• 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

Fair enough. I was referring to the original 10 in the Bill of Rights, especially the 6th.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

You're denying the accused all of those rights by killing them in the name of "self defense." "Self defense" is criminal prosecution without access to any of our Constitutional rights.

As you say, "everyone has a right to life" even the people committing what we believe to be criminal acts.
So, if there's any doubt as to whether I was actually defending myself, I get a trial by jury. That's fair.

And, if I don't shoot, then the guy who does gets a trial for my murder.

Personally, I'd rather be still in the flesh pleading self defense than just a spirit hoping that they hang the (bleep!) who killed me.

Wouldn't you?
 
This is where your naive theories clash with reality. In that video, you are defending the wrong side. Everyone can see what happened-what drives you to defend thugs?
I'm sorry that you don't believe that everyone is entitled to Constitutional protections and justice.
Do the people being attacked have a right to life? If so, how do they retain that right?

(And if they could escape, they would not be getting attacked)
People being attacked deserve that right as well. They should settle it through our judicial system which is intended to rectify violation of law.
So are you going to address this, 3 specific real life situations and have the moral courage to plainly support your belief: that yes, it is better that each suffer the consequences of their attacks rather than use lethal force to survive?
Adding violence and in justice to a violent encounter isn't decreasing violence or injustice. It's adding to it.

You may feel the ends justify the means, but that's not justice.
So, if there's any doubt as to whether I was actually defending myself, I get a trial by jury. That's fair.

And, if I don't shoot, then the guy who does gets a trial for my murder.

Personally, I'd rather be still in the flesh pleading self defense than just a spirit hoping that they hang the (bleep!) who killed me.

Wouldn't you?
Again, "kill or be killed" situations don't really exist much outside of suspense films.
 
I'm sorry that you don't believe that everyone is entitled to Constitutional protections and justice.

People being attacked deserve that right as well. They should settle it through our judicial system which is intended to rectify violation of law.

Adding violence and in justice to a violent encounter isn't decreasing violence or injustice. It's adding to it.

You may feel the ends justify the means, but that's not justice.

Again, "kill or be killed" situations don't really exist much outside of suspense films.

I believe that the right to life supersedes justice. I believe it supersedes all the other rights. And the Constitution also protects my right to life, not just your twisted version of 'justice.' Otherwise, I wouldnt have the right, under the law, to self-defense.

So I would absolutely choose MY life over justice for a malicious person intent on doing me harm.

And you also have admitted that you would put 'justice' above your daughter's life. Right? Is it possible to get a yes or no answer here or still hiding?

Altho you still do not have the strength of your own convictions to come out and say that you believe it preferable that the police allow themselves to be bludgeoned to death with a shovel and run over by a car. Why is that?

And again you deliberately lie....you have been given 3 real life situations here where lethal force was/would be necessary. They are not rare. Or more likely you delude yourself into believing it because otherwise you cannot support your belief.
 
I believe that the right to life supersedes justice. I believe it supersedes all the other rights. And the Constitution also protects my right to life, not just your twisted version of 'justice.' Otherwise, I wouldnt have the right, under the law, to self-defense.

So I would absolutely choose MY life over justice for a malicious person intent on doing me harm.

And you also have admitted that you would put 'justice' above your daughter's life. Right? Is it possible to get a yes or no answer here or still hiding?

Altho you still do not have the strength of your own convictions to come out and say that you believe it preferable that the police allow themselves to be bludgeoned to death with a shovel and run over by a car. Why is that?

And again you deliberately lie....you have been given 3 real life situations here where lethal force was/would be necessary. They are not rare. Or more likely you delude yourself into believing it because otherwise you cannot support your belief.
You're arguing that the right to your perceived risk to life supersedes justice for someone else's life, and you're calling me selfish.
 
You're arguing that the right to your perceived risk to life supersedes justice for someone else's life, and you're calling me selfish.

Is there another way to identify risk other than to perceive it?
 
Is there another way to identify risk other than to perceive it?
There is a difference between the individual's perception of risk and the actual risk. While absolute objectivity may not be possible, the individual involved will almost certainly be more subjective in their perceptions.
 
There is a difference between the individual's perception of risk and the actual risk. While absolute objectivity may not be possible, the individual involved will almost certainly be more subjective in their perceptions.

:shrug: the individual involved has only their perceptions (all you have, incidentally, is yours).

So. How else should a person in a potentially threatening situation assess risk if not by perceiving it or not? If someone slams into my house holds a gun to my wifes head and demands my money or her life, should my internal thought process be "Now hold on a second, let's not jump to conclusions. He may just be delivering the pizza."? Of course not. I perceive risk and I will react accordingly.

Perception is all you've got. If we were unable as a species to make snap judgements regarding perceived risk and act on them, we would not have survived.
 
:shrug: the individual involved has only their perceptions (all you have, incidentally, is yours).

So. How else should a person in a potentially threatening situation assess risk if not by perceiving it or not? If someone slams into my house holds a gun to my wifes head and demands my money or her life, should my internal thought process be "Now hold on a second, let's not jump to conclusions. He may just be delivering the pizza."? Of course not. I perceive risk and I will react accordingly.

