RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"?

RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

blacksword404 -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Would it be anything like the hypocrisy of someone carrying a sign that with "ban guns" and the person next to them with a sign "Dont trust the Government"? The holy bringer of the word, Sfc. Bellamy always said in hand to hand combat you stop when you are dead or when the other guy aint gonna move anymore. I always took that to mean beat the bastard till he aint a threat, in civilian life, I take it to mean till the bastard dont want to fight you anymore. However, if said individual has a knife, I am gonna damn well try to check his fluid levels with it. I certainly don't believe in beating them to death. But I do agree with beating them until they aren't a threat. I don't like leaving weapons around to be used against me. That goes for guns, knives and wrist. A couple kicks to the wrist will ensure he won't be pointing anything at you anytime soon. If its a simple fist fight then a simple beating is enough.

stef -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:33:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. "Someone" is a fucking idiot.

Musicmystery -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this. No. I do see you missing the point that comparison presents. I am not the least bit surprised that you found this to be a brilliant comparison. It is self defense if your first blow breaks their neck. It is not self defense if you stomp him when he is helpless. If you kill an attacker with a gun that is self defense. It is not self defense if you stand over him and continue firing when he is helpless. I didn't say it was a brilliant comparison -- you making up the dialogue again. I did say that you missed the point. You are caught up in a different point -- and I'm not surprised. He is saying that if any killing with a firearm is justified then every killing without one is. The fact that it isn't the point that you want doesn't surprise me or invalidate my point. The reference to it being brilliant was sarcasm but I should have know you wouldn't catch that. Apparently most of the people in this thread didn't "get your point" either. It's not about the "point I want" -- it's about what you posted. And yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Everyone gets that. You asked whether the comparison was hypocrisy, not whether it was apt. And it's not hypocrisy, as other people have told you now as well, and explained why not.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 8:15:04 PM)
If someone comes at me with a gun, a knife, a heavy pipe; something that most normal people (not the anti-gundiots) would consider a deadly weapon and I managed to get some kind of advantage, I don't think that I would think to stop beating them until they were pretty damned close to death (there's still a weapon around, somewhere). In that kind of situation, "accidents" can happen. You can beat the fool and cause internal bleeding that might not cause death until later on, in the hospital. I would most assuredly beat them until I no longer believed them to be a threat. If they happened to die from their injuries, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep and if I were on a jury where someone was accused of this kind of situation, my vote would be "Not Guilty". Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 8:34:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Would it be anything like the hypocrisy of someone carrying a sign that with "ban guns" and the person next to them with a sign "Dont trust the Government"? The holy bringer of the word, Sfc. Bellamy always said in hand to hand combat you stop when you are dead or when the other guy aint gonna move anymore. I always took that to mean beat the bastard till he aint a threat, in civilian life, I take it to mean till the bastard dont want to fight you anymore. However, if said individual has a knife, I am gonna damn well try to check his fluid levels with it. I certainly don't believe in beating them to death. But I do agree with beating them until they aren't a threat. I don't like leaving weapons around to be used against me. That goes for guns, knives and wrist. A couple kicks to the wrist will ensure he won't be pointing anything at you anytime soon. If its a simple fist fight then a simple beating is enough. My point exactly

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 8:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. "Someone" is a fucking idiot. Agreed

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 8:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this. No. I do see you missing the point that comparison presents. I am not the least bit surprised that you found this to be a brilliant comparison. It is self defense if your first blow breaks their neck. It is not self defense if you stomp him when he is helpless. If you kill an attacker with a gun that is self defense. It is not self defense if you stand over him and continue firing when he is helpless. I didn't say it was a brilliant comparison -- you making up the dialogue again. I did say that you missed the point. You are caught up in a different point -- and I'm not surprised. He is saying that if any killing with a firearm is justified then every killing without one is. The fact that it isn't the point that you want doesn't surprise me or invalidate my point. The reference to it being brilliant was sarcasm but I should have know you wouldn't catch that. Apparently most of the people in this thread didn't "get your point" either. It's not about the "point I want" -- it's about what you posted. And yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Everyone gets that. You asked whether the comparison was hypocrisy, not whether it was apt. And it's not hypocrisy, as other people have told you now as well, and explained why not. There were three options A hypocrisy B he is a jerk C he is a fool I made the original post to get people to respond, not to get them to agree.

TheHeretic -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 8:52:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD This post surprised me. I expected you to see that there is a point after which the law has to say a person has gone to far. This isn't about a bar fight that gets out of hand. I'm talking about unprovoked attacks on innocent people who are forced into a fight/flight response. There certainly is a point where you have gone too far, but there is also an assumption that runs through many of these threads that the person defending themselves is doing it some cool, collected, and reasoning way, when the truth is just the opposite. A perceived life and death struggle is going to be accompianied by elements of panic and instinctive responses, if not controlled by them entirely. It's primal. There might not be any conception of "too far," or there might be some more primitive part of the mind deciding too far is where it is going anyway. The assailant is taking their chances of unleashing the wrong beast, and not passing along those dumbass genes.

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 8:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD This post surprised me. I expected you to see that there is a point after which the law has to say a person has gone to far. This isn't about a bar fight that gets out of hand. I'm talking about unprovoked attacks on innocent people who are forced into a fight/flight response. There certainly is a point where you have gone too far, but there is also an assumption that runs through many of these threads that the person defending themselves is doing it some cool, collected, and reasoning way, when the truth is just the opposite. A perceived life and death struggle is going to be accompianied by elements of panic and instinctive responses, if not controlled by them entirely. It's primal. There might not be any conception of "too far," or there might be some more primitive part of the mind deciding too far is where it is going anyway. The assailant is taking their chances of unleashing the wrong beast, and not passing along those dumbass genes. You are correct that it isn't about a bar fight. You are also correct that in the heat of battle a person can cease to function as a rational civilized person. My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges. The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions.

TheHeretic -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 9:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges. The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions. Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?"

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 9:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges. The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions. Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?" As it should be.

SadistDave -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 9:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this. I think that it all depends on how things play out. If you kill someone relatively quickly as a reaction to being attacked then I'm pretty sure its different than continuing to beat them to death after they've stopped moving. Personally I don't see a problem with it either way. -SD-

Kirata -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 9:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Gang banger who has a bunch of buddies. He comes into your house alone. You're probably dead sooner or later anyway. But you are probably safer if you kill him than if you leave him alive. Best to kill his buddies too. K.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 9:58:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Best to kill his buddies too. K. That dispatcher needs a good talkin' to, too. The caller had already said that the kids were kicking her door and given her address and this douche-canoe wants to ask more questions *before* dispatching officers. Then, she says she can't stay on the phone with the potential victim until the officers get there. She has something more pressing to do? In all the places I'm aware of, a 9-1-1 operator/police dispatcher stays on the phone with the person if the incident is in progress. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

Musicmystery -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 10:08:18 PM)
quote: There were three options A hypocrisy B he is a jerk C he is a fool I made the original post to get people to respond, not to get them to agree. There are clearly more than these three options, as made evident by your success in getting so many people to not agree with you.

TheHeretic -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 10:38:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There were three options A hypocrisy B he is a jerk C he is a fool I made the original post to get people to respond, not to get them to agree. There are clearly more than these three options, as made evident by your success in getting so many people to not agree with you. Depends on who it was. Those 3 options would cover the possibilities that come to my mind. [8\|]

lovmuffin -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/21/2014 1:54:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Gang banger who has a bunch of buddies. He comes into your house alone. You're probably dead sooner or later anyway. But you are probably safer if you kill him than if you leave him alive. Best to kill his buddies too. K. I'm thinking that depending on gang affiliation, if at all possible, get rid of the body or bodies, or leave the scene if there are no witnesses depending on which is applicable. Even if the shooting or self defense was justifiable and you are around to answer questions, you'll be having to look over your shoulder for an indefinite period of time.

PeonForHer -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/21/2014 3:46:15 AM)
quote: Its self defense if wounding him does not erase a reasonable fear for your life. That would be roughly true, legally speaking, here in the UK, too. It would also be my own policy in the relevant situation.

PeonForHer -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/21/2014 3:57:42 AM)
quote: Gee, the fact I have a concealed carry permit, a total of 17 rifles and pistols, and 90,000 rounds of ammo makes me a pacifist then. You could only hide about half of that ammo in your beard. Where the hell do you stash the rest of it?

eulero83 -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/21/2014 4:25:43 AM)
FR it depends on the intent, if self defence justify murder than it has to justify manslaughter too, but if once the person assoulting you is no more able to harm if you go on than you are no more acting for self defence but out of rage or fear, so you are no more justified.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.078125