|
Post by Synonym on Jun 16, 2012 14:45:25 GMT
But there are rational reasons for not allowing private citizens to be on-the-spot unilateral judge jury and executioner. give us one, and don't try the stupid "it should be left to the courts nonsense", or the "it's a human being" idiocy it has to be RATIONAL Why is that stupid? I wonder if you would consider it stupid if I decided to kill your wife because I claim she was attempting to steal a pen from my pocket and so I decided to execute her. Or your son, my business rival, on a similar pretext. I wonder if you would prefer that they be proven guilty in a court of law rather than in a court of my say so, and if they are found guilty by the court then so be it, but if they have to die let it be as a result of a correct conviction after a fair trial by an impartial jury. I wonder also if they were found guilty of attempted pen theft whether you would prefer that they be punished with a more proportionate punishment that fits the actual attempted crime.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 16, 2012 14:57:46 GMT
the problem is that you have everything exactly backwards. it is the civilized society that recognizes that good people and property are worth more than trash, which is worth absolutely nothing. that is especially true with a system such as yours, which refuses to properly punish criminals at all. And as I keep telling you, I am not arguing with having a death penalty for theft per se. Though I do not agree with this notion and believe that punishment should at least vaguely fit the crime, that is by the by for now. Also the 'worth more' business is a false dichotomy really. Just because you put a criminal in jail rather than kill them, that does not mean that you are saying that the criminal is 'worth more' than their victim. It isn't any such statement. I am arguing that IF the penalty for theft is death then it should be for the courts to order this punishment after the person has been tried in said court. It is not for private citizens to play judge jury and executioner. That is the point of the legal system in the first place, an impartial determiner of guilt, rather than just letting citizens sort things out amongst themselves in some sort of anarchy. Rather than the uncivilised situation where I can kill your son because I claim he tried to snatch my pen.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 16, 2012 15:20:07 GMT
as i keep telling you, intent is proven by the action. intent does NOT mean that you have the conscious thought to do something. it simply means nothing more but that you do it. your breaking into my house proves that you intend to do harm. So if a person has not harmed the occupants of the house then they do not have the intent to harm? They can only be said to have intended harm if and after they cause harm, ie once they have done what it is they are claimed to have intent to do? Not only is that strange reasoning it also seems that the word intent is being used differently than its standard meanings. For eg: intention - purpose - aim - design - object - view - goal These all rest on what is going on in the mind of the person defined to have an intent. It is like saying that if I enter a bookshop then this proves that I have an intent to buy a book. Except that I may not have any such intent. You may assume that that is my intention, but you cannot claim that your assumption has as yet been proven true in any meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 17, 2012 11:58:34 GMT
as i keep telling you, intent is proven by the action. intent does NOT mean that you have the conscious thought to do something. it simply means nothing more but that you do it. your breaking into my house proves that you intend to do harm. So if a person has not harmed the occupants of the house then they do not have the intent to harm? They can only be said to have intended harm if and after they cause harm, ie once they have done what it is they are claimed to have intent to do? Not only is that strange reasoning it also seems that the word intent is being used differently than its standard meanings. For eg: intention - purpose - aim - design - object - view - goal These all rest on what is going on in the mind of the person defined to have an intent. It is like saying that if I enter a bookshop then this proves that I have an intent to buy a book. Except that I may not have any such intent. You may assume that that is my intention, but you cannot claim that your assumption has as yet been proven true in any meaningful way. NO. it is not similar in any way. obviously, you may be entering the bookshop to just peruse and read. that is not a criminal activity. implied malice and presumed intent are legal terms, and ONLY apply to criminal activity. that is where you go wrong. you are trying to make grapes, watermelons. you cannot fit what something ordinary means into the law.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 17, 2012 12:07:41 GMT
NO. it is not similar in any way. obviously, you may be entering the bookshop to just peruse and read. that is not a criminal activity. implied malice and presumed intent are legal terms, and ONLY apply to criminal activity. that is where you go wrong. you are trying to make grapes, watermelons. you cannot fit what something ordinary means into the law. I don't have a problem with 'presumed' intent. 'presumed' is not 'proven'.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 17, 2012 12:27:19 GMT
the problem is that you have everything exactly backwards. it is the civilized society that recognizes that good people and property are worth more than trash, which is worth absolutely nothing. that is especially true with a system such as yours, which refuses to properly punish criminals at all. And as I keep telling you, I am not arguing with having a death penalty for theft per se. Though I do not agree with this notion and believe that punishment should at least vaguely fit the crime, that is by the by for now. Also the 'worth more' business is a false dichotomy really. Just because you put a criminal in jail rather than kill them, that does not mean that you are saying that the criminal is 'worth more' than their victim. It isn't any such statement. I am arguing that IF the penalty for theft is death then it should be for the courts to order this punishment after the person has been tried in said court. It is not for private citizens to play judge jury and executioner. That is the point of the legal system in the first place, an impartial determiner of guilt, rather than just letting citizens sort things out amongst themselves in some sort of anarchy. Rather than the uncivilised situation where I can kill your son because I claim he tried to snatch my pen. it is EXACTLY what you are saying. when a five year old child is raped and murdered, it is dead. not making the murderer dead also is obviously saying that its life is worth more than the child's.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 17, 2012 12:37:47 GMT
give us one, and don't try the stupid "it should be left to the courts nonsense", or the "it's a human being" idiocy it has to be RATIONAL Why is that stupid? I wonder if you would consider it stupid if I decided to kill your wife because I claim she was attempting to steal a pen from my pocket and so I decided to execute her. Or your son, my business rival, on a similar pretext. I wonder if you would prefer that they be proven guilty in a court of law rather than in a court of my say so, and if they are found guilty by the court then so be it, but if they have to die let it be as a result of a correct conviction after a fair trial by an impartial jury. I wonder also if they were found guilty of attempted pen theft whether you would prefer that they be punished with a more proportionate punishment that fits the actual attempted crime. you are still confused. one has nothing to do with the other. obviously, in your scenario, if the individual is arrested, and goes to trial, it is the job of a jury or judge to decide. that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. in the first place, it has been settled law in the united states since warren vs district of columbia in 1981 that the police do NOT have a duty to protect you. obviously, that means that the only one with a duty to protect you is YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 17, 2012 13:40:51 GMT
it is EXACTLY what you are saying. when a five year old child is raped and murdered, it is dead. not making the murderer dead also is obviously saying that its life is worth more than the child's. Would you similarly advocate raping a rapist else you are suggesting that the rapist's right to not be sexually violated is worth more than their victim's right to not be? Would you advocate burning down an arsonist's house else you are suggesting that their house is worth more than the house they burned down, or their right to have an unburnt down house is greater, or somesuch? Also how does this fit in with a stealer of property? The victim in this case isn't dead so how is not killing the thief tantamount to suggesting that the thief is 'worth more' than the victim. But as I have pointed out, you advocate killing the person outside of defence contexts. You even suggested that even if you have the drop on a burglar you should still pull the trigger anyway. It is not the defence contexts for which I say the defender is being judge jury and executioner, it is the punishment/revenge ones.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 10:50:32 GMT
NO. it is not similar in any way. obviously, you may be entering the bookshop to just peruse and read. that is not a criminal activity. implied malice and presumed intent are legal terms, and ONLY apply to criminal activity. that is where you go wrong. you are trying to make grapes, watermelons. you cannot fit what something ordinary means into the law. I don't have a problem with 'presumed' intent. 'presumed' is not 'proven'. yes, in this case, it IS proven. it's inherent. you can't even argue something that insane. you would get laughed out of court. once again, INTENT IS PROVEN BY THE ACTION. it has absolutely NOTHING to do with any thought process
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 10:54:45 GMT
it is EXACTLY what you are saying. when a five year old child is raped and murdered, it is dead. not making the murderer dead also is obviously saying that its life is worth more than the child's. Would you similarly advocate raping a rapist else you are suggesting that the rapist's right to not be sexually violated is worth more than their victim's right to not be? Would you advocate burning down an arsonist's house else you are suggesting that their house is worth more than the house they burned down, or their right to have an unburnt down house is greater, or somesuch? Also how does this fit in with a stealer of property? The victim in this case isn't dead so how is not killing the thief tantamount to suggesting that the thief is 'worth more' than the victim. But as I have pointed out, you advocate killing the person outside of defence contexts. You even suggested that even if you have the drop on a burglar you should still pull the trigger anyway. It is not the defence contexts for which I say the defender is being judge jury and executioner, it is the punishment/revenge ones. there is NO similarity with your examples, except a rapist should die. REALITY!! it is NOT what a thief steals. it deserves to die for violating you by breaking into your house. property value is of no importance. it just being in your house is more than justification for killing it. it has nothing to do with defence
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 18, 2012 11:54:58 GMT
INTENT IS PROVEN BY THE ACTION. it has absolutely NOTHING to do with any thought process So it is possible to prove intent where there might not have been any intent in the mind of the intruder? there is NO similarity with your examples, except a rapist should die. It is your reasoning that not killing a killer means that you are making a statement that their life is worth more than the person whose life they took. There is absolutely no reason why this kind of reasoning should be unique to not killing a killer. So not raping a rapist is to make the statement that the personal bodily integrity of the rapist is worth more than that of their victim. Except that is isn't, and nor is an equivalent statement made by not killing a murderer. So it can be about punishment/revenge then. In which case, if death is the appropriate punishment for home intrusion, it should be for the courts to decide guilt and carry out the death penalty. Rather than my say so that my business rival was in my home uninvited. Does this mean that you do not agree with on-the-spot summary execution when the theft or attempted theft occurs outside of the home?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 13:47:49 GMT
INTENT IS PROVEN BY THE ACTION. it has absolutely NOTHING to do with any thought process So it is possible to prove intent where there might not have been any intent in the mind of the intruder? It is your reasoning that not killing a killer means that you are making a statement that their life is worth more than the person whose life they took. There is absolutely no reason why this kind of reasoning should be unique to not killing a killer. So not raping a rapist is to make the statement that the personal bodily integrity of the rapist is worth more than that of their victim. Except that is isn't, and nor is an equivalent statement made by not killing a murderer. So it can be about punishment/revenge then. In which case, if death is the appropriate punishment for home intrusion, it should be for the courts to decide guilt and carry out the death penalty. Rather than my say so that my business rival was in my home uninvited. Does this mean that you do not agree with on-the-spot summary execution when the theft or attempted theft occurs outside of the home? there is NO necessity of proving intent at all, since the intent is proven by the act of breaking into the house. obviously, as i've explained several times, what is in the mind of the intruder has NO relevance. no one is talking about summary execution either. it is nothing more than defending your space and property.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 18, 2012 16:03:51 GMT
So this 'intent' is not 'intent' in the general sense of the word which rests on what is going on in the mind of the person said to intend X. It means something different altogether.
I thought you said that it had nothing to do with defence. And that was consistent with your earlier statements to the effect that you should shoot a thief regardless of whether you have the drop on them and so could just order them to put the pen down. This indeed having nothing to do with defence, but is punishment or revenge instead.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 18, 2012 19:23:52 GMT
Actually I think I see the problem. I have been taking 'X is proved true' to mean that it has been shown to be impossible that X is false. Whereas of course in a legal sense 'proven' means 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
So all that is being said is that intrusion proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is an intent to harm, which of course does not mean that it cannot be the case that there was no intent to harm. So sorry, my mistake on that one.
Of course whether intrusion does indicate beyond reasonable doubt an intention to harm the occupants, is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 18, 2012 21:59:56 GMT
It doesn't.
It merely indicates a heightened chance of that being the case.
And SYG (etc) offers you the right to presume harm is intended, and to use lethal force to protect yourself from that harm.
Where I think it's problematic is that it doesn't require you to have tried anything else before lethal force. It merely requires you to assess that nothing else will work - as far as I can see... ?? - and that's subjective.
So it's ''justified homicide'' based on a subjective assessment. Apparently, the majority of cases that have successfully used SYG(etc) as a defence have invovled only 2 people, one of them armed and one not. I think that raises doubt about how good this subjective assessment system really is.
Mind you, I think that statistic includes cases of a police officer killing a felon and we should presume that a police officer has an advanced ability to assess these situations.
(Glaring examples that show otherwise notwithstanding - exceptions that prove the rule etc...).
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 22:23:10 GMT
So this 'intent' is not 'intent' in the general sense of the word which rests on what is going on in the mind of the person said to intend X. It means something different altogether. I thought you said that it had nothing to do with defence. And that was consistent with your earlier statements to the effect that you should shoot a thief regardless of whether you have the drop on them and so could just order them to put the pen down. This indeed having nothing to do with defence, but is punishment or revenge instead. you were the one talking about defense, and thinking that you should only kill a punk in self defense. i said that self defense is NOT what it is about. i don't know where the hell you ever got the idea that self defense had anything to do with it. it is defending yourself, indeed, but it is defending your property, someone else, someone elses property, etc. all of the spin that you try to put on it just don't change the reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 22:25:45 GMT
Actually I think I see the problem. I have been taking 'X is proved true' to mean that it has been shown to be impossible that X is false. Whereas of course in a legal sense 'proven' means 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So all that is being said is that intrusion proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is an intent to harm, which of course does not mean that it cannot be the case that there was no intent to harm. So sorry, my mistake on that one. Of course whether intrusion does indicate beyond reasonable doubt an intention to harm the occupants, is another matter. NO, it is NOT about beyond a reasonable doubt. it is an absolute. what is so difficult to comprehend. WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE CRIMINAL'S MIND HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. intent is PROVEN by the action, NOT by what the fool is thinking. it's so simple.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 22:29:13 GMT
It doesn't. It merely indicates a heightened chance of that being the case. And SYG (etc) offers you the right to presume harm is intended, and to use lethal force to protect yourself from that harm. Where I think it's problematic is that it doesn't require you to have tried anything else before lethal force. It merely requires you to assess that nothing else will work - as far as I can see... ?? - and that's subjective. So it's ''justified homicide'' based on a subjective assessment. Apparently, the majority of cases that have successfully used SYG(etc) as a defence have invovled only 2 people, one of them armed and one not. I think that raises doubt about how good this subjective assessment system really is. Mind you, I think that statistic includes cases of a police officer killing a felon and we should presume that a police officer has an advanced ability to assess these situations. (Glaring examples that show otherwise notwithstanding - exceptions that prove the rule etc...). it doesn't require you to try anything else because there is NO rational reason to do so. what difference does it make whether the criminal is armed or not? in the first place, only an imbecile would wait and see if he was before killing it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 18, 2012 22:34:16 GMT
Actually I think I see the problem. I have been taking 'X is proved true' to mean that it has been shown to be impossible that X is false. Whereas of course in a legal sense 'proven' means 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So all that is being said is that intrusion proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is an intent to harm, which of course does not mean that it cannot be the case that there was no intent to harm. So sorry, my mistake on that one. Of course whether intrusion does indicate beyond reasonable doubt an intention to harm the occupants, is another matter. i'll give you another little example of how things work, in civilization. if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and the clerk dies of a heart attack, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. the fact that you did not intend to kill the clerk has NO relevance. if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and a cop shows up and kills your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should, be executed. the fact that you did not pull the trigger to kill your buddy has NO relevance to anything. if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and during the course of your getaway, you hit a pole and your buddy is killed, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. if you and your buddy break into my house, and i kill your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should, be executed. that is how it is in civilization
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 19, 2012 0:12:04 GMT
Eh? Surely the buddy is responsible for his or her own nefarious risk-taking?
Edit: Guess not! Found this case online: Tulsa woman shoots 2 intruders. One dies. The other is charged for his buddy's murder. Gets life (minimum 17 years.)
|
|