Perception is all you've got. If we were unable as a species to make snap judgements regarding perceived risk and act on them, we would not have survived.
If a man has a gun to your wife's head, you already are at his mercy. Your role as negotiator has already passed.
 
If a man has a gun to your wife's head, you already are at his mercy. Your role as negotiator has already passed.

"role as negotiator"? We are talking about whether or not one can perceive threats, or has other mechanisms available.
 
"role as negotiator"? We are talking about whether or not one can perceive threats, or has other mechanisms available.
You're limited to your perception of whether or not he's bluffing, which will be very biased, but even so, you're:

A) not defending yourself

B) not really able to do anything if he had a gun to your wife's head.
 
You're limited to your perception of whether or not he's bluffing, which will be very biased, but even so, you're:

A) not defending yourself

B) not really able to do anything if he had a gun to your wife's head.

Oh I intend to kill him if possible. And I will do this even in the knowledge that many crimes committed with guns, the gun isn't in condition 1 - no round in chamber. But if I get the chance I'm hitting him in the T box.

My perception of the risk leads to my decision-making.

Where you are hung up here is that my perception (very likely serious risk) is probably correct, given the factors described. Earlier you were trying (I think) to suggest that soemeone's perception was wrong, but instead you accidentally aimed at perception as a means of weighing risk.
 
Oh I intend to kill him if possible. And I will do this even in the knowledge that many crimes committed with guns, the gun isn't in condition 1 - no round in chamber. But if I get the chance I'm hitting him in the T box.

My perception of the risk leads to my decision-making.

Where you are hung up here is that my perception (very likely serious risk) is probably correct, given the factors described. Earlier you were trying (I think) to suggest that soemeone's perception was wrong, but instead you accidentally aimed at perception as a means of weighing risk.
I'm not claiming there's no validity to perceptions, but there's greater validity to less subjective views.

Also, it's still not "self defense" if you're killing a man who's not attacking you. You also don't have much choice as to what you can do if your wife has a gun to her head. You are at a significant tactical disadvantage.
 
but if it's still in his pants, and mine is in my hand, there's nothing to negotiate.
Then you're not in a kill or be killed situation. Him being in possession of a firearm makes him no greater need of being killed than you being in possession of a firearm with intentions to kill him.
 
I'm not claiming there's no validity to perceptions, but there's greater validity to less subjective views.

Also, it's still not "self defense" if you're killing a man who's not attacking you. You also don't have much choice as to what you can do if your wife has a gun to her head. You are at a significant tactical disadvantage.


However, in the case of the subject of this thread, the man WAS attacking, with his car. He was stopped.
 
10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment is largely usurped by the 14th.
However, in the case of the subject of this thread, the man WAS attacking, with his car. He was stopped.
There have been a half dozen cases discussed in this thread several of which are completely made up, nearly impossible and almost certainly improbable. I was starting one of the latter in this response.
 
1. The 10th Amendment is largely usurped by the 14th.

2. There have been a half dozen cases discussed in this thread several of which are completely made up, nearly impossible and almost certainly improbable. I was starting one of the latter in this response.

1. You'll have to explain that one....

2. You should then stick to the topic of the thread.
 
Then you're not in a kill or be killed situation. Him being in possession of a firearm makes him no greater need of being killed than you being in possession of a firearm with intentions to kill him.

If he's in my house and going for a gun, then he's in need of being killed.
 
1. You'll have to explain that one....

2. You should then stick to the topic of the thread.
1) The fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans the same federally protected rights. The lack of a stated right to "self defense" suggests that it clearly wasn't the priority to the founders that fair and equal due process was.

2) I'm trying to be respectful of the other posters.
If he's in my house and going for a gun, then he's in need of being killed.
I disagree with castle doctrines.
 
1) The fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans the same federally protected rights. The lack of a stated right to "self defense" suggests that it clearly wasn't the priority to the founders that fair and equal due process was.

2) I'm trying to be respectful of the other posters.

I disagree with castle doctrines.

I know you do.
Nevertheless, I do have the right of self defense within my own home.
Outside of it, too.

and the 14th. Amendment doesn't take that right from me or anyone else.
 
1) The fourteenth Amendment guarantees all Americans the same federally protected rights. The lack of a stated right to "self defense" suggests that it clearly wasn't the priority to the founders that fair and equal due process was.

2) I'm trying to be respectful of the other posters.


1. Where in the 14th amendment does it say that anyone has a right to kill police in order to evade arrest?

2. Stick to the topic, and you will be.
 
I know you do.
Nevertheless, I do have the right of self defense within my own home.
Outside of it, too.

and the 14th. Amendment doesn't take that right from me or anyone else.
You still haven't provided any documentation supporting "self defense" as a right by any of our basic founding documents.
 
You still haven't provided any documentation supporting "self defense" as a right by any of our basic founding documents.

Here you go.

Now, are you going to still try to argue that we don't have the right of self defense in the US? Let's see some documentation of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom