "found him not guilty" or whatever. I don't know what the difference between these terms is, I just choose the term that sounds vaguely right from the moments I stayed awake during law-based television series.

What matters to me is: he's not in jail, and under a morally superior legal system he would be. That's what my discussion is about.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
orfeo: That'd be the paragraph starting with the acronym for "I am not a lawyer". [Roll Eyes]
Yes, and rightly so. There have been a couple of times already when I've wanted to bang you over the head: we're not in a court of law here.

If we were having a heated argument about international development cooperation, it's quite probable that you'd get a technical term wrong at some stage. At that point, it would be very easy for me to ignore the rest of your argument (which might very well be valid), turn my attention only to your technical error and bash you and that. However, that's not how I debate.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you're trying to have a discussion about the law, the fact that we're not in a court of law doesn't mean shit. I haven't been using technical terms, in fact I've been trying quite hard not to get technical at all.

But I'm not going to paper over conceptual distinctions just so you can feel better about yourself because the law is nothing BUT concepts, and nothing BUT distinctions between different rules.

If you feel upset that I'm not happy with reducing the law to stone-age ideas about how someone has to pay when someone else dies, then tough shit. If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour) and anything else that might come up, then I'm not going to dumb it down for you just because you keep repeating over and over and over how you're not a lawyer as if that's some kind of excuse.

You're a human being living in a complicated world, and the law is complicated because the world is complicated and because back in previous times people looked at simple little rules like the ones you can cope with and said "hang on, actually that produces rather unfair results in this situation, let's modify it". No, you're not a lawyer. I'm not asking you to use the kind of crap Latin that lawyers use. I'm asking you to wrestle with concepts, and when I criticise you or don't trust what you say it's because you can't keep concepts straight, not because you don't use the write official term.

So just get over yourself. Get over your desire to lump me and Gee D together (when the fuck did I get involved in your spat with him about not guilty vs cleared?). Get over your contempt for people who spend their professional lives considering and analysing concepts, and fucking stand up for why you think "he was asking for it" is a valid argument when it comes to physical violence.

[ 17. May 2016, 13:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Florida's "Stand your ground," law was not used by Zimmerman's lawyer. It didn't enter into it at all and the defense strategy would have been just the same in states without stand-your-ground.

That law says that the self-defense claimant does not have a duty to retreat before killing. It would be used in, say, a robber in the living room could be shot, even though the home owner could have climbed out the bedroom window. It's not morally very nice and I don't like it but there it is. It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.

Or so he says.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:



You simply cannot have rules of law that are only available for people you think are nice people, or sympathetic people. If a person is in fear of their life they are entitled to defend themselves, and that goes for people you disapprove of just as much as for people you sympathise with. The assault with a tire iron might be provoked but it isn't involuntary.


This says it all.

I think that's the whole story when the Zimmerman name pops up. Immediately people start saying incendiary things that don't actually apply in this case like, "murdered for walking while black" and "awful stand your ground laws." Next we're hearing, over and over, that we can't hear Martin's side of it because he's dead. Like that isn't the usual situation in a murder case.

Any mention that there simply wasn't enough proof that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense and that he was not obligated to find witnesses for his side of things, always ends up with a list of Zimmerman's faults:

He was carrying a gun when he didn't have to. He didn't immediately jump back in his car when the police asked him to. He followed Trayvon. He asked Trayvon what he was doing. He's a racist, he's a sexist, he's insensitive, he's stupid, he's fat, he's white. None of which is against the law.

[ 17. May 2016, 13:28: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour)

I think where I'm struggling is the last two of those. Because, proportionality of force must also include withdrawing from the situation (if possible) so that no force needs to be used. So, if actions are to be proportional that may need to include a duty to withdraw or avoid if that is the proportional response.

I guess linked to that is the question of when an incident starts. And, I don't think it starts when punches start to get thrown, usually it's much sooner than that - and, it's disproportionate responses (by people on all sides) to relatively minor offences that usually contributes to the point where someone gets seriously hurt or killed.

The thing about the Zimmerman thing is that, yes, he was pinned on the ground and his head had hit the concrete. At that point he had no way out, and drawing his gun was possibly his only defence against further injury. But, by the time the incident reached that point the course of events had passed several points where things had escalated, points at which Zimmerman (and probably Martin) could have made different choices that would have resulted in a different outcome. There would have been some point in that confrontation where Zimmerman could have backed down, but he chose not to, a choice that resulted in an escalation. We have no witnesses to that part of the events, we don't know if Zimmerman caught up with Martin and demanded to know what he was doing in the neighbourhood, we don't know if Martin turned on Zimmerman to demand to know why he was following him. The odds on there having been words exchanged are quite high, I'd have thought, probably angry words - that's human nature. Neither Martin or Zimmerman backed down, evidently since the next thing we know is that they're on the ground fighting and Zimmerman has had his head hit the concrete.

