• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead

Unrepresented said:
It is unilateral when one person is authorized to kill instead of granting the person a trial by jury of peers. If they're an authorized government official doing this it is even more immoral IMO. If a person deserves justice, it should be determined through the justice system.
Click to expand...

So you consider it more "moral" to allow crime and killing of police and innocent people...not allowing them to defend themselves...and then attempting to bring the perpetrator to "justice" later?


If so, please refer back to my words in parentheses in my previous post, and also my statement that I'm very glad few, if any, other Americans agree with you.
 
Lursa said:
So you consider it more "moral" to allow crime and killing of police and innocent people...not allowing them to defend themselves...and then attempting to bring the perpetrator to "justice" later?


If so, please refer back to my words in parentheses in my previous post, and also my statement that I'm very glad few, if any, other Americans agree with you.
Click to expand...
Killing someone isn't defending yourself. It's killing someone.
 
Unrepresented said:
If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.
Click to expand...

The best procedure would be for the cop to regain control of the weapon and shoot the attacker, wouldn't it? What's the alternative?
 
Unrepresented said:
Killing someone isn't defending yourself. It's killing someone.
Click to expand...

I dont care if it is done to protect myself or my family or other *innocent* people that didnt initiate any lethal threat.

You are welcome to act the way you want. Luckily our legal system supports killing those that maliciously attempt to kill others.

I'm not afraid of the word 'killing,' obviously. And you arent on any High Ground using it to support your selfish position.

(And you should look up the definition of the word 'defending'. If it requires killing to accomplish a defense, then it certainly is defense and it certainly includes killing.)
 
Dittohead not! said:
The best procedure would be for the cop to regain control of the weapon and shoot the attacker, wouldn't it? What's the alternative?
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
What's the alternative?
Click to expand...
The alternative is less than lethal force which includes everything from seeking shelter up to but not including killing a citizen.

Lursa said:
I dont care if it is done to protect myself or my family or other *innocent* people that didnt initiate any lethal threat.

You are welcome to act the way you want. Luckily our legal system supports killing those that maliciously attempt to kill others.

I'm not afraid of the word 'killing,' obviously. And you arent on any High Ground using it to support your selfish position.

(And you should look up the definition of the word 'defending'. If it requires killing to accomplish a defense, then it certainly is defense and it certainly includes killing.)
Click to expand...
If citizens must be killed, then that should be determined through due process. Law enforcement killing citizens in the streets denies them due process. Citizens killing other citizens is no different.
 
Unrepresented said:
The alternative is less than lethal force which includes everything from seeking shelter up to but not including killing a citizen.


If citizens must be killed, then that should be determined through due process. Law enforcement killing citizens in the streets denies them due process. Citizens killing other citizens is no different.
Click to expand...
Um, NO! That's not the job.
 
j-mac said:
Um, NO! That's not the job.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing what the job is, I'm arguing what we should want for a consistent application of justice for all citizens.
 
Unrepresented said:
Killing someone isn't defending yourself. It's killing someone.
Click to expand...
Killing someone is either murder, self-defense, or an accident.

Sometimes killing someone CAN be defending yourself. But you better be damn sure or your ass is in trouble...
 
The Mark said:
Killing someone is either murder, self-defense, or an accident.

Sometimes killing someone CAN be defending yourself. But you better be damn sure or your ass is in trouble...
Click to expand...

Right. And, when someone goes for a gun, you have to be damn sure in a split second.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right. And, when someone goes for a gun, you have to be damn sure in a split second.
Click to expand...
Luckily I've never been in that situation...

Especially since I have no gun of my own atm...
 
The Mark said:
Killing someone is either murder, self-defense, or an accident.

Sometimes killing someone CAN be defending yourself. But you better be damn sure or your ass is in trouble...
Click to expand...

According to our laws yes. According to common sense, killing someone is an offensive act, not defensive.
 
Unrepresented said:
The alternative is less than lethal force which includes everything from seeking shelter up to but not including killing a citizen.
Click to expand...

Again, you are welcome to your personal selfish perspective.

Not every situation allows someone to escape or use non-lethal means to stop an attack. Do you believe that this is always possible? Please tell us.

I mean, I guess I could stand there and watch a woman about to be raped and call and then wait for the police. If I get involved and cant use lethal force if necessary to stop the attack, then I would be killed (I'm a woman, physical force isnt going to stop him). Not a problem for you if I die, obviously. How would you feel if that was your daughter? Ok to wait until the police arrive and maybe or maybe not catch the attacker after the fact? I mean...hey, I was a witness and I'll help testify against him in court.

That's ok, right?
 
Unrepresented said:
According to our laws yes. According to common sense, killing someone is an offensive act, not defensive.
Click to expand...

No that is a completely wrong statement. Killing someone in self defense under our laws is not an offensive act. As I said, you seem to need a dictionary for the word defense. Offense implies initiation of aggression as well.
 
Unrepresented said:
If citizens must be killed, then that should be determined through due process. Law enforcement killing citizens in the streets denies them due process. Citizens killing other citizens is no different.
Click to expand...

So you are a supporter of the death penalty then?
 
Lursa said:
Again, you are welcome to your personal selfish perspective.

Not every situation allows someone to escape or use non-lethal means to stop an attack. Do you believe that this is always possible? Please tell us.

I mean, I guess I could stand there and watch a woman about to be raped and call and then wait for the police. If I get involved and cant use lethal force if necessary to stop the attack, then I would be killed (I'm a woman, physical force isnt going to stop him). Not a problem for you if I die, obviously. How would you feel if that was your daughter? Ok to wait until the police arrive and maybe or maybe not catch the attacker after the fact? I mean...hey, I was a witness and I'll help testify against him in court.

That's ok, right?
Click to expand...
I fall to see how it's selfish to want less citizens killed.

Lursa said:
No that is a completely wrong statement. Killing someone in self defense under our laws is not an offensive act. As I said, you seem to need a dictionary for the word defense.
Click to expand...
Under our law, yes. Our laws are inconsistent in their application of justice to all citizens.
Lursa said:
So you are a supporter of the death penalty then?
Click to expand...
It's not a hot button issue for me, but I generally lean against it.
 
Unrepresented said:
According to our laws yes. According to common sense, killing someone is an offensive act, not defensive.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

If someone is attacking you, or another person you want to protect, killing them is defensive.
 
Unrepresented said:
I fall to see how it's selfish to want less citizens killed.
Click to expand...

Because you desire changes in law that take the right of self defense away from the rest of us. You would have us penalized for defending ourselves if lethal force was necessary. That is selfish.
 
The Mark said:
I disagree.

If someone is attacking you, or another person you want to protect, killing them is defensive.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Because you desire changes in law that take the right of self defense away from the rest of us. You would have us penalized for defending ourselves if lethal force was necessary. That is selfish.
Click to expand...
Your definition of "selfish" is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Lethal force is never necessary. It's more convenient, it might feel better, but it's neither necessary nor is it defensive. It's primal and not in keeping with the more forward thinking justice system we should have.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm not arguing what the job is, I'm arguing what we should want for a consistent application of justice for all citizens.
Click to expand...
Removing the right of self defense for police is just plain ridiculous.
 
Unrepresented said:
Your definition of "selfish" is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Lethal force is never necessary. It's more convenient, it might feel better, but it's neither necessary nor is it defensive. It's primal and not in keeping with the more forward thinking justice system we should have.
Click to expand...
Simply not true.
 
Unrepresented said:
Your definition of "selfish" is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Lethal force is never necessary. It's more convenient, it might feel better, but it's neither necessary nor is it defensive. It's primal and not in keeping with the more forward thinking justice system we should have.
Click to expand...

Of course it's selfish. Let's face it, you have a very abnormal usage of words. You have improperly defined 'defense' here in this thread.

You would choose to take a life-SAVING measure from other people. Of course it's necessary for individuals that are threatened by someone attacking them. To deny that shows a very poor grasp of reality. That you dont like it...we get. As I said, we are grateful that the great majority of Americans and our law makers recognized the right to self-defense, up to and including lethal force.

And of course it 'feels better' to be alive rather than dead. You avoided answering my question regarding using such lethal force to save your daughter from rape. I guess the one that would 'feel better' in that example is the rapist.

And I see nothing wrong with primal. Sex is primal. It can also be misused and cause harm. But for the great majority of people, it's very enjoyable. Lots of ****ed up repressed people tried to suppress that for hundreds of years. But it's a basic right also and that certainly didnt work out for them.

Ooo...speaking of primal...maternal instinct! One of the strongest intincts on the planet. And when necessary, that incredibly primal instinct leads mothers to kill to defend their young. Including humans. Go moms go!
 
Last edited:
Unrepresented said:
I fall to see how it's selfish to want less citizens killed.
Click to expand...

^^This was your answer to this:

Lursa said:
I mean, I guess I could stand there and watch a woman about to be raped and call and then wait for the police. If I get involved and cant use lethal force if necessary to stop the attack, then I would be killed (I'm a woman, physical force isnt going to stop him). Not a problem for you if I die, obviously. How would you feel if that was your daughter? Ok to wait until the police arrive and maybe or maybe not catch the attacker after the fact? I mean...hey, I was a witness and I'll help testify against him in court.

That's ok, right?
Click to expand...

So, how about an honest answer?
 
Unrepresented said:
If a police officer is overpowered and has his weapon turned against him there are procedural issues that should be addressed.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you get unlucky. My uncle was one of those exact cops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom