|
Post by Synonym on Jun 15, 2012 16:03:03 GMT
damn, you're dense. i just posted the law for you. where the hell do you see ANYTHING about an immediate threat to life or limb? I wasn't referring to any legal definition just making a moral statement. MORALLY, (IMO) the killing has to be a response to an immediate danger to life or limb in order to be called 'self-defence'. Otherwise it is punishment or revenge. Whether people should be allowed to kill for the latter reasons being left aside for the moment, they are not, morally, self-defence. what is so difficult to comprehend about the simple FACT that just breaking into someone's house proves your intent to harm them. whether or not you actually have that intent is relevant to absolutely NOTHING whatsoever. Presumably the perps intent has relevance as to whether the claimed proof of it actually is proof of what you just claimed it is. If an intruder has no intent to harm you then anything which supposedly 'proves' that they did is by definition false, and so not a proof after all. But even if there was an intent to harm your person, that doesn't make any killing 'self-defence' (in the moral sense, IMO). If you have the drop on them and they have their hands in the air, then pulling the trigger is not morally self-defence, it is punishment/revenge. But even if death is an appropriate punishment for vandalism or TV-theft, it should then be for the courts to carry out this sentence after they have found me guilty. It is not for private citizens to make these decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 15, 2012 16:09:35 GMT
I don't have to agree with the Texan definitions of self-defence, or anyother state or country's. The current law in one particular corner of the globe is not a moral authority. And I do not agree with a definition it if deliberately killing someone for spray-painting your fence comes under it.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 15, 2012 16:18:07 GMT
hardly hon. there are stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun, and even more stringent requirement for a concealed carry permit thankfully, more and more states are becoming civilized enough to comprehend that a pencil on my desk is worth more than a thief's life Even if the death penalty for pencil theft is the correct and civilised response, it will only be civilised if done properly, ie by a court following a fair trial. What is not civilised is allowing individual private citizens to appoint themselves judge jury and executioner. How simple it would be to bump someone off under your version of civilised law and order. Either encourage a business rival to pick up your pen or just put it in their hand after you have blown them away.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 16:52:58 GMT
I don't have to agree with the Texan definitions of self-defence, or anyother state or country's. The current law in one particular corner of the globe is not a moral authority. And I do not agree with a definition it if deliberately killing someone for spray-painting your fence comes under it. perhaps i have been a bit rough on you. i do realize that you are european, and as such, have never been taught morality, but only the idiocy of the politically correct lunatics. obviously, there is NOTHING immoral about the law in any way. what IS immoral, is the imbecilic thinking that the life of an individual who willfully chooses to be sub human is equal to that of a real person. this is the criminal mischief law. if you read the sections that i already put up, you will see that you can only kill a piece of shyt when it is committing criminal mischief at night § 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner: (1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner; (2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or (3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings, including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the tangible property of the owner.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 17:00:00 GMT
hardly hon. there are stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun, and even more stringent requirement for a concealed carry permit thankfully, more and more states are becoming civilized enough to comprehend that a pencil on my desk is worth more than a thief's life Even if the death penalty for pencil theft is the correct and civilised response, it will only be civilised if done properly, ie by a court following a fair trial. What is not civilised is allowing individual private citizens to appoint themselves judge jury and executioner. How simple it would be to bump someone off under your version of civilised law and order. Either encourage a business rival to pick up your pen or just put it in their hand after you have blown them away. where the hell do you get the allowing citizens to appoint themselves ANYTHING? what is so hard to comprehend about the simple reality that the law does NOTHING more than grant you your god given right to defend and protect your property?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 17:07:30 GMT
damn, you're dense. i just posted the law for you. where the hell do you see ANYTHING about an immediate threat to life or limb? I wasn't referring to any legal definition just making a moral statement. MORALLY, (IMO) the killing has to be a response to an immediate danger to life or limb in order to be called 'self-defence'. Otherwise it is punishment or revenge. Whether people should be allowed to kill for the latter reasons being left aside for the moment, they are not, morally, self-defence. Presumably the perps intent has relevance as to whether the claimed proof of it actually is proof of what you just claimed it is. If an intruder has no intent to harm you then anything which supposedly 'proves' that they did is by definition false, and so not a proof after all. But even if there was an intent to harm your person, that doesn't make any killing 'self-defence' (in the moral sense, IMO). If you have the drop on them and they have their hands in the air, then pulling the trigger is not morally self-defence, it is punishment/revenge. But even if death is an appropriate punishment for vandalism or TV-theft, it should then be for the courts to carry out this sentence after they have found me guilty. It is not for private citizens to make these decisions. you certainly have the right to hold any opinion that you wish. for many years, the majority of people on earth were of the opinion that the earth was flat. Presumably the perps intent has relevance as to whether the claimed proof of it actually is proof of what you just claimed it is. If an intruder has no intent to harm you then anything which supposedly 'proves' that they did is by definition false, and so not a proof after all. i already explained to you that the fact that you break into my house conclusively proves your intent to harm me under the law. it does NOT require that you have any conscious thought about it whatsoever. your actions prove your intent, and your actions are the ONLY proof needed. if you told a thousand of your friends that you were going to make sure and not hurt anyone when you break into my house, THAT proves nothing. when you break into my house, you have proven otherwise. why is that fact so difficult to comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 15, 2012 19:36:08 GMT