Zimmerman (and possibly Martin, but we know a lot less about his actions) had several occasions where a proportionate response to the situation would have been to back away, but he insisted on chasing Martin down. Why does the question of self-defence end up with the very last few actions in a long sequence of events that escalate a situation?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.

Or so he says.
With no other evidence that contradicts him. Nothing in the angle of the gunshot, nothing.

Every time someone makes out that self-defence relies on nothing but a person's word, I'm going to keep calling that notion out. I don't know what universe you're all in where judges and juries are dumb enough to simply take someone's word for everything, but here in the real world there's a real world, not just words.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.

Or so he says.
It's three o'clock in the morning and insomniac Mousethief is on the computer in the den. Josephine and the kids are visiting her relatives. He hears something in the back yard and goes out to see, taking the baseball bat by the door. There's a man facing the back of the house. Mousethief says "What are you doing out here?" The man attacks him. Mousethief outweighs the other man, but he is young and fit and hopped up on meth so Mousethief is losing the fight and his fragile noggin is being slammed against the sidewalk. Mousethief takes his bat and brings it down on the man's head. The man is now dead. Turns out he is only 16, he is black and comes from a broken home.

Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, that still isn't just what Mousethief says. There would still be the physical evidence - the signs of struggle, the location of the injury which would indicate the strength and angle of impact (going to be different for someone on the floor and struggling compared to other scenarios), the blood tests showing the kid was high on meth ... and finally the character of Mousethief and whether he would lie about such things. And, although we don't like introducing the character of the deceased, if the dead kid had a record of attacking people then it's more likely that that was what he'd done this time.

It's called a body of evidence. The prosecution has to show beyond reasonable doubt that something else happened and the events were not self-defence. The defence only has to show that there are reasonable doubts in the story the prosecution presents.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour)

I think where I'm struggling is the last two of those. Because, proportionality of force must also include withdrawing from the situation (if possible) so that no force needs to be used. So, if actions are to be proportional that may need to include a duty to withdraw or avoid if that is the proportional response.

I guess linked to that is the question of when an incident starts. And, I don't think it starts when punches start to get thrown, usually it's much sooner than that - and, it's disproportionate responses (by people on all sides) to relatively minor offences that usually contributes to the point where someone gets seriously hurt or killed.

The thing about the Zimmerman thing is that, yes, he was pinned on the ground and his head had hit the concrete. At that point he had no way out, and drawing his gun was possibly his only defence against further injury. But, by the time the incident reached that point the course of events had passed several points where things had escalated, points at which Zimmerman (and probably Martin) could have made different choices that would have resulted in a different outcome. There would have been some point in that confrontation where Zimmerman could have backed down, but he chose not to, a choice that resulted in an escalation. We have no witnesses to that part of the events, we don't know if Zimmerman caught up with Martin and demanded to know what he was doing in the neighbourhood, we don't know if Martin turned on Zimmerman to demand to know why he was following him. The odds on there having been words exchanged are quite high, I'd have thought, probably angry words - that's human nature. Neither Martin or Zimmerman backed down, evidently since the next thing we know is that they're on the ground fighting and Zimmerman has had his head hit the concrete.

Zimmerman (and possibly Martin, but we know a lot less about his actions) had several occasions where a proportionate response to the situation would have been to back away, but he insisted on chasing Martin down. Why does the question of self-defence end up with the very last few actions in a long sequence of events that escalate a situation?

I do think you've hit on a real issue here. It's true that any incident/event could be defined in a heck of a lot of different ways, and the way you divide it up could very well affect the analysis of what was proportionate or possible.

I also think that it affects questions about withdrawal because, as I said in an expanded reply to CK, to me there's a difference between "could you have withdrawn in response to the threat" versus "could you have withdrawn in a way that stopped the threat ever being present". Because one is about the present moment, and one is about anticipating the future. So what counts as part of the threat will matter.

I do think the particular laws - allowing the carrying of a gun and so forth - probably play a role in defining where the event/incident starts. In Florida, carrying a gun isn't something noteworthy or unlawful or a sign of trouble. In the UK, you might very well end up with a different view being taken, that checking up on people while carrying a gun is itself part of the incident and an opening act of aggression.

The other thing I'll say is that in this particular case, one of the problems with arguing about what Zimmerman could have foreseen is that (as far as I understand it) this wasn't particularly unusual behaviour for him. Or at least some if it wasn't. Nor was it necessarily seen as unusual behaviour in general (which is kind of what I've already said above, about the laws of Florida).

And if he'd done this kind of thing before without ending up in a physical scuffle, should he anticipate a physical scuffle? This why I get worried about the hindsight element, of other people coming along and saying "he should have known it would escalate to that point". Maybe. Maybe not. I'm undecided.

Any test about what it was reasonable to do in the situation is going to be shaped by the expectations of the society in which it happened. What is considered reasonable in Florida probably differs from what you and I would consider reasonable.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What is considered reasonable in Florida probably differs from what you and I would consider reasonable.

That is almost certainly true, especially in some parts of the population of Florida. I come from a country which has had the very reasonable requirement to give a valid reason for owning a gun for almost a century, and where self-defence has never been accepted as a valid reason to own a gun since then. I get the distinct impression that the government issuing licenses to permit someone to own a gun, let alone a license for each gun which specifies why the gun is needed, would be considered unreasonable by many in Florida. As would any claim that a gun may not be owned for the purpose of defence of one's property or life, or the lives of family.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another thing worth mentioning: earlier tonight when looking up some things about this issue (possibly in a Wikipedia entry?), there was mention of an English case that held that being the initial aggressor doesn't mean you can't claim self-defence. You can, so long as at a later point in the chain of events you were instead on the defensive.

So that would be another reason for not bundling everything together into a single incident. Again, the law will probably be different in different places, but that's apparently the position in England.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Florida's "Stand your ground," law was not used by Zimmerman's lawyer. It didn't enter into it at all and the defense strategy would have been just the same in states without stand-your-ground.

The judge did it for him.
In the scenario you give mousethief, the other party is in his home. This is not at all analogous to the Zimmerman case.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You can't claim self defence if the lad you kill is running away.

Depends on where you are.
Self-defence language should be carefully worded to not create situations in which death is more likely to occur. Stand Your Ground laws will, by the nature of their existence, cause more deaths.
This case illustrates a lot of the problems inherent in Florida and similar.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
orfeo: If you feel upset that I'm not happy with reducing the law to stone-age ideas about how someone has to pay when someone else dies, then tough shit.
A straw man and a false dichotomy. A straw man because I never said anything like "someone has to pay when someone else dies". A false dichotomy because there's actually a lot of space between the Floridan system and those 'stone age ideas'.

Really, my argument is very simple. Zimmerman walked free (got cleared, was declared innocent, whatever). My perception is that this is based on legislation around self-defence which I disagree with.

I think it is possible to have better legislation around self-defence. And to show that this isn't just a hazy idea in my mind, I pointed to an example that happens to be from my country. It's not a piece of legislation that I understand 100% either (you'd probably be able to walk juridical circles around me if we'd discuss it in detail), but it makes instinctive sense to me.

And, well, the Dutch legislation seems to work. It's not some kind of weird dictatorship we're talking about here, but a country which I think has a respected juridical tradition.

quote:
orfeo: If you can't keep up with the subtlety of the interaction of my views about carriage of guns (not in favour, but the legislators in Florida don't answer to me), proportionality of force to threat (in favour), duty to retreat/avoid (not in favour) and anything else that might come up, then I'm not going to dumb it down for you just because you keep repeating over and over and over how you're not a lawyer as if that's some kind of excuse.
The thing is, I want to discuss those subtleties. About proportionality and especially about the other one, subsidiarity. When we had discussion a couple of years ago, I tried to read (in my lay-man way) a significant number of Dutch juridical texts on these issues, just to give a bit of body to what I was talking about.

But at the same time, I'm still confused about basic terms between civil and criminal law. I can understand that this will be weird to you: "how can this guy try to discuss these more complex things if he can't even get these basic things right?" Well, this is how it works for me.

My frustration is, I put effort in composing an argument about subsidiarity, but the only answer I get is: "somewhere in your post you used a term from civil law; it's criminal law we're talking about." That's OK, please correct me when I'm wrong but also try to address the argument I'm trying to make (Gee D hasn't done that yet).

I guess the basic question is: can a debate about a lawyer and a layperson about juridical issues be possible? What would be needed for that?

quote:
orfeo: Get over your desire to lump me and Gee D together
It's because you're both tossers.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In the scenario you give mousethief, the other party is in his home. This is not at all analogous to the Zimmerman case.

No, I had him in the backyard. This would have been on Mousethief's property but not in his own home. I picked that scenario on purpose, because, in his neighborhood watch capacity, Zimmerman was acting as a protector for his housing complex. Not the same as in his house, but in an area he felt responsible for -- further complicating his mindset.

