PDA

View Full Version : The use of deadly force....


Jae Onasi
10-29-2006, 01:50 AM
Here's a topic to discuss--is it acceptable for someone who has been abused to use deadly force against the abuser when they attack again? Is it morally right? Or does it just make the abused no better than the attacker?

I say it can be appropriate if the abused person fears for his or her life.

@Emperor Devon: :xp:

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-29-2006, 01:01 AM
Hell yes it's alright.

Emperor Devon
10-29-2006, 01:38 AM
OH MY GOD, JAE! After the last two days (which you are fully aware of!!) I'm not sure what the Hell I should say to someone bringing up this topic again. Maybe after my temporary insanity (not exagerrating) cools down you'll get a logical reply. For now, all I can do is gape. Dear Lord. :xp:

I specifically stated my opinions on this. Mods! Please delete this wretched thread at once! :xp:

St. Jimmy
10-29-2006, 02:09 AM
I think it's okay. It's self defense right?

Jae Onasi
10-29-2006, 02:17 AM
OH MY GOD, JAE! After the last two days (which you are fully aware of!!) I'm not sure what the Hell I should say to someone bringing up this topic again. Maybe after my temporary insanity (not exagerrating) cools down you'll get a logical reply. For now, all I can do is gape. Dear Lord. :xp:

I specifically stated my opinions on this. Mods! Please delete this wretched thread at once! :xp:

Oooh, darkside points to me! :dev7:
I never said you had to answer! :lol:
I was feeling evil tonight after looking at the gaping hole in my ceiling and cleaning up bag upon bag of that obnoxious vermiculite insulation.
Besides, you needed extra incentive to win the duel. :lol:

90SK
10-29-2006, 02:22 AM
I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally.

Rabish Bini
10-29-2006, 03:24 AM
I agree with skye. Only use it when your life is in danger, or if you are ambushed.

The_Catto
10-29-2006, 04:27 AM
If you are attacked, you have a right to use any means necessary to get rid of the attacker. But i think, its only good for when they attack after the first time. When they first attack, get the police involved, and if they attack the second time, then use the force yourself, to prove that you are not an as 'easy target' as what they first thought you out to be.

That is my opinion.

Rabish Bini
10-29-2006, 04:35 AM
I agree with you too Mr_BFA. Always call the police first.

Ztalker
10-29-2006, 06:11 AM
I agree with you too Mr_BFA. Always call the police first.
Which can be quit hard when the mofo that's attacking you is stabbing you to death...

Imo, if you get attacked with a weapon, the attacker has the possibility to kill you. So you will HAVE to imagine the worst case scenario: You dying. Ussage of deadly force? Depend in the situation.

Jason Skywalker
10-29-2006, 06:24 AM
Hell yeah you should! I mean, if your own life is in peril, wouldn't you use self-defense?! I mean, if someone ambushed me, i would go straight to a kick on the groin, and if it hit, i would then armbar him to the ground or so, then call the cops.

Sabretooth
10-29-2006, 06:53 AM
The Gandian philosophy states that when a person resorts to violence to counter violence, the person becomes no better than the attacker. A lot of abusers turned into abusers, because they were abused themselves. When the abused takes to violence, he grows a liking towards such violence. That is also the philosphy of the Jedi. Revenge, however tempting and judicious, is never the right path. (Though I don't understand why they love battling so much, when they can just use the Force to quell such problems).

RC-1162
10-29-2006, 07:15 AM
as Jason said, a groin kick, but i'd take a photo if i can with my nifty cam-phone. the cops will find that incredibly useful.
but yeah, me being a 14 year old, there's not much "deadly" force i can dish out, but i'll at least make their eyes water :p

Jason Skywalker
10-29-2006, 07:23 AM
Yeah, exactly my point, i'm only 11 year old, soon to be 12, but since i don't have much strength, i can just groin kick him, perhaps bite him a bit, and then a good ol' armbar locked in.

Negative Sun
10-29-2006, 08:20 AM
If there is a direct threat to your life I say kill the f***er, but otherwise: Revenge is a dish best served cold...

Diego Varen
10-29-2006, 08:33 AM
It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain.

Darth InSidious
10-29-2006, 08:47 AM
It depends on the circumstance.

If it's in cold blood, then no. It's still wrong, even if they were terribly abused.

If it's a heat-of-the-moment, middle-of-a-fight-to-the-death kinda thing, then it's necessary, and I suppose you can hardly say it was *wrong*.

Doing the right thing, and doing the necessary thing are rather different, however, IMO.

Vaelastraz
10-29-2006, 08:54 AM
Hm.. and what happens when you miss that groin kick? Because the attacker is like, swift? :D

But I should not lecture you bout that, although I'm 17, I'm not strong at all. I Though, would be cabable of dodgin a kick I guess :D


Anyway... I would not want to kill someone, even under the worst circumstances, when I can just knock the attacker out. (Well I can't, but let's suppose so :D)

If so called "self defense" results in a kill... I'd really wanted to know if it was such a brutal assault, that requiered someone to die...
If someone decideds to beat you up (not kill or rape you) and you happen to kill that person in self defense, I would not consider it to be justifyed.

Mace MacLeod
10-29-2006, 09:11 AM
Well, self-defence is always the old standby.

As for abuse, it'd have to depend of what kind and how bad before a person would be justified. Of course, if I was defending my wife or daughter from someone who had abused either one of them, I doubt I'd have any hesitation or moral qualms about snuffing them horribly and painfully. I can be quite a sociopathic, sadistic when I want.

Jae Onasi
10-29-2006, 10:34 AM
It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain.

Actually, you can dish out pain quite effectively even if you're small. We discuss in taekwondo places to grab/hit that'll stop someone. That includes the eyes, nostrils, Adam's apple/larynx, and ears. Their head is going to go wherever their ear goes.

We also discuss using equal force--if someone's just grabbing your arm, you can't use killing force back. What our master and the lawyer who's a student in the dojang recommend to us is using just enough force to get away to call the police.

The one time in 4 years of doing tkd that I thought I might actually have to use it was when a guy threatened to punch his girlfriend in the face in my office because she didn't ask him if it was OK to get her eyes dilated. I'm not kidding. When I left the room I was in to see what all the screaming was about, he was standing over her with his fist raised. I told him he had to leave and he told me I'd have to call the cops. I immediately told the other staff to call the cops, then I prayed hard that I _wasn't_ going to have to figure out where to kick him to stop him from nailing her in the head before the cops got there. I was terrified and angry all at the same time. Fortunately, he didn't make any more threatening moves on either his girlfriend or me--we just stared at each other til the cops arrived (very quickly I might add, to my relief).
And the girlfriend--who was an intelligent woman--went home with the guy. I wanted to beat my head against the wall at that one, because I knew he was going to hit her as soon as she got home, if not in the car. I even offered her a ride to the woman's shelter, and she refused, so all I could do was give her the phone number. Sigh....

Jeff
10-29-2006, 10:35 AM
I think they have the right to defend themselves if they're being abused.

Maverick5770
10-29-2006, 10:35 AM
I figure there is a time to kill, if your life is in direct danger. Or for a couple of other reasons, but I don't believe that you should just kill all willy-nilly. God himself has killed people, and ordered people to be killed so seeing as the state our world is in, it will have to take place eventually.

Diego Varen
10-29-2006, 10:47 AM
Well let's put it this way Jae. I'm no fighter.

Ztalker
10-29-2006, 11:27 AM
Well let's put it this way Jae. I'm no fighter.
Neither am I, but I have been playing soccer since the age of 5. The Ztalkerian-Groin-kick will be deadly enough as it is with those neat li'll soccer-shoes and incredible leg muscles! :xp:

Hallucination
10-29-2006, 11:35 AM
I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally.
:wstupid:

If there is a direct threat to your life I say kill the f***er, but otherwise: Revenge is a dish best served cold by Hallucination with a side of kickass...
Fixed for great justice. :)

Negative Sun
10-29-2006, 12:07 PM
Don't get me started on techniques for revenge and/or torture *evil grin*

"This **** is between me and Mr soon-to-be-living-the-rest-of-his-life-in-agonizing-pain rapist here, you hear me hillbilly boy? I'm gonna get medieval on yo ass!"

Emperor Devon
10-29-2006, 02:06 PM
Here is on of my negative cases, written at the last minute. I'd also give a positive one, but those were written by hand.

The value I have chosen for this round is justice, which is defined as giving what is due to them. Justice is an essential thing to a civilized society for obvious reasons. One of the key principles in it is proportionality, for justice cannot exist if there are no standards for it. Executing someone for petty larceny, for instance, could be considered justice, but would be completely out of proportion to the situation. As it is such an important thing, proportionality will be my criterion for this round.

Contention 1: The use of deadly force against abuse is not proprotional. It is inevitable that with all the battered women in the world, some of their torment is worse or better than others. Some can vary from simple beatings daily to torture sessions, humiliation, and starvation. It is not possible for all types of abuse suffered to be judged the same. However, killing is a much more limited field. Although people can be killed in various ways, some worse or better than others, the end result is obviously death, something that there is absolutely no form of proportion with. If various types of abuse are met with an equal punishment, is that justice? Obviously not, as our judicial system believes that different crimes should be punished to various degrees. Death cannot vary in the slightest, and goes completely against our established form of what is just.

Contention 2: There are nonlethal alternatives, which is essential to justice being served. The only effective way in this situation for justice to be served would be to have the abuser come up before a court, have all the evidence and facts taken into consideration, and then be sentenced in proportion. This obviously can't happen if he's dead, which is where nonlethal alternatives to escaping from abuse come in. Some of these include shelters for the victim, the police, or any friends and relatives the battered woman has who can be trusted. If the victim can have the abuser brought to court and testify against him, justice will have been better served. To allow this to happen, nonlethal alternatives to escaping are essential.

Contention 3: Victims are biased in their decisions and are unlikely to effectively serve proportional justice. If someone is abused for varying amounts of time and is trapped in a mindset that nonlethal alternatives are impossible (which as stated in my previous observation, they are not), they cannot effectively make decisions that can compare to those made by a jury of non-biased people.

And the girlfriend--who was an intelligent woman--went home with the guy. I wanted to beat my head against the wall at that one, because I knew he was going to hit her as soon as she got home, if not in the car. I even offered her a ride to the woman's shelter, and she refused, so all I could do was give her the phone number. Sigh....

One the issues about abuse I discussed and debated was battered woman's syndrome. To make a long story short, they are often trapped in a sort cycle. The violence escalates, reaches it's height, cools down, and then gets repeated over and over. It's part of the mindset that the abuser can change.

Btw, did you ever find out what happened to her?

Oh, so everyone knows the heck I'm talking about: For the last few days I was in a debate tournmanent and this was the chosen issue. So I ended up discussing and debating (both sides of) it with around ten people for eight hours straight the first day, and about the same amount of time straight the next day. Nope, no exagerrations here. A definite way to get your brain fried. :)

But at least I know the issue inside out now. Does anyone want to try to outdebate me in it? :p

RC-1162
10-29-2006, 02:17 PM
Neither am I, but I have been playing soccer since the age of 5. The RCian-Groin-kick will be deadly enough as it is with those neat li'll soccer-shoes and incredible leg muscles! :xp:
ditto, brother :D
also, i have a pair of those running shoes. those lil metal spikes sure look pretty :xp:

Ztalker
10-29-2006, 04:10 PM
ditto, brother :D
also, i have a pair of those running shoes. those lil metal spikes sure look pretty :xp:
Metal spikes vs Groin...I suppose the guy who would assaultd you would speak a few tones higher for the rest of his life then :D

Hayden Kered
10-30-2006, 01:08 AM
If you are attacked, you have a right to use any means necessary to get rid of the attacker. But i think, its only good for when they attack after the first time. When they first attack, get the police involved, and if they attack the second time, then use the force yourself, to prove that you are not an as 'easy target' as what they first thought you out to be.

That is my opinion.

I totaly agree with Mr_BFA

JediMaster12
10-30-2006, 02:35 AM
It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain.
Actually you can dish out pain that will bring a full grown man down but only striking at certain places on the body. Ask Jae since she is the martial artist :D

As to the topic, I think that every person has a right to defend themself if they are being threatened. That is in general. Specifically to defending yourself against an abuser, they abuser has no right to physically harm you. If it comes worse to physical violence, defend yourself until you can get away and call for help. Yeah it sounds like what cops tell kids what to do when it's an emergency but hey, sound advice I think. I realize that not all abuse cases are reported with the number one reason being fear.

Rabish Bini
10-30-2006, 02:59 AM
I play soccer too, and a good ol' kick to the groin will bring down anyone, unless they have a metal groin. Which is unlikely. If that is the case, use a mallet :smash: .
But seriously, I would never strike to kill (I can't anyway, i'm 14 too) even if they did have a knife.

JediMaster12
10-30-2006, 10:03 AM
To kill no but sometimes it happens. What you do to get over trauma could mean the difference whether the abused becomes the abuser or not.

Rogue15
10-30-2006, 10:47 AM
no. not the 1st time. 2nd time ftw.

Prime
10-30-2006, 11:11 AM
Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally?

Cygnus Q'ol
10-30-2006, 11:25 AM
When left with no other alternative, make sure it's you who goes home alive at the end of the ordeal.

Commander Obi-Wan
10-30-2006, 03:19 PM
I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally.

I'm with you there.

Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally?

Sure. Since they are the ones now being abused and the sides have switched. And as long as it works in with Syke's comment.

Halo_92
10-30-2006, 03:26 PM
I'm a lover not a fighter.
But if somone won't back off, I say kick that guys a$$.

JediMaster12
10-30-2006, 04:04 PM
When left with no other alternative, make sure it's you who goes home alive at the end of the ordeal.
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?

goldberry
10-30-2006, 04:10 PM
Hm.. and what happens when you miss that groin kick? Because the attacker is like, swift? :D

Then you die.

Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally?

No, by law they should have to sit by and get the living hell kicked out of them.

So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?

So are you saying that if it were a matter of survival, you would play by the rules?

Basically, what I am saying over all is that if I were in that position, the abuser would die, one way or the other. I do not have the trust in the legal system to "leave it to the police", "fight clean", or "allow for redemption", they abuse someone, they don't deserve to live. If it meant that for handing out my justice I spent the rest of my days in prison, I would be happy knowing that there was one less abuser in the world, one more murderor, but one less abuser.

Darth InSidious
10-30-2006, 04:13 PM
But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser?

Pho3nix
10-30-2006, 06:06 PM
Hell yes it's right. You can stick your moral lectures up the darkest pit on Mustafar. :xp:

Dark_Lady
10-30-2006, 06:59 PM
But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser?

No, because it's not murder, not really. It's self-defense. Murder is killing an innocent person. I know there's a legal definition, but we're talking moral here, right?

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-30-2006, 09:13 PM
But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser?
Meh. Call me morally bankrupt, but if someone was abusing me to the point where I might die, I'd rather be a live murderer than a dead law-abiding citizen.

JediMaster12
10-30-2006, 11:20 PM
So survival is the key. Self preservation. We all do have a right to live and we have to defend it. You just have to know when you have gone too far.

JediAthos
10-31-2006, 10:48 AM
I submit this to you for consideration on this topic: In the military we constantly go through training for use of deadly force. One of the things that is listed as justification for the use of deadly force is: " To prevent serious offenses against persons that involve an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (E.G. murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault)."

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but to me repeated physical abuse is serious bodily harm. So, I would say that on the topic of abuse in most cases, not always, but in most cases the abuser is more powerful than the victim or holds power over the victim and if deadly force is the only way the victim can fight back, I think that it is more than justified.

Prime
10-31-2006, 10:53 AM
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?Doesn't it?

Cygnus Q'ol
10-31-2006, 02:12 PM
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?

If it's a matter of my life being threatened,
YES, everything flies out the window, including the head of who's threatening me or my family.

Prime
10-31-2006, 02:43 PM
It would certainly be the natural reaction.

JediMaster12
11-01-2006, 05:06 PM
I see that there is some agreement that it is a matter of survival when our lives are being threatened. My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?

Mace MacLeod
11-01-2006, 05:39 PM
I see that there is some agreement that it is a matter of survival when our lives are being threatened. My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?When there's no clear and present danger to justify actually taking someone's life.

So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?Yeah, pretty much. If I ever thought that a situation became Me or You or My Family or You, you're as good as cat food. And I actually like you. But yes, if I ever thought that you represented a life or death threat to me or anyone I care deeply about, I'd cut your throat or snap your neck without even thinking twice. I'd never feel guilty, I'd never weep for the loved ones you left behind, and I'd never lose a single night's sleep over killing you. I'd have done what I had to do, and that would be the end of it.

Emperor Devon
11-01-2006, 07:21 PM
My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?

If it staves off imminent danger, it's defense.

@Mace, that's certainly an interesting example.

Jae Onasi
11-01-2006, 08:02 PM
If it staves off imminent danger, it's defense.

@Mace, that's certainly an interesting example.

When you have kids, somehow a little switch gets implanted in you if you're not normally the aggressive type. It's the 'Kill and Maim if They Mess With My Kids' switch. Normally I'm of the same opinion of my TKD master--'the best way not to get hit is to not be there'. I'd rather talk someone down or walk away than fight them, and I don't care if it means a drunk gets away with calling me an a--hole at a bar. So they were stupid and called me a name. Big fat hairy deal. It's not worth a fight.

Now, if someone tries to mess with my kids, the switch gets flipped, and I've found myself in a couple of people's faces with the 'You want a piece of me?!?' attitude almost before I realized what was happening. It was a surreal experience. What was really crazy is that both times they were men who were taller than me, and they were the ones that backed down. I don't know if it's because I looked crazy or scary or outweighed them or a combo of that or what, but as long as my kids were safe, I don't really care what they thought of me. If my _only_ choice was my children dying or the attacker dying, the attacker would be dead as quickly as I could make him.

Usually, though, it's not the only choice; there are oftentimes alternatives.

JediMaster12
11-01-2006, 09:00 PM
I can understand the switch on the need to protect the kids. I'm 21 and my mom still protects me. I can see that the use of violence can be used as a means to do defend oneself. Thankfully I haven't had the need to do so yet.
As to the moral question I asked earlier the reason being was that I was thinking of a scenario that was portrayed on CSI with the airliner and all the passengers in first class killed that one guy. Grissom pointed something out interesting though, no one stopped to ask if the guy was all right. I can justify using violence to bring down someone enough so that you can get away but to keep at it and eventually end up killing them, that I think crosses a line.

Bimmerman
11-01-2006, 09:04 PM
Here in Colorado we have a "make my day law" where if you are on your own property and have been threatened, and feel that your life is in danger you are legally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to subdue your assailant, even deadly.

Emperor Devon
11-01-2006, 09:04 PM
Now, if someone tries to mess with my kids, the switch gets flipped, and I've found myself in a couple of people's faces with the 'You want a piece of me?!?' attitude almost before I realized what was happening. It was a surreal experience. What was really crazy is that both times they were men who were taller than me, and they were the ones that backed down. {snip}

Not surprising. Natural instincts are quite strong. I've read some stories about what mothers can do for their kids, (such as lifting up a car) and it's quite extraordinary.

I'd actually beeen refering to how Mace was using JM12 in his example, btw. :)

JediMaster12
11-02-2006, 12:48 AM
Oh I guess I better hide then if Mace wants to do that if I became a threat to his survival. Nice to see that you like me Mace. I am sorry if I am being persistent on the moral factor because you all are quick to say yes I will use violence to protect myself if necessary. Sometimes the need to stop and think about what you are about to do is a necessary. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that maybe you should stop and really think about it. It would be something that you would have to live with for the rest of your life.

Dark_Lady
11-02-2006, 01:00 AM
Oh yes. When someone slams you with a baseball bat and then lifts it up to give you another blow, that's not exactly the perfect time to start contemplating the mysteries of life. I agree that we should use judgement, but every person has a right to protect himself. If you beat the guy and he starts running or is knocked out, then call the police.

JediMaster12
11-02-2006, 01:12 PM
That was not my intention Dark Lady. I meant in terms of your response here on this thread. As to the rest of your post, I agree that you should exert enough force to get away and then get help.

Cygnus Q'ol
11-03-2006, 10:35 AM
We are discussing deadly force here, aren't we.

Whacking a person with a bat is hardly deadly, unless you're Albert Pujols or Robert Deniro in " The Untouchables".

This would be more about weapons wouldn't it?

You're dseperately trying to stave off an abduction in a parking lot or your dark garage and you have one brief opportunity to reach your pistola and in a moment of emminent peril, you fire and kill him.
That's self defense.

A group of hooded figures spooks you while walking alone on a dark night and you whip out and start firing...
That's something different.

Of coures for Jae, this is different.
Her hands and feet are registered in Madison as lethal weapons. :ninja2:

Darth_Velrogh
11-04-2006, 03:58 PM
Yes it is right to use force to kill somebody in self-defense and for me also when its not in self defense >:D.

Is it moral? Nah, but as far has i'm concerned, is anything but breathing moral? And I don't really think morality is such a big deal.

and no, it does make you better than the attacker if you actually defeat him. It proves your more powerfull than him.

The strongest survives in this dog eat dog world! If you think i'm mean then you wouldn't last long in star wars universe

Balderdash
11-04-2006, 04:36 PM
If your life is not in any danger, then you're walking a fine line between victim and vigilante, and then the morality of your choices is in question. But if it's a case of your your life or your attackers, then you have to say yes, it is acceptable (not only acceptable but necessary).

Victims of physical abuse / violence, I would say have the right to use any means at their disposal. It's a no-brainer really. As long as it's self defense, and not an eye for an eye.

Dark_Lady
11-04-2006, 04:44 PM
Sorry if I sounded snappy, JediMaster12, nothing personal. I just grew up in a rotten neighborhood, so I've had friends who were severely injured by this kind of stuff, and I was attacked once myself. I have a tendency to go overboard on self-defense issues. And, Cygnus, whacking somone with a baseball bat can be deadly, especially if you do it again, and again, and again.

El Sitherino
11-04-2006, 05:37 PM
I see no reason why anyone would be against the use of deadly force.

Should it be first reaction in defense? Certainly not.
But, if death is the only means to prevent someone from doing you (or those you care about) harm, I see no issue.

JediMaster12
11-05-2006, 11:37 AM
No harm Dark Lady. I went to a school where I witnessed fights at lunch that were not deadly but very harmful. My brother went to a school where they sent all the juve kids. Dog eat world if you ask me. The only way to distinuish us as people who try to do right from those that revel in harming is morals. Yes I would defend myself, it's what I was taught. I was taught to hurt them enough to get away and call for help. If it has to I probably would pull the trigger if they were still coming at me.

Cygnus Q'ol
11-06-2006, 09:40 AM
Don't get me wrong M'Lady. I'm not defending attackers.

I think the subject has grey area because there is a grey area between our perception of life threatening and whether it is actually life threatening.

Somethings start out non-life threatening and then esculate into a more serious situation.

Of course, if you're the one under attack it becomes much more difficult to assess this. In this arena, it's better to err on the side of caution.

{safety off, aim, squeeze...}

JediMaster12
11-06-2006, 01:32 PM
Probably you are right Cygnus. I am just in the habit of asking those questions that are overlook or persist to get a real answer. This really is a shade of grey because it is based on perception and most of us know that truth is relative.

Cygnus Q'ol
11-06-2006, 01:48 PM
Yes Master, you are excellent at pulling the core of the idea out of us.
Sometimes persisting on a topic or playing Devil's Advocate adds greatly to the conversation.

You truly are a master.

I didn't want Dark Lady to think I was insensitive to her opinion.
I was just eluding to the fact that a gun and a bat are two different weapons.

But, she's right, both can be deadly.

JediMaster12
11-06-2006, 04:01 PM
Well not a master...yet. I am still four maybe 6 years away from obtaining masterhood (Ph.D). Right now I am just a padawan.
I don't think you insensitive to opinions. Everyone has them. It is just a matter of tact when presenting it. I believe the other topic concerning religion is a good practice because it is a sensitive subject.

As to your comment, yes both can be deadly. In fact anything can be turned into a weapon. Just last night on the news there was a report about someone being arrested for assault with a deadly weapon when a customer flung a cup of hot coffee at the cashier at a fast food place. I think it was McDonalds. Yes a deadly weapon since that coffee is heated to approximately 170-180 degrees Farenhiet (excuse spelling). That is enough to cause serious injury. I have been burnt by the hot water that is the same temp and used for tea and hot chocolate at my weekend job at Burger King.

Totenkopf
11-06-2006, 10:28 PM
I'd say, yeah. If someone thinks they can keep beating you with impunity than you may have to use deadly force the next time they attack you. However, how many times have they done so? If they were sober, then perhaps they never intended to kill you. If so, is it then moral to kill them when you could just maim/incapcitate them and run like hell? If a battered person killed someone while in the process of being beaten by them (yet again), I wouldn't think twice about mitigating circumstances being allowable. If, on the other hand, they waited till the assailant was asleep or in the tub (man, electrocution burns...), that's different.

CSI
11-07-2006, 04:19 AM
No. Well, I mean you should strike back, but in non-lethal way. The Constitution states if person who thinks his or her life is in danger, he/she could use any means to immobilize, but not to kill the abuser, in other words, person should eliminate the abuser as a threat for him/her, but not to kill the abuser. Of course, call 911 first and do your best to immobilize the abuser as the cop is on the way.

JediMaster12
11-08-2006, 03:06 PM
I don't think the constitution says that. We have the right to bear arms but that was added in a time when your best friends were the Bible and a gun (Revolutionary times). Maybe a statute says something along those lines but really the constitution outlines the powers of the federal government and the police powers of the states.

CSI
11-08-2006, 04:01 PM
I don't think the constitution says that. We have the right to bear arms but that was added in a time when your best friends were the Bible and a gun (Revolutionary times). Maybe a statute says something along those lines but really the constitution outlines the powers of the federal government and the police powers of the states.

Yes, the Constitution stated that. It gave us the definition of Self-Defense. Go watch CSI: Miami, Season 3, Episode 4, "Under the Influence" for reference.

Dark_Lady
11-08-2006, 05:09 PM
Why go to a TV show? CSI is cool but flawed. Why not just read the Constitution? It's not that long. It never actually mentions self-defense per se, but I'm sure it probably says something beyond the Second Amendment somewhere. Great... now I've got to check.

JediMaster12
11-08-2006, 06:50 PM
Thanks Dark Lady for saying that. I just think of TV mentioning the topic but I do the personal research myself. If you are talking about ammendments, is it in the Bill of Rights or the later ones?

Dark_Lady
11-08-2006, 07:33 PM
Well, the Second Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) is the one that states we have "the right to keep and bear arms." I've been looking to see if it defines self-defense anywhere, but I can't find it. CSI, could you point me in the right direction?

swphreak
11-08-2006, 10:41 PM
I'm fairly certain I am well within my rights to defend myself. If some guy comes at me with a knife, I'll do whatever is necessary to neutralize him. If he dies from my poking his eyes out and bashing his throat in, oh well, the guy shouldn't have freakin' threatened me with a knife.

Prime
11-09-2006, 11:48 AM
You use the Three Stooges style of fighting, Phreak? :D

swphreak
11-09-2006, 02:32 PM
Hey, they can't stab me if they can't see me.

Jae Onasi
11-09-2006, 03:11 PM
Eyes and larynx (Adam's apple) are great places to gak someone. You can stop someone very quickly with little force by hitting either of those places.

Cygnus Q'ol
11-10-2006, 11:48 AM
There are quite a few places on the body that have this effect.

Special move one:
Grab attacker by the wrist with both hands. Bring the thumbs and middle fingers together as close as you can and with as much force as you can muster, wring the skin of the wrist like a dishrag, opposite hands going back and forth until attacker is subdued or screams "Uncle" really loud.

Special move two:
Grab attacker by the head and stuff his/her neck under your arm pit. While locking him in with one arm, use other hand (fist closed) and run knuckles rapidly from forehead to back of skull until subdued or cry of "Uncle" is heard.

Special move three:
Is a secret move and cant' be described here for safety reasons. But it involves pulling the attacker's underwear up from the back to squeeze the bass from his voice.

Jae, I'm sure with your training, you've encountered these basic moves along time ago.

Jae Onasi
11-10-2006, 02:46 PM
There are quite a few places on the body that have this effect.
Jae, I'm sure with your training, you've encountered these basic moves along time ago.

As the oldest of 3 kids, I probably created some new special moves while I was at it. :dev7:

JediMaster12
11-10-2006, 08:48 PM
Do any include daring your older sister to cut the skin between the thumb and first finger? I did that but I didn't know better. :xp:

Jae Onasi
11-11-2006, 01:34 AM
No, because I wasn't allowed to leave marks. But I did ask her to buy a Freudian slip for me at Sears one time.

JediMaster12
11-11-2006, 04:08 AM
Hehe. Well I have my own silly watch dog: my little brother. Even when he was five he stuck up for me and he does now. I have no need to defend myself. He does it for me. :lol:

CSI
11-11-2006, 09:11 PM
Well, the Second Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) is the one that states we have "the right to keep and bear arms." I've been looking to see if it defines self-defense anywhere, but I can't find it. CSI, could you point me in the right direction?

No, "the right to keep and bear arms" is not same as "Self-Defense".

Well, I don't know where it is exactly, but I know somewhere it got to be mentioned, I think.

Totenkopf
11-12-2006, 03:29 PM
Took a look online at US Constitution and amendments. Nothing addressing the right to seld defense. Probably no need, then or now, to codify that concept into such a document. Ultimately, you are at the mercy of due process and your peers w/ regard to determining whether you acted in self defense or not.

CSI
11-12-2006, 05:06 PM
Took a look online at US Constitution and amendments. Nothing addressing the right to seld defense. Probably no need, then or now, to codify that concept into such a document. Ultimately, you are at the mercy of due process and your peers w/ regard to determining whether you acted in self defense or not.

First, I'm sorry, I don't catch this phrase: "seld defense", what's it?

Second, you mean, common sense. But, I really don't think two attempted murders make the case solved, right? So at least you should just disarm the murderer, not to execute him/her back. If you do so, you will commit a felony, Murder. 25 Years to Life and it's just for starters.

Totenkopf
11-12-2006, 11:52 PM
"Seld" was just a typo, didn't catch it unfortunately.

Not sure about your second point exactly. Laws and statutes will define what constitutes justifiable self-defense from a legal standpoint. Your statement should probably say two attempted "killings", not murders, which is something that would be adjudicated in court. That's why I say "at the mercy". Either a judge or jury will make that final legal decision that could send you away for 25 to life.

Bimmerman
11-13-2006, 03:05 AM
Self defense is not in the constitution. the second amendment states that you have the right to own and bear arms, but nothing about the regulation of their use. that issue, as with most things, is left up to the states. the right to self defense is not universal in the US, in some states killing is illegal no matter what the conditions. In colorado, it is justified in only the slimmest of chances, fearing for your life on your own property. There is no federal right to defend yourself against your peers, only the right to own and bear arms.

mur'phon
12-03-2006, 11:15 AM
My personal oppinion is, never kill anyone, not even in self defence. Instead learn to defend your self using nonlethal fighting techniques. Of course this is easy for me to say who live in a country where owning a gun is going to earn you a few years in jail. Also, to own a rifle you must have a (almost) clean record, and pass a test including an examination by a doctor. This means that in most cases the weapon used is going to be a knife, and with proper training or a dog, it is unlikely that someone is going to kill you. I can see that this is diferent in a country where everyone can have a gun, but I still think that proper training and a dog is going to get you trough most situations.

And something that I dont think everyone here have considered.
Most attacks/killings is done by a close relative or someone the victim knew.
So to those who would kill in self defence without hesitating, what if it where your girlfriend/boyfriend, a family member or your best friend.

As for myself, I know I wouldnt pull the trigger/ slit the throat of anyone, not even to save myself.

machievelli
02-20-2007, 11:34 PM
The problem as i see it, is that society as a whole is repusled by the idea, and would stop you if you tried to defend yourself. The Standard anti-handgun lobby answer is 'call the police and let them handle it', But in a normal city it takes anywhere from five minutes to an hour for thenm to show up. when we reported a stolwen shotgun they took 45 minutes, and spent the half hour they were here telling us that 'buying' a shotgun didn;t mean we had 'registered' it, and if we were so effing stupid it wouldn't have been stolen.

I myself prefer the sword. It's cheapm needs no ammunition, It is easy to learn the operation of the device, it always works, and just drawing it will, like a pump action shotgun being jacked, convince your attacker there are more imprtant places to be.

The argument usually given that states a criminal has rights as far as I am concerned is as follows. He had a right to invade my home, I have a right to defend it, and if he doesn;t beat feet this instant I will gladly bury him on my soil.

Fish.Stapler
02-21-2007, 12:05 AM
Let me toss in my perspective on this. This is a story my dad would always tell me (and yes, it does happen to unfortunately be true) when discussing the use of force. Paraphrased a little, but you'll get the idea.

"When I was 13, I was being taunted on my way home from school by the usual group that bullies everyone, blah blah, whatever. I shrugged it off. When I didn't respond, they got further and further in my face, and ended up running in front of me to do the tough guy, pengiun-style "beat chest, display manliness" kind of thing.

I tried to talk them into just letting me go, to no avail. I ended up tossing some rather vile insults in their faces and pushing past since it was a long walk home and I wanted to rest. The ringleader didn't take too nicely to these insults and pulled a knife on me.

I was scared, for obvious reasons, and I tried to talk him out of this, much more civily this time. He didn't take too kindly to it, and ended up slashing at me. At that moment, I didn't care that I was outnumbered 5 to 1, or that he had a knife, I wanted to make sure I got out of there alive."

To spare you the rest of the details, dad won the fight in about 10 seconds. He hospitalized the other person. There was somewhat of an outcry over why he did this, but it worked out okay in the end.

As an avid reader, I want to add my perspective on this. If someone threatens me in any way and they use physical force of any sort, I will not hesitate to beat them into a pulp. Not lethal, but certainly debilitating injuries that make sure they will NEVER want to hurt me again. Take the example of Ender Wiggin (Ender's Game series). Constantly threatened by other children, he uses force to make sure that none of them will ever hurt him again. Ever.

"The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you."

"[why he attacked a boy who was down] "Knocking him down won the first fight. I wanted to win all the next ones too."

"Ender knew at this moment he might be able to walk out of the room and end the battle. But the battle would only be fought again. Again and again until the will to fight was finished. The only way to end things completely was to hurt Bonzo enough that his fear was stronger than his hate."

"It was just him and me. He fought with honor. If it weren't for his honor, he and the others would have beaten me together. They might have killed me, then. His sense of honor saved my life. I didn't fight with honor... I fought to win."

(bolded above quotes are courtesy of Ender Wiggin).

These pretty much sum up the way I feel about this. I will do my best to talk you out of trying to hurt me, but if you make an attempt on my life, so help me God, I will beat you so hard that you won't be able to/want to come after me again.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 12:42 AM
I understand the feeling. During my Junior year in HS, had made a comment that you didn't want to p--- a little guy off because he would fight to kill rather than to win. One of the seniors who outweighed me by about seventy pounds (Picture me as 5' nothing, 97 pounds soaking wet) who proceeded to try to egg me into a fight for the nest two weeks. Triooing me, slapping me out his way to get to a locker, throwing books at me in class.

On the 12th day he got his wish. I was irritaed about something, I don;t know what, and he picked me up and slammed me into my open locker. 'What does it take to get you mad?"

In the novel 'The Mirror of my Love, I described the feeling of what the Celts and Norse call Berserkergang, the berserk fury the Vikings are so known for. I wrote it not from experience, but from as the military would say, 'after action reports'.

Accroding to the witnesses, I sighed, set down my books, took his wrist as if I were going to lead him somehere, put his arm into my locker and said 'that will do'. At which point I slammed the locker on his arm four times breaking both of his forearm bones, picked him up with one hand, ran him into the opposite wall a foot off the ground, then as he began to collapsed locked my hands on his neck trying to rip his troat out. Three people finally pulled me off of him.

I didn't get punished. The teachers wanted to at least susspend me if not have me arrested but the guy I had almost killed and half a dozen witnesses told them what had happened for over a week, and they figured on letting it slide.

I wasn't bothered during my next two years.

JediMaster12
02-21-2007, 02:03 PM
I didn't get punished. The teachers wanted to at least susspend me if not have me arrested but the guy I had almost killed and half a dozen witnesses told them what had happened for over a week, and they figured on letting it slide.
You were lucky that you weren't arrested for assault mach. That didn't even constitute self defense. You had mitigating circumstances I would say that worked in your favor. I hope the bully's family didn't do anything.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 02:09 PM
You were lucky that you weren't arrested for assault mach. That didn't even constitute self defense. You had mitigating circumstances I would say that worked in your favor. I hope the bully's family didn't do anything.

Would you want to admit that you stuck your arm willingly into a tiger's cage and he bit it off? Besides, I could see the court room scene. This little guy with this huge hulking football jock saying, 'yes your honor, he beat me up'. It would have been downright embarrassing, since I didn't use any weapons.

It was a different time compared to now. If I had been known for a violent nature, they might have jailed me to deter any others, but i was a shy boy who read a lot, didn't have a lot of friends, no girlfriends. I was a mouse kicking a tiger in the balls. To get literary, I was the bojum he thought was a snark.

JediMaster12
02-21-2007, 02:33 PM
I see your point. I'm surprised that you could do something like that but I have heard of instances where the rush of adrenaline makes you capable of feats that you would have done under normal circumstances. I have never really gotten into a serious fight but I have seen the physical altercations during lunch hour and man it ain't pretty.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 02:39 PM
I see your point. I'm surprised that you could do something like that but I have heard of instances where the rush of adrenaline makes you capable of feats that you would have done under normal circumstances. I have never really gotten into a serious fight but I have seen the physical altercations during lunch hour and man it ain't pretty.

I know what you mean. I am now what I call a rational pacifist, which, if he were still alive, Robert Heinlien would applaud as a proper delicate balance for a human being.

He labeled a pacifist as someone that didn't deserve society because he was unwilling to protect it.

My version is I will not harm you, steal from you, force you to do anything, and I ask the same.

If you want a fight I will attempt reason but I will not back down or give you the satisfaction of running away or accepting your abuse. However if reason will not suffice, I will set down my book, stand up, beat you to within an inch of your life, and once you are no longer a threat, I will return to what I was doing.

It's worked for me.

JediMaster12
02-21-2007, 04:27 PM
For some reason verbal arguments work for me. I can lay down an argument and when the occassion calls for it be well articulated. I don't go fancy with all the language but people see my point.

My brother and I though would follow through with your philosphy but more out of family loyalty to each other should either of us get threatened.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 04:36 PM
For some reason verbal arguments work for me. I can lay down an argument and when the occassion calls for it be well articulated. I don't go fancy with all the language but people see my point.

My brother and I though would follow through with your philosphy but more out of family loyalty to each other should either of us get threatened.

As hot as any debate I have gotten into here, I have considered violence as an option of last resort only. Back about 12 years ago, I was teaching a class I created named 'Crime and Punishment' with a now defunct organization called "Workshop in the Woods' which took kids from schools and sent them to the site for a day. At one point some little girl (fifth grade I think) gave me the 'violence never solved anything!' argument. I out down my German designed Kattsbogger, walked over, and stood over her. I said 'I'm big, right?' She nodded. "If I were mean, I could hurt you, right?' She nodded again. Then I said 'If I looked at you mean, you'd do what I say just because I might hurt you, right?' She looked, now a bit alarmed.

'Then violence has done something.' UI finished. Then I knelt down as untreatening as possible. 'Little girls like you needs someone like me, because there are very mean people out ther'.

SilentScope001
02-21-2007, 04:54 PM
...I really don't know what to do if stuck in a situation, where you have to attack someone to defend yourself. But I think I most likely would adopt the position as written in the book Catch-22 of "I would rather die than fight."

It just seem wrong to deny others the right to life just so that you can keep your right to live. It seems so...hypocritical, and not only that, you are doing a crime. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that jazz.

I can understand why others would defend themselves, but I cannot see me defending myself.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 05:30 PM
...I really don't know what to do if stuck in a situation, where you have to attack someone to defend yourself. But I think I most likely would adopt the position as written in the book Catch-22 of "I would rather die than fight."

It just seem wrong to deny others the right to life just so that you can keep your right to live. It seems so...hypocritical, and not only that, you are doing a crime. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that jazz.

I can understand why others would defend themselves, but I cannot see me defending myself.

But I have not decided that his life is not worthy of continuing, only that my life well being and my property is mine and his desire for it does not get him the right to expropriate it. If he is willing to accept that I resever the right to protect myself.

I worked for 18 months in a convenience store on graveyard, and carried with me a Japanese design short sword. Some wag asked if I was afraid to work those hours because of the the hours, and i said I would stop any armed robber. When he laughed at the sword, I commented softly 'There are only three areas on the human body where you can guarantee killing a man with a gun using only one shot. I am willing to bet he will put me in the hospital, but I will put him in the morgue'.

During that time, the store was robbed three times, once on swing, one on evenings, once on graveyard. But no one ever thought about it while I was there on shift. I do know for a fact that one crook who robbed another store pulled up outside, saw me inside, and decided to go somewhere else.

JediMaster12
02-22-2007, 03:28 PM
I can understand why others would defend themselves, but I cannot see me defending myself.
Under the US system in criminal justice, you can protect yourself. It is called self defense. If you kill the attacker in the process, it becomes mitigating circumstances. It is not an excuse because you have no right to take the life of another human being. You do have the right to protect yourself because under the Declaration, you have the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

machievelli
02-22-2007, 03:36 PM
Under the US system in criminal justice, you can protect yourself. It is called self defense. If you kill the attacker in the process, it becomes mitigating circumstances. It is not an excuse because you have no right to take the life of another human being. You do have the right to protect yourself because under the Declaration, you have the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not always. The liberals have been undercutting that trying to apply the same rules they use for the police. In other words, they expect every citizen to react as if trained for the situation.

Case in point with obvious sexual bias;

A man breaks into your house and you grab your fire arm. You empty it into him.

If you're a woman this is accepted. If your a man, you are using excessive force after the second shot.

And as for your rights to protect yourself, cases in point;

A man broke into a house in New York owned by a retired police officer in his seventies. The 18 year old dope fiend began slapping him around with his revolver, demanding that the 'white trash' give him all the money'.
In fear for his life, he tried to escape upstairs, but the boy followed. They struggle for control of the gun on the stairs, they roll down the stairs the gun goes off, killing the thief. The police walk through the incident while the man is taken to the hospital for treatment of a fractured leg.

Before he has time to settle in, a lawyer comes, and slaps him with a lawsuit because the thief is the sole support of his family.

If that isn't bad enough THEY WON! He won on the appeal.

Another case had a man shoot a burlgar in the leg and ended up with a half million dollar lawshuit he lost because he had used excessive force and cause emotional scarring because he continued to aim the weapon at the man as he called the police.

Fish.Stapler
02-22-2007, 03:58 PM
I agree with curmudgeon (cranky old man? :xp: ).

It's ridiculous how over-sensitive we've become. If someone's threatening you and breaking into your house, people get worked up when you use force to subdue them. What the hell were they doing in your house in the first place? Boo hoo, they were the sole provider? Chances are you are providing for a family as well, why can't they get a job and do it the way everyone else does?

In my opinion, if you threaten someone with force, you immediately make it legal for them to initiate force back, and you (initial initiator :xp:) void some of your rights, namely the right to sue in leiu of the defender instituting excessive agressive force.

Most people look at me funny when I say this, but remember...what were they doing using force in the first place? If you didn't attack or threaten someone/their property then it wouldnt be happening to you.

Nancy Allen``
03-06-2007, 05:19 PM
If someone attacks you then you should use any and all means to defend yourself, including deadly force if nessecary. Though most times it shouldn't be nessecary, if you can grab an assailent's head and smash it against a wall that's one of the best things you can do. But if you need to drop them, drop'em. Is it moral? If your life is at risk then your right to live overrides that of whoever is trying to kill you.

JediMaster12
03-06-2007, 07:28 PM
There are limits within the law though. Take law enforcement officers. They can exercise the use of force but it has to be a reasonable amount. An example would be the episode of Law and Order SVU. Detective Stabler and Detective Bensen went to pick up a suspect. They approached the suspect and identified themselves and like always the suspect decides to evade arrest. Stabler chases the suspect down and Bensen goes to cut him off. Well the suspect runs into a fence and tries to scale it. Stabler manages to catch up and pulls the guy off. The suspect takes a swing at Stabler and misses. Stabler responds with a punch to the face and pushes the suspect to the wal and brings the arms around the neck. Unfortunately the suspect died but that was found as a result of not taking his meds for a heart condition. My point is that Stabler exercised reasonable amount of force on a suspect that was suspected of murder and sodomy mind you. Police officers have a right to exercise reasonable amount of force if the suspect is hostile, deadly if their lives are in danger. It ticks me off so much when the media and people think that every time a cop takes down a suspect on the pavement, it is police brutality. Granted that there are a few bad apples, it doesn't mean all are like that. It peeves me that the media can never say anything good about what the PD does for the community.

SilentScope001
03-06-2007, 07:34 PM
It peeves me that the media can never say anything good about what the PD does for the community.

Well because the PD is supposed to do good stuff for the community. "If a dog bites a man, it's not news. If a man bites a dog, it's news."

And besides, I don't want to see on the front page of Reuters: "POLICE OFFICERS HEROICALLY PULL OVER SPPEDER AND GIVE SPEEDER A TICKET!" or something to that effect. Praising the police makes the nation looks like a nation that supports its cops a bit too much...as well as sometimes gets too hypocritical. Trust me, if I ever break the law (by going 1 mile above the Speed Limit), I don't think I want to go and support the police in its quest for justice, I want to go and not get caught.

{Yes, I know, this is a ludicirous example, but it basically explains that sometimes, we DO break laws. Regardless of wheter it is ethical or not, it is illegal, and becasue of that, many of us don't like police officers coming to arrest us for the laws that we break. We do want the cops to arrest everyone else who breaks these laws.

This post does not address if lethal force is wrong (I believe it is, but most people understandbly don't share my viewpoint.) It merely answers why the media does not want to go and treat cops nicely...because well, we might be the targets of the Cops next.

Surely, I don't want to get beaten up in case I was FALSLEY accused of murdering a person. It's unlikely that case would occur...but it is possible, and if I get murdered because the cops were a bit too trigger-happy, you can bet I would be pretty upset.}

machievelli
03-06-2007, 07:41 PM
The way the press deals with the press is if it's really good, they get kudos, as they did after the North Hollywood shoot out. Knwoing what i do about combat, I would have run to the nearest gun store without orders to get heavuer firepower.

But if it goes the other way, all you get is tearjerking news coverage. People forget that Rodney King had first led the cops on a high speed chase, then had berated them and tried to hit an officer. All they remember is the beating.

And no, before you ask, I think it was abuse. I know the difference.

Nancy Allen``
03-06-2007, 07:53 PM
I think they actually did go to a local gun store looking for weapons to penetrate all the body armor the bank robbers were wearing. This was a cut scene in the SWAT movie where the beginning recreates the Hollywood bank shootout, I think it's real.

With police using force, of course at times it's police brutality. Look at Rodney King. There was that guy who was shot 80 or 90 times. But the media have no right to criticise actions taken in a life or death situation when they can't even load a gun properly, especially when there are times police should use deadly force and don't. Using police shows as a base for how it is it happens all the time, and it'd be the same in real life. One thing I don't understand is that police, SWAT, say they're life saving, roll out the non lethal weaponry. They have the bean bag guns, tear gas, get some fire truck and turn the hose on some criminal or rioting crowd.

JediMaster12
03-07-2007, 04:13 PM
At times yes if they go overboard with the use. But as I have emphasized, the police have providence to excercise the use of force and like I said before with a reasonable amount. If that involves using a fist to take down a suspect because the suspect resisted arrest by swinging at the cop, then that is reasonable. Most people don't understand the concept within the confines of the law. All they see is that the police are ganging up on someone. The basic mantra of the police is to protect and to serve. By being granted to use force to bring down a suspect, they are serving and protecting the community by removing someone that could potentially harm others.

I don't know about the Rodney King incident but as mach pointed out, people semed to have forgotten that he evaded the police in a high speed pursuit. He then resisted arrest by striking an officer. If it escalated into a fist fist, then the officers were perfectly within their right to us force.

The use of force is a debateable subject since there are people who think that to strike someone in defense is bad while others say you have a right to defend yourself. Under the Declaration, we have the right to life, liberty, and th epusuit of happiness. If a person is threatened, they have a right to defend themselves. The amount of force comes into question depending on the defendant's size and relative weight to the attacker. There are limits to the amount of force you can use.

Nancy Allen``
03-07-2007, 04:36 PM
Of course, and with Rodney King for example he was shown to be beaten down with a piece of wood. What, the capsicum spray didn't work? And when the all white jury found the officers not guilty you can't blame LA for erupting into riots.

JediMaster12
03-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Of course, and with Rodney King for example he was shown to be beaten down with a piece of wood. What, the capsicum spray didn't work? And when the all white jury found the officers not guilty you can't blame LA for erupting into riots.
That is why now we try to get more diversity on the jury panels and/or a change of venue. Of course the media is going to make a big deal with celebrities. On the layer cake model of criminal justice, they get all the attention and at the bottom are the misdemeanors. Next to celebrities, capital cases get alot of media. Why not call that an abuse of force since we kill them?

Talk about physical force now. Hitting Rodney King with a piece of wood was crossing the line maybe. Without physical evidence that I can see at the moment I can't make that accurate of a call. Now if he had been cooperating with the cops and then been hit for no reason, that would constitute as police brutality and IAD would be in their faces. Pepper spray doesn't always do the trick especially if someone is aroused to a state where they don't care and just want to hit something. Reasonable amount is hard to define but mostly it's a common sense issue.

A man breaks into your house and you grab your fire arm. You empty it into him.
Technically you cannot justify the use of deadly force on a guy who commits a burglary with the intent to steal. You would be charged with assualt with a deadly weapon or murder or manslaughter. Now if you had said that the guy entered with the intent to harm you or your family, then that is another story. Mitigating circumstances because technically no one has the right to take another man's life.

Nancy Allen``
03-20-2007, 06:30 PM
Actually with Rodney King it was the beating that made him famous. The media jumped all over the case because the arrest was seen as racial hatred and fanned the flames of tension towards whites and the athorities who persecuted black criminals. Of course you know what happened then...the jury of ten whites, one Hispanic and one Asian gave the not guilty verdict, BOOM.

The way laws are designed to defend criminals at every opportunity is absolute horse puckery, according to the law you cannot defend yourself, not at all, you cannot be aggressive, you have to be seen to be as much of a victim as possible otherwise action won't be taken, and if anything happened to the criminal he could sue, and probably even win.

JediMaster12
03-20-2007, 09:43 PM
The way laws are designed to defend criminals at every opportunity is absolute horse puckery, according to the law you cannot defend yourself, not at all, you cannot be aggressive, you have to be seen to be as much of a victim as possible otherwise action won't be taken, and if anything happened to the criminal he could sue, and probably even win.
The original idea behind the Supreme Court Cases especially concerning miranda rights, it was to protect those that were suspected of a crime and allow for due process as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However with time and the slick talk of attorneys, we have a holy mess that seems to protect criminals and not the victims. The Kobe Bryant rape case is a good example. Even though we have the rape shield laws, attorneys can still bring up past sexual affiliations if they are relevant.

SilentScope001
03-20-2007, 11:27 PM
For all the rights that accused persons have...I would rather let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person go guilty.

Why? Because by doing such a thing, we would become guilty ourselves, no? Unless...you are willing to become JUST a bit guilty in order to acccomplish a greater goal. I wouldn't object to framing a homeless man for a crime he didn't commit if it makes people happy that the justice system is working, and act as a detterence. The question is: Would you?

JediMaster12
03-21-2007, 12:02 PM
For all the rights that accused persons have...I would rather let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person go guilty.
You merely reminded me of something someone said about capital punishment. We were discussing why it takes so blery long to execute someone who is on death row.


Why? Because by doing such a thing, we would become guilty ourselves, no? Unless...you are willing to become JUST a bit guilty in order to acccomplish a greater goal. I wouldn't object to framing a homeless man for a crime he didn't commit if it makes people happy that the justice system is working, and act as a detterence. The question is: Would you?
As someone who just had a taste of criminal law and the criminal justice system, I am well aware that the system is imperfect. Part of it has to be common sense. I would like to believe that the evidence tells all but we know that circumstantial evidence merely implies while direct evidence puts the person at the scene of the crime. Undoubtably we are going to have errors because the system is imperfect and humans are imperfect. Due process was written into the Bill of Rights by Madison so as to assure the people that they were protected from the law while being prosecuted for a crime. It sounds oxymoronish but if you think about it, we would scream bloody murder if we didn't have due process and our rights were infringed. It goes against the principles that guided independence.