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

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

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

Message

BamaD -> Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 4:55:28 PM)
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.

jlf1961 -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:12:19 PM)
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.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:14:45 PM)
why do you care? In your world they would shot dead anyway

jlf1961 -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:17:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies why do you care? In your world they would shot dead anyway 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.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies why do you care? In your world they would shot dead anyway 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. my response was to bama not you

jlf1961 -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies why do you care? In your world they would shot dead anyway 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. my response was to bama not you I know that, however, might I point out that I am a firm supporter of the Castle Doctrine which states, deadly force can be used to protect home and property. I also know of no instance where bama said he would shot an unarmed person, even though in many states, the Castle Doctrine style self defense laws would make it legal in some cases.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 90,000 rounds of ammo. you are either a really fucking bad shot or you are planning on killing or wounding tens of thousands of people/animals

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:39:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies why do you care? In your world they would shot dead anyway 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. my response was to bama not you I know that, however, might I point out that I am a firm supporter of the Castle Doctrine which states, deadly force can be used to protect home and property. I also know of no instance where bama said he would shot an unarmed person, even though in many states, the Castle Doctrine style self defense laws would make it legal in some cases. In Alabama it would be as long as for example he advanced on me after being warned, in which case I would have to assume him to be armed or crazy. That said if they have surrendered, are running away, or incapable of harming you the law takes, shall we say, a dim view of all shots fired after that time. In the opening post I was referring to continuing to beat/kick a subdued opponent and going out of your way to kill them.

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies why do you care? In your world they would shot dead anyway Because this argument made by an anti gun person indicates a disregard for human life as long as the method of death is not a firearm. I notice that you sidestepped the question.

jlf1961 -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 5:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 90,000 rounds of ammo. you are either a really fucking bad shot or you are planning on killing or wounding tens of thousands of people/animals actually the term is "survivalist" as for my shooting skills, I am a part time instructor at the local range for long range shooting. I also plan to double my ammo supply by this time next year, and am waiting for the paperwork to go through for an NFA weapon I am interested in.

Musicmystery -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 6:28:01 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. No. I do see you missing the point that comparison presents.

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 6:33:50 PM)
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.

PeonForHer -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 6:35:06 PM)
I'd be a lot happier looking at the post(s) in question, if you could link to them.

TheHeretic -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 6:38:01 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 don't see any hypocrisy in it at all. If an innocent person is attacked, and forced to defend themselves, God only knows what weird thing may happen in the mind when fight/flight kicks on the afterburners. The right of self defense is about what that individual perceives and believes at the moment. Let's say a Darwin Award candidate with rape on his mind grabs that woman who went nuts at the McDonald's drive thru . If she guts him like a trout with a nearby knife, stabs him 140 times with a broken beer bottle, or crushes his larynx in her hands and stares into his eyes while the soul leaves, it's still his bad. So sad. I think it is probably better left to the juries in such cases, rather than statute, but, "I snapped, and seemed to be standing outside myself while I kicked in the skull of the man who attacked me for no good reason," ought to be a legitimate defense argument to present to such a jury. I think it would be very similar to the Kaarma case. Very poor choice of intended victim. The gun is just one very good tool for the job of self-defense, but in hot blood, and with a righteous berserker rage on, there are endless ways to get it done.

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I'd be a lot happier looking at the post(s) in question, if you could link to them. Look at the last few pages of verdict in the Missouri shooting. I didn't want to make this about trashing a particular individual, but rather about the mindset that allows this to make sense to some people.

Musicmystery -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:02:36 PM)
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.

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic 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 don't see any hypocrisy in it at all. If an innocent person is attacked, and forced to defend themselves, God only knows what weird thing may happen in the mind when fight/flight kicks on the afterburners. The right of self defense is about what that individual perceives and believes at the moment. Let's say a Darwin Award candidate with rape on his mind grabs that woman who went nuts at the McDonald's drive thru . If she guts him like a trout with a nearby knife, stabs him 140 times with a broken beer bottle, or crushes his larynx in her hands and stares into his eyes while the soul leaves, it's still his bad. So sad. I think it is probably better left to the juries in such cases, rather than statute, but, "I snapped, and seemed to be standing outside myself while I kicked in the skull of the man who attacked me for no good reason," ought to be a legitimate defense argument to present to such a jury. I think it would be very similar to the Kaarma case. Very poor choice of intended victim. The gun is just one very good tool for the job of self-defense, but in hot blood, and with a righteous berserker rage on, there are endless ways to get it done. 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.

BamaD -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:15:51 PM)
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.

dcnovice -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:24:24 PM)
FR Depends whether the killer gives three warnings first, no?

Phydeaux -> RE: Does self defense allow you to beat someone to death"? (5/20/2014 7:27:06 PM)
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. Meh. 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. Its self defense if wounding him does not erase a reasonable fear for your life.

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

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

2.587891E-02