Whatever the judge told Zimmerman's jury about "stand your ground." I don't see why it should have been brought into it when there was no option of retreat.
-----------
Question for LilBuddha and the rest of you: In all these things you're reading about self-defense, what do you think constitutes an "aggressor?" Can you legally be called an aggressor with just words?

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care if the court "cleared" Zimmerman, if they "found him not guilty" or whatever. I don't know what the difference between these terms is, I just choose the term that sounds vaguely right from the moments I stayed awake during law-based television series.

What matters to me is: he's not in jail, and under a morally superior legal system he would be. That's what my discussion is about.

I had not answered you because it's now 5.49 m and surprise, surprise, I've been asleep.

A criminal trial ends up with a person found guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the jury is satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the jury is not satisfied to that degree. The jury's finding is never that a person is cleared. A major difference.

Why is it morally superior to put Zimmerman in gaol? You bluster on about this, but the evidence that we know is not just what Zimmerman says, but what he says together with some corroborative material which cold easily have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. There is the medical and lay evidence which supports what Zimmerman said about his being on his back, lifted and pounded back onto the pavement. There is an eye witness at some distance who says much the same. Now

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Gee D: If you can't understand the difference, then what's the use?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care if the court "cleared" Zimmerman, if they "found him not guilty" or whatever. I don't know what the difference between these terms is, I just choose the term that sounds vaguely right from the moments I stayed awake during law-based television series.

What matters to me is: he's not in jail, and under a morally superior legal system he would be. That's what my discussion is about.

I had not answered you because it's now 5.49 m and surprise, surprise, I've been asleep.

A criminal trial ends up with a person found guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the jury is satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the jury is not satisfied to that degree. The jury's finding is never that a person is cleared. A major difference.

Why is it morally superior to put Zimmerman in gaol? You bluster on about this, but the evidence that we know is not just what Zimmerman says, but what he says together with some corroborative material which cold easily have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. There is the medical and lay evidence which supports what Zimmerman said about his being on his back, lifted and pounded back onto the pavement. There is an eye witness at some distance who says much the same. Now that is open to the usual caveats about the reliability of such eye witness under difficulties of distance and dark, but those are factors for the jury.

Zimmerman's vigilante attitude and actions are stupid. We know that, but why does that disentitle him from taking an action reasonable in the circumstances in which he found himself? He lives in a gun-cultured society and reaches for a gun. What if he uses his bare hands to deter his attacker - remember that there is evidence that he was attacked - and in the course of doing so strangles him?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Premature ejaculation a particular problem of yours?

If you want one, the other, or both (please say both) of your posts deleting, then I may consider a request favourably. On the other hand, I may just set the board on fire.

DT
HH


--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's three o'clock in the morning and insomniac Mousethief is on the computer in the den. Josephine and the kids are visiting her relatives. He hears something in the back yard and goes out to see, taking the baseball bat by the door. There's a man facing the back of the house. Mousethief says "What are you doing out here?" The man attacks him. Mousethief outweighs the other man, but he is young and fit and hopped up on meth so Mousethief is losing the fight and his fragile noggin is being slammed against the sidewalk. Mousethief takes his bat and brings it down on the man's head. The man is now dead. Turns out he is only 16, he is black and comes from a broken home.

Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?

This sort of "just so" story about guns are every bit as useful as the "ticking time bomb story". The scenario sounds plausible, but it isn't.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gee D: A criminal trial ends up with a person found guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the jury is satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty means that the jury is not satisfied to that degree. The jury's finding is never that a person is cleared. A major difference.
Okay, are we done about the difference between those terms now?

quote:
Gee D: Why is it morally superior to put Zimmerman in gaol?
To me, self-defence is a bit of a unique piece of legislation.

We wouldn't get away with "Yes your honour, I broke into his house, but he tried to break into my house first" or with "Yes your honour, I raped this person, but she tried to rape me first."

There are good reasons why we should be able to get away with "Yes your honour, I killed this person but he tried to kill me first". But it does make it rather unique in my eyes.

But there needs to be some kind of check on this. To me, being attacked by someone and fearing for your life isn't enough, even if there is physical proof of this attack. Alan has already explained here what kind of problems a society can run into if this is accepted as sufficient to claim self-defence.

There needs to be something more. The Dutch system calls this subsidiariteit; I've gone out on a limb and translated this as subsidiarity. I don't think it's the same thing as 'duty to retreat'.

When I researched this on the earlier thread a couple of years ago, I came across an example that I found enlightening. I'm not sure if I can find the link again.

I'm at home and I'm annoyed because I find that my neighbour is playing music too loud. I'm a hot-headed type and I decide to go over to his house and confront him. Because I know that these things sometimes get out of hand, I take a sharp kitchen knife with me.

I ring his bell, and start arguing rather harshly with him in his doorway right away. He responds in the same way. After a while, we're pushing each other. It becomes a struggle, and he manages to land a hard blow that really messes up my face. I take out my knife and kill him.

Under Dutch law, I wouldn't be able to claim self-defence.

Firstly, the judge wouldn't only consider the moment in which my neighbour attacked me. She would consider the whole process / encounter / engagement (I'm sure they have a word for it), which started when I rung the bell.

Secondly, the judge would consider that I considered the situation dangerous (as evidenced by my precaution to bring a knife) but didn't take any steps to avoid the danger. I could have decided not to go to my neighbour, but call the police instead. I could have backed out when we were still at the pushing stage.

The reason why I find this system morally superior is because it gives me co-responsibility for the aggressive situation. I can't claim: "my neighbour got aggressive, so the only thing I could do was to kill him". The fact that things got aggressive was at least as much my responsibility as it was his.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

There are good reasons why we should be able to get away with "Yes your honour, I killed this person but he tried to kill me first". But it does make it rather unique in my eyes.

But that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me." Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be a shorter or longer list of "reasonable" actions that you have to take if you can in preference to killing him.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you would consider that no crime has been committed? That there's a man lying dead in the road but legally no one is responsible for killing him?

In any genuine case of self-defence, the person lying dead on the floor is responsible for his own death. This is the logic of self-defence: the defender was presented with no reasonable alternative (what is "reasonable" depends on your jurisdiction) and so was forced to kill the assailant.

Mousethief thought upthread that I was confusing blame and agency, and perhaps I wasn't terribly clear, so I'll try again here.

The defender clearly has agency - it is possible for him to choose to lie down on the floor and die, for example. And whilst that might indeed be what a martyr does, it isn't reasonable for the law to require it.

If the defender is attacked, and he has no reasonable alternative other than using lethal force against his attacker, and his attacker dies of that force, then the defender carries no blame. The blame for the attacker's death rests solely with the attacker himself.

Now change the scenario, and assume that the defender has the option to retreat, and assume that he's in a jurisdiction where he must retreat if it is possible to do so (ie. he's outside his home, there's no "stand your ground" law, and he's not defending some third party who is unable to retreat). If in this case he chooses to shoot the attacker, he can't claim "self-defence" and shares the blame for the attacker's death with the attacker. He's probably guilty of manslaughter, and may or may not be guilty of murder.


I think my language here is actually rather stronger than the law. The law requires self-defence to be "reasonable". My language here is requiring self-defence to be the only reasonable action - that all other actions are unreasonable. That is a stronger statement (although in practice there might nor be so much distance between the two.)

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

There are good reasons why we should be able to get away with "Yes your honour, I killed this person but he tried to kill me first". But it does make it rather unique in my eyes.

But that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me." Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be a shorter or longer list of "reasonable" actions that you have to take if you can in preference to killing him.

I think LeRoc is onto something about self-defence being a unique scenario, even though his counter-examples were more related to revenge than protection. Self-defence allows one to commit what would otherwise be a crime (assault, murder, etc) inorder to prevent a greater crime against yourself or someone else. Most crime prevention is not in itself a crime - there's nothing illegal about fitting stronger locks on your home, or securing valuables in a safe, or even backing out of a bar before a fight breaks out.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Question for LilBuddha and the rest of you: In all these things you're reading about self-defense, what do you think constitutes an "aggressor?" Can you legally be called an aggressor with just words?

Of course you can. If one person tells another "I'm going to kill you" they are an aggressor.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's three o'clock in the morning and insomniac Mousethief is on the computer in the den. Josephine and the kids are visiting her relatives. He hears something in the back yard and goes out to see, taking the baseball bat by the door. There's a man facing the back of the house. Mousethief says "What are you doing out here?" The man attacks him. Mousethief outweighs the other man, but he is young and fit and hopped up on meth so Mousethief is losing the fight and his fragile noggin is being slammed against the sidewalk. Mousethief takes his bat and brings it down on the man's head. The man is now dead. Turns out he is only 16, he is black and comes from a broken home.

Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?

This sort of "just so" story about guns are every bit as useful as the "ticking time bomb story". The scenario sounds plausible, but it isn't.
The story has nothing to do with guns. It's meant to point out that self-defense situations are sometimes without witnesses so Mousethief's "So he says," regarding Zimmerman could apply to anyone, even him.

I disagree that finding a prowler in your yard and getting into a fight with him is as unlikely as a ticking time bomb and a man in custody who knows where it is if the answer can only be tortured out of him.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course you can. If one person tells another "I'm going to kill you" they are an aggressor.

But it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to kill someone who says "I'm going to kill you" - you have to reasonably believe that he is in fact going to attempt to do that (if he says "I'm going to kill you" whilst walking towards you with a weapon, you can defend yourself - you're not obliged to let him land the first blow.)

I don't think "fighting words" is a defense to an assault charge anywhere, is it?

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Any mention that there simply wasn't enough proof that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense and that he was not obligated to find witnesses for his side of things, always ends up with a list of Zimmerman's faults:

He was carrying a gun when he didn't have to. He didn't immediately jump back in his car when the police asked him to. He followed Trayvon. He asked Trayvon what he was doing. He's a racist, he's a sexist, he's insensitive, he's stupid, he's fat, he's white. None of which is against the law.

Here you mix up two completely unrelated things and I'm not sure why. In terms of the legal question, there wasn't enough evidence to prove Zimmerman guilty of murder, or even homicide, since self-defense rules out a conviction for homicide. The only side of the story we have is Zimmerman's, and even though I think to the soles of my feet he was lying and set out to murder Trayvon and got what he wanted (and more than he bargained for), there's not enough evidence to convict. Fortunately we're still innocent until proven guilty in this country, and the prosecution couldn't prove him guilty, for lack of evidence. His actions were suspicious, but not enough to prove to the level required by law that he committed murder and did not kill in self-defense.

And guess what? I'm glad about that. I'm glad that the prosecution has to have good evidence to get a jury to convict for murder (well, if the perp is white; let's not even go into how easy it is to send black guys to the big house on trumped-up charges shall we?).

Your list of his bad traits is pointless, because nobody is saying those things are against the law. What they are is presumptive evidence that he intentionally set out to kill the black intruder in his precious low-black neighborhood. Which should be obvious to anybody with a third of a brain and any knowledge at all about race relations in the United States. But they're not conclusive so he walked. Which is good. I don't want people sent up on inconclusive circumstantial evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It didn't apply to Zimmerman who had no option to retreat as he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.

Or so he says.
With no other evidence that contradicts him. Nothing in the angle of the gunshot, nothing.
No fucking shit, Sherlock.

quote:
Every time someone makes out that self-defence relies on nothing but a person's word, I'm going to keep calling that notion out. I don't know what universe you're all in where judges and juries are dumb enough to simply take someone's word for everything, but here in the real world there's a real world, not just words.
It's funny you want to take away not just blame but agency from people who kill in self-defense, but not from people who provoke a situation in which they get into a corner requiring them to kill. Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Now Mousethief is on trial and all anyone can say is that a young man is dead and can't tell his side of it and Mousethief calls it self-defense but, well, "So he says."

Shouldn't the prosecution have to prove Mousethief is lying?

Yes. And I never said otherwise.

[ 18. May 2016, 00:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.

I don't believe that 911 operators actually have the capacity to issue such an order, do they?

(Doesn't alter the fact that he could have avoided the whole confrontation by not following Martin when he ran off. I just don't think the word "order" is appropriate.)

(I think both Martin and Zimmerman are entitled to walk around on a public right of way, aren't they?)

[ 18. May 2016, 00:52: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The word I used earlier was "advised". But, even then "advise" is only one possible way of reading the transcript. Depending on the tone of voice of the operator the "you don't need to do that" (or, words to that effect as I'm not going back to find the link to the transcript) could be anywhere from a "I don't care what you do, but that's not necessary" to "I strongly advise you to stay in your car, go home and let the police handle this".

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Depending on the tone of voice of the operator the "you don't need to do that" (or, words to that effect as I'm not going back to find the link to the transcript) could be anywhere from a "I don't care what you do, but that's not necessary" to "I strongly advise you to stay in your car, go home and let the police handle this".

"Advise" is another good word. It can cover "we suggest you don't do that because it's unsafe for you" and also "we suggest you don't do that because we'll arrest you".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:



What they are is presumptive evidence that he intentionally set out to kill the black intruder in his precious low-black neighborhood. Which should be obvious to anybody with a third of a brain and any knowledge at all about race relations in the United States.



Why do you think that? I don't think it's obvious at all. He had volunteered to go on the neighborhood watch because his area had been experiencing burglaries. It makes more sense to me that he was out there hoping to catch the burglar. The idea that he went out with his gun intending to kill any black person he happened to see, seems very far fetched to me.

I think your ideas about race relations in America are over the top. I'm not saying there aren't problems, but there's no race war going on where average citizens go out looking for people of the opposite race to kill them. For the most part, people are still killing people they know over domestic problems, drugs, money, -- the usual.


FBI stats on murders in 2014: Blacks killed by whites 8%, by other blacks 90%. Whites killed by blacks 15%, by other whites 81%.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Every time someone makes out that self-defence relies on nothing but a person's word, I'm going to keep calling that notion out. I don't know what universe you're all in where judges and juries are dumb enough to simply take someone's word for everything, but here in the real world there's a real world, not just words.
It's funny you want to take away not just blame but agency from people who kill in self-defense, but not from people who provoke a situation in which they get into a corner requiring them to kill. Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.
Other have already pointed out the flaws in your notion of what Zimmerman was ordered to do. I'm just here to point out two other things.

First, what you said doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said.

Second, it is rather odd to accuse me of robbing people of agency, and in the same post suggest that Zimmerman should have obeyed orders. [Paranoid]

[ 18. May 2016, 03:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zimmerman could have kept his own head from hitting the pavement by staying in his fucking car. As he was ordered to do.

I don't believe that 911 operators actually have the capacity to issue such an order, do they?
Fine. Fix the verb to whatever you want. The exact verb is not the point, is it?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Second, it is rather odd to accuse me of robbing people of agency, and in the same post suggest that Zimmerman should have obeyed orders. [Paranoid]

Again you show you don't know what that means. Hardly surprising, though.

[ 18. May 2016, 03:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Leorning Cniht:
ut that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me."

Fuck I hate it when I make the effort to compose a long argument, and all people do is point out the one instance where I formulated something wrong, and ignore the rest that I said.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Leorning Cniht:
ut that's not it at all - that's not self-defence, that's revenge, and is murder.

Self-defence is "I killed this person to prevent him from killing / injuring me."

Fuck I hate it when I make the effort to compose a long argument, and all people do is point out the one instance where I formulated something wrong, and ignore the rest that I said.
Welcome to the Ship of Fools.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

FBI stats on murders in 2014: Blacks killed by whites 8%, by other blacks 90%. Whites killed by blacks 15%, by other whites 81%.

Statistics without context are meaningless. Crime follows poverty and black people in America have a higher rate of poverty. White people who are poor are more likely to live in proximity to poor black people.
The average person in America does not go looking for any trouble. This is not the problem. The problem is the average person in America actively or passively supports those who perpetuate inequity.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
mousethief:Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
Yeah I know (I saw it just happened with you too).

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Le Roc, in your post timed at 9.24, you give a hypothetical example - but your action in using a knife in answer to a punch on the face, both of you standing at a door, is at best use of excessive force in self-defence. More likely, your counsel would not run self-defence in answer to the charge - it would take away from arguing remorse when all but inevitably you are convicted of murder. If you go back to the definition I gave, you will see the word "necessary". Not much necessity in your example.

[ 18. May 2016, 07:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Seriously, how long can people keep it up, not reacting to my argument?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Le Roc, in your post timed at 9.24, you give a hypothetical example - but your action in using a knife in answer to a punch on the face, both of you standing at a door, is at best use of excessive force in self-defence. More likely, your counsel would not run self-defence in answer to the charge - it would take away from arguing remorse when all but inevitably you are convicted of murder. If you go back to the definition I gave, you will see the word "necessary". Not much necessity in your example.

I think I'm not reading the same post. Because the example LeRoc gave was of a hypothetical case where (under Dutch law) self-defence would not be applicable. Although, if I understood the scenario correctly, that would also be the case if instead of a punch in the face the other guy produces a weapon - because although there is then a real and credible threat to life, the fact that he had taken the knife expecting the possibility of a serious confrontation means he deliberately entered into the situation where the need to defend himself was likely.

I've no idea what the UK law would be in the same situation, except there would certainly be a charge for carrying a weapon regardless of whether it was used. And, I've no idea about other jurisdictions either.

Necessity is an interesting concept. I think it might link with proportional. If threatened by fists, you say that it isn't necessary to respond with a knife, nor is it proportional - although there would be situational differences, it may be considered necessary and proportional to use a weapon against fists if you're a wimp and the other guy is muscular.

Also, it might be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect life. It can never be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect property. Yet, it appears from what I've read, that in the US self-defence is used to justify injury and even death to protect property.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief:Welcome to the Ship of Fools.
Yeah I know (I saw it just happened with you too).
It really didn't. Why don't you two precious flowers go and have a good cry together.