what IS immoral, is the imbecilic thinking that the life of an individual who willfully chooses to be sub human is equal to that of a real person. this is the criminal mischief law. if you read the sections that i already put up, you will see that you can only kill a piece of shyt when it is committing criminal mischief at night I haven't been arguing about whether it is right that theft deserves death, I have been arguing with the notion that it is for private citizens to decide guilt and carry out punishment unilaterally. P.S. Why the 'at night' qualification? If a pencil thief deserves death does it matter what time of say they try to steal it? What have I said that is 'politically correct'? From several of your comments including how you should shoot an intruder even if you have the drop on them. It isn't 'defence' then it is punishment. As I said: Shooting someone who you have the drop on who has their hands in their air is not 'defence' it is punishment. What I am having difficulty is with the concept of a proof that a person who has no intent to harm, has an intent to harm. If you were to say that the act of breaking in should allow you to assume that the perp has intent to harm, that would be one thing. Otherwise anything which can prove something that may not be true, to be true, isn't a proof.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 21:50:21 GMT
what IS immoral, is the imbecilic thinking that the life of an individual who willfully chooses to be sub human is equal to that of a real person. this is the criminal mischief law. if you read the sections that i already put up, you will see that you can only kill a piece of shyt when it is committing criminal mischief at night I haven't been arguing about whether it is right that theft deserves death, I have been arguing with the notion that it is for private citizens to decide guilt and carry out punishment unilaterally. P.S. Why the 'at night' qualification? If a pencil thief deserves death does it matter what time of say they try to steal it? What have I said that is 'politically correct'? From several of your comments including how you should shoot an intruder even if you have the drop on them. It isn't 'defence' then it is punishment. As I said: Shooting someone who you have the drop on who has their hands in their air is not 'defence' it is punishment. What I am having difficulty is with the concept of a proof that a person who has no intent to harm, has an intent to harm. If you were to say that the act of breaking in should allow you to assume that the perp has intent to harm, that would be one thing. Otherwise anything which can prove something that may not be true, to be true, isn't a proof. it is only theft and criminal mischief that require the crime to occur at night in order to kill the criminal. in the case of my pencil, obviously, the thief would have had to break into my house in order to get the pencil, and that is burglary. you can kill it anytime in a burglary. i don't know how much plainer it can be. you obviously have no concept of what intent is. perhaps, we'll try it like this. if you get drunk, and get into your car, and kill someone, you can be convicted of second degree murder, because it is implied malice. everyone is sure that you didn't consciously intend to go out and kill someone, but, the simple fact that you drove your car knowing that it was possible that someone COULD be killed, makes you guilty of murder, with malice, and you go away for fifteen to twenty-five years. NOW do you comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 15, 2012 21:52:05 GMT
it is defending yourself, and your property. as i've said, repeatedly, all that is necessary is for the punk to break into the house. once it is in the house, there is NO rational, legal, or moral reason not to kill it
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 16, 2012 9:29:16 GMT
Poor Santa.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 16, 2012 11:16:35 GMT
it is only theft and criminal mischief that require the crime to occur at night in order to kill the criminal. in the case of my pencil, obviously, the thief would have had to break into my house in order to get the pencil, and that is burglary. you can kill it anytime in a burglary. Is theft distinct from burglary? If theft means something like stealing from a person in the street, then again, I do not see what difference it makes to you what time of day it is. Whether the incident where you claim that the person was attempting to steal the pen from your shirt pocket occurs at night or day, what difference does it make to your arguments? And maybe the law does say that you can kill a burglar at anytime. This is not the issue. The issue is that in some circumstances such a killing can qualify for 'defence', and for others it can not and becomes 'punishment'/'revenge' instead. As I keep saying, it is not for private citizens to kill in the latter contexts. Not according to any civilised system of law and order anyway. Here the malice seems to be the knowledge that your actions could be dangerous but either not caring or being wilfully reckless towards other people's lives. So it is not a case of deciding that a person's actions qualify for 'malice' when they don't, as they do. In the intent to harm case however, it is being decided that a person has an intent to harm when possibly they do not. And it is claimed that it can be proven that they have an intent to harm when they possibly do not, making it a false proof.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 16, 2012 11:19:53 GMT
it is defending yourself, and your property. as i've said, repeatedly, all that is necessary is for the punk to break into the house. once it is in the house, there is NO rational, legal, or moral reason not to kill it But there are rational reasons for not allowing private citizens to be on-the-spot unilateral judge jury and executioner.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 16, 2012 12:45:45 GMT
Poor Santa. santa is an invited guest
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 16, 2012 12:47:40 GMT
it is defending yourself, and your property. as i've said, repeatedly, all that is necessary is for the punk to break into the house. once it is in the house, there is NO rational, legal, or moral reason not to kill it 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
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 16, 2012 12:55:36 GMT
it is only theft and criminal mischief that require the crime to occur at night in order to kill the criminal. in the case of my pencil, obviously, the thief would have had to break into my house in order to get the pencil, and that is burglary. you can kill it anytime in a burglary. Is theft distinct from burglary? If theft means something like stealing from a person in the street, then again, I do not see what difference it makes to you what time of day it is. Whether the incident where you claim that the person was attempting to steal the pen from your shirt pocket occurs at night or day, what difference does it make to your arguments? And maybe the law does say that you can kill a burglar at anytime. This is not the issue. The issue is that in some circumstances such a killing can qualify for 'defence', and for others it can not and becomes 'punishment'/'revenge' instead. As I keep saying, it is not for private citizens to kill in the latter contexts. Not according to any civilised system of law and order anyway. Here the malice seems to be the knowledge that your actions could be dangerous but either not caring or being wilfully reckless towards other people's lives. So it is not a case of deciding that a person's actions qualify for 'malice' when they don't, as they do. In the intent to harm case however, it is being decided that a person has an intent to harm when possibly they do not. And it is claimed that it can be proven that they have an intent to harm when they possibly do not, making it a false proof. 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. there is absolutely NO difference in the scenarios at all. 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. what you may be thinking has NO relevance whatsoever. how is that so hard to understand? it's just simple reality
|
|