You seriously think that the difference between self-defence and revenging murder is a minor detail in this discussion? It's bloody fundamental to the whole issue.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Still not responding to my argument.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also, it might be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect life. It can never be necessary and proportional to kill or injure to protect property. Yet, it appears from what I've read, that in the US self-defence is used to justify injury and even death to protect property.

I think you'll find that it's not entirely exclusive to the US. However much I like a dollop of criticism for when US laws on things like "stand your ground" seem excessive, it's unfair to suggest that they are alone on the protection of property.

Australia allows some self-defence for property, and while it doesn't allow you go for death or grievous bodily harm, it doesn't say that you mustn't injure someone. From what I understand this is close to the common law position, i.e. it's probably close to the law in England unless it's been heavily modified.

I'm not sure that a hard and fast rule against all injury would be viable, because it might hamper people too much. For example, it would seem reasonable to me to be allowed to whack a person's hand if they're in the middle of picking up an object of yours, or to tackle them as you get the property off them.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Still not responding to my argument.

Your argument is built on a straw man idea that in other countries are free to keep escalating the situation. They're not. People aren't allowed to consciously keep being the aggressor.

Gee D has already pointed out that you've also not taken into account the requirement for proportionality. You dismissed this as not addressing your argument. It bloody well is, just apparently not to your liking.

And I've already responded to the heart of your argument in great detail, in a post that was nominally replying to CK explaining why the law of England and Wales is not the same as what you propose and why I have problems with your proposal. Did you bother reading that?

And if you want to discuss Dutch law, I'll happily pull back up all the things I googled last night about the debates going on in the Netherlands and the dissatisfaction of many people, including politicians, with the strictures of Dutch law and how they don't work. I didn't think it was worth bothering with but, hey... no, I still don't really think it's worth bothering with.

"Addressing your argument" doesn't consist of acknowledging what wonderful points you've made.

[ 18. May 2016, 08:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh fuck it Le Roc, here's the link in case you can't manage to scroll back an entire page.

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005506;p=29#001443

As far as I can see you just completely ignored this post. It was the heart of my thoughts. Just because it didn't have your name on it in nice shiny letters doesn't mean it was irrelevant.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, no intention to suggest the US is unique in relation to what extent it's posisble to use lethal force to protect property. It's just that this thread is about the US.

In the UK it's also legal to detain someone, and some harm may come from binding someone to a chair or similar. So, yes there is a bit of stretch to what's proportionate and necessary. I guess there might be some thought of intention and whether the harm caused is the intent or an unintended consequence. The intent in tying someone up is to detain them until the police arrive, rope burns as the suspected thief tries to move are unintentional consequences. The intent of grabbing a cricket bat to give a burglar a fright may result in injury if instead he decides to rush you.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ultimately, what is necessary in any particular case would come down to the jury's opinion of what was necessary on all the evidence before it. The obligation on a judge is to summarise the law and give directions as to that; then to summarise the evidence before the jury and the submissions of counsel on each side. In summarising the evidence the judge must stress to the jury that it is for jurors to decide what the facts are, based on all the evidence. Given that the jurors in a criminal case normally only announce if they find that the accused is guilty or not guilty* one can only try to deduce what they decided about a particular point.

* If the case for the accused is not guilty on the ground of insanity, then the jury is directed that that is an available verdict. In other cases, a jury may be deciding if an accused is fit to be tried. There are a few other exceptions.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

FBI stats on murders in 2014: Blacks killed by whites 8%, by other blacks 90%. Whites killed by blacks 15%, by other whites 81%.

Statistics without context are meaningless. Crime follows poverty and black people in America have a higher rate of poverty. White people who are poor are more likely to live in proximity to poor black people.
The average person in America does not go looking for any trouble. This is not the problem. The problem is the average person in America actively or passively supports those who perpetuate inequity.

That's why I didn't invent any "context." Of course poverty increases crime we all know that.

If you had read my entire post (something you keep forgetting to do before taking me to task) you would see that I was showing Mousethief that he was wrong to imply a great race war going on in America where it's routine for people to go out looking for people of the opposite race to murder. The stats, in any context, demonstrate that, that couldn't possibly be going on because there are relatively few opposite race murders in either direction.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Seriously, how long can people keep it up, not reacting to my argument?

At least they're not reacting to arguments you didn't make.

No Prophet reacted strongly to my "story about guns," that didn't have a single gun in it, LilBuddha thinks we're on opposite sides when we aren't, Gee D's checking our spelling. This is what happens when we're almost all on the same side in the "Fucking guns," thread. Nit picking takes over.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  ...  58  59  60 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools