• 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

If someone wants to kill me, someone will kill me. I can't prevent it. A gun on my hip won't protect me, it doesn't make me bulletproof. Killing people won't make me bulletproof either.

And you think others should adopt this attitude why?
 
1. Everything posted on this board amounts to the opinions of people with no real power. I'm just another voicing a concern from conflicts I perceive in our application of justice.

2. I don't own a gun, so that's an unlikely event.
1. and in some cases, that's a really good thing.

2. Impossible, in fact. If you really were in a kill or be killed situation, which, as you said, is unlikely, then you would wind up dead.

But, the OP was about cops who actually were in a kill or be killed situation. Were they unarmed, then they would have been dead also, and without a trial or having even been accused of a crime.
 
It's a matter of studying and applying understanding. We've limited the escalation of many things in society through methods such as building codes and medical research. We don't even appreciate that things used to escalate, because we've addressed them and prevent moments of tragedy through planning, testing, and inspection. There's no reason that we can't apply this towards human interactions.

It certainly is not in keeping with the violence prone nature of humans, I agree. That doesn't mean it's unreachable.

If someone wants to kill me, someone will kill me. I can't prevent it. A gun on my hip won't protect me, it doesn't make me bulletproof. Killing people won't make me bulletproof either.

It's 100% unreachable. No government is going to deny their citizens the right to kill an attacker who is killing them. It's quite frankly, the most hilariously insane theory I've heard in a while.
 
And you think others should adopt this attitude why?
Because it's in keeping with my reading of the Constitution and with a happier, more peaceful society in general.

1. and in some cases, that's a really good thing.

2. Impossible, in fact. If you really were in a kill or be killed situation, which, as you said, is unlikely, then you would wind up dead.

But, the OP was about cops who actually were in a kill or be killed situation. Were they unarmed, then they would have been dead also, and without a trial or having even been accused of a crime.

1. No argument. I'm not claiming to be immune from advocating bad policy either. None of us are anywhere near the technocrats I'd prefer running things.

2. Virtually every car accident is preventable with sufficient implementation of defensive driving techniques. We accept them because it's too easy to chalk them up to fate, or the other guy when both drivers likely bare some responsibility. If we approached "self defense" Even though the guy on front of us slammed on their brakes unexpectedly, it's still our obligation to maintain a safe following distance.

If we as individuals and a society approached self defense as more than simply carrying a last moment strategy on our hip this would be virtually impossible.
It's 100% unreachable. No government is going to deny their citizens the right to kill an attacker who is killing them. It's quite frankly, the most hilariously insane theory I've heard in a while.
The government already denies your ability to kill every other moment of your life, this is simply a small boundary shift.
 
Because it's in keeping with my reading of the Constitution and with a happier, more peaceful society in general.

Too bad...We don't think like you, and don't want your way of doing things...
 
Because it's in keeping with my reading of the Constitution and with a happier, more peaceful society in general.



1. No argument. I'm not claiming to be immune from advocating bad policy either. None of us are anywhere near the technocrats I'd prefer running things.

2. Virtually every car accident is preventable with sufficient implementation of defensive driving techniques. We accept them because it's too easy to chalk them up to fate, or the other guy when both drivers likely bare some responsibility. If we approached "self defense" Even though the guy on front of us slammed on their brakes unexpectedly, it's still our obligation to maintain a safe following distance.

If we as individuals and a society approached self defense as more than simply carrying a last moment strategy on our hip this would be virtually impossible.

The government already denies your ability to kill every other moment of your life, this is simply a small boundary shift.

Now you're just making up lies, I never stated that. I stated the government authorizes you to kill if you are being killed.

I'm beginnig to think you're in junior high. Am I correct?
 
Because it's in keeping with my reading of the Constitution and with a happier, more peaceful society in general.



1. No argument. I'm not claiming to be immune from advocating bad policy either. None of us are anywhere near the technocrats I'd prefer running things.

2. Virtually every car accident is preventable with sufficient implementation of defensive driving techniques. We accept them because it's too easy to chalk them up to fate, or the other guy when both drivers likely bare some responsibility. If we approached "self defense" Even though the guy on front of us slammed on their brakes unexpectedly, it's still our obligation to maintain a safe following distance.

If we as individuals and a society approached self defense as more than simply carrying a last moment strategy on our hip this would be virtually impossible.

The government already denies your ability to kill every other moment of your life, this is simply a small boundary shift.

Car accident?

When you use your car as a weapon to deliberately run over people, that's not a car accident.
 
Too bad...We don't think like you, and don't want your way of doing things...
I get that. We're many pages worth of posts into this discussion echoing your view.;)

Now you're just making up lies, I never stated that. I stated the government authorizes you to kill if you are being killed.

I'm beginnig to think you're in junior high. Am I correct?

The government currently authorizes you to kill in a number of very limited situations which vary from state to state. I'm simply suggesting reducing that very limited number of situations to even less situations.
Car accident?

When you use your car as a weapon to deliberately run over people, that's not a car accident.
It's an analogy. The analogy works in the sense that there are two people encountering each other with potentially deadly weapons and with effective strategy no lives need to be lost as a result of multicar accidents.
 
I get that. We're many pages worth of posts into this discussion echoing your view.;)



The government currently authorizes you to kill in a number of very limited situations which vary from state to state. I'm simply suggesting reducing that very limited number of situations to even less situations.

It's an analogy. The analogy works in the sense that there are two people encountering each other with potentially deadly weapons and with effective strategy no lives need to be lost as a result of multicar accidents.

We know what you're suggesting. You want the MURDERER to have MORE rights, and the victim to have less rights to defend themselves. You've said it a million times. We get it dude.
 
We know what you're suggesting. You want the MURDERER to have MORE rights, and the victim to have less rights to defend themselves. You've said it a million times. We get it dude.
I want them both to have the same rights. They're both citizens, neither is convicted of a crime, they are both entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in addition to their Constitutional rights until denied by the justice system.
 
I want them both to have the same rights. They're both citizens, neither is convicted of a crime, they are both entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in addition to their Constitutional rights until denied by the justice system.
That's where you are insanely wrong. Someone in the commission of a murder forfeits their rights immediately. That is exactly why you are legally allowed to kill them. The victim has ALL of the righs in that scenario, and the murderer has zero. They would be lucky to live if there was a cop or armed citizen around.

Thank god that the world doesn't think like this. Why do you have such support for murderers? Do I dare ask why you wish the victim to die when they are attacked just so the murderer can live?
 
That's where you are insanely wrong. Someone in the commission of a murder forfeits their rights immediately. That is exactly why you are legally allowed to kill them. The victim has ALL of the righs in that scenario, and the murderer has zero. They would be lucky to live if there was a cop or armed citizen around.

Thank god that the world doesn't think like this. Why do you have such support for murderers? Do I dare ask why you wish the victim to die when they are attacked just so the murderer can live?
I want them both to live. There's a consistent false dichotomy being argued that only one party can survive this encounter of two people.
 
I want them both to live. There's a consistent false dichotomy being argued that only one party can survive this encounter of two people.

A murderer's job is to murder the person they are murdering. Their sole purpose is to take the life of someone else. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'm just glad the entire world shares my views, and no one shares yours. For the sake of humanity-otherwise, the murderers would have easy pickins.
 
I want them both to have the same rights. They're both citizens, neither is convicted of a crime, they are both entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in addition to their Constitutional rights until denied by the justice system.

With that in mind...

When one of the citizens attempts to deprive the other of their life.... should they be permitted to do so... IN THAT MOMENT, because they have not had a trial yet to be determined guilty? Or should the at-risk individual be permitted to defend themselves against the attempt on their life, even through means of matching deadly force with deadly force in order to do so?
 
A murderer's job is to murder the person they are murdering. Their sole purpose is to take the life of someone else. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'm just glad the entire world shares my views, and no one shares yours. For the sake of humanity-otherwise, the murderers would have easy pickins.
A murderer is not a murderer until recognized as such by the state, until then they are a citizen and protected by the same rights as all citizens.

With that in mind...

When one of the citizens attempts to deprive the other of their life.... should they be permitted to do so... IN THAT MOMENT, because they have not had a trial yet to be determined guilty? Or should the at-risk individual be permitted to defend themselves against the attempt on their life, even through means of matching deadly force with deadly force in order to do so?

That's basically been the premise we've been discussing. My viewpoint is that the state is the arbiter of justice. Interference, even well meaning, is still interference. The ends don't justify the means for citizens to deny life to other citizens without trial.
 
That's basically been the premise we've been discussing. My viewpoint is that the state is the arbiter of justice. Interference, even well meaning, is still interference. The ends don't justify the means for citizens to deny life to other citizens without trial.
Therefore..

You are stating a citizen does not have the right to defend themselves against a lethal threat against them, and thus must allow themselves to be killed by someone who is willing to kill them.


That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
 
A murderer is not a murderer until recognized as such by the state, until then they are a citizen and protected by the same rights as all citizens.



That's basically been the premise we've been discussing. My viewpoint is that the state is the arbiter of justice. Interference, even well meaning, is still interference. The ends don't justify the means for citizens to deny life to other citizens without trial.

Cite your sources for that outrageous claim. Someone can shoot someone dead in the middle of mardi gras, that makes them a murderer the moment they pull the trigger. The legal status is irrelevant until there is a trial, assuming that idiot makes it out alive.
 
Therefore..

You are stating a citizen does not have the right to defend themselves against a lethal threat against them, and thus must allow themselves to be killed by someone who is willing to kill them.


That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
You can defend yourself, but your defenses should be defense. Shooting someone isn't defense.

Cite your sources for that outrageous claim. Someone can shoot someone dead in the middle of mardi gras, that makes them a murderer the moment they pull the trigger. The legal status is irrelevant until there is a trial, assuming that idiot makes it out alive.

The legal status is significant because without it, the accused is denied multiple constitutional rights, specifically the 6th Amendment in nearly its entirety.
 
That's basically been the premise we've been discussing. My viewpoint is that the state is the arbiter of justice. Interference, even well meaning, is still interference. The ends don't justify the means for citizens to deny life to other citizens without trial.

We know that is the premise for God's sake....Why won't you then take Caine's scenerio, and answer the question? No more dancing....So with that in mind here is Caine's question again....Answer it this time.....

"When one of the citizens attempts to deprive the other of their life.... should they be permitted to do so... IN THAT MOMENT, because they have not had a trial yet to be determined guilty? Or should the at-risk individual be permitted to defend themselves against the attempt on their life, even through means of matching deadly force with deadly force in order to do so?"
 
We know that is the premise for God's sake....Why won't you then take Caine's scenerio, and answer the question? No more dancing....So with that in mind here is Caine's question again....Answer it this time.....

"When one of the citizens attempts to deprive the other of their life.... should they be permitted to do so... IN THAT MOMENT, because they have not had a trial yet to be determined guilty? Or should the at-risk individual be permitted to defend themselves against the attempt on their life, even through means of matching deadly force with deadly force in order to do so?"
Legally, I would argue they cannot "match" deadly force with deadly force.
 
Legally, I would argue they cannot "match" deadly force with deadly force.

And you would lose. The Supreme Court has upheld self defense doctrine in every instance...What in the world makes you think that the aggressor should be afforded the right to carry out his attack?
 
And you would lose. The Supreme Court has upheld self defense doctrine in every instance...What in the world makes you think that the aggressor should be afforded the right to carry out his attack?
I understand the case law history. I disagree with it, and view it as a violation of our constitutional rights.

The "aggressor" shouldn't be allowed to kill and neither should the other citizen. Both should legally be held accountable for violating the rights of other citizens.
 
I understand the case law history. I disagree with it, and view it as a violation of our constitutional rights.

The "aggressor" shouldn't be allowed to kill and neither should the other citizen. Both should legally be held accountable for violating the rights of other citizens.

Ok, so how do you stop the aggressor in the moment?
 
Ok, so how do you stop the aggressor in the moment?
A) waiting until the moment is horrible planning, which seems to be what everyone is hung up on.

B) Anything that's legal throughout the rest of your life is still legal when threatened by an attacker.
 
A) waiting until the moment is horrible planning, which seems to be what everyone is hung up on.

B) Anything that's legal throughout the rest of your life is still legal when threatened by an attacker.

A. Yes, that's right. It's best to have your weapon ready ahead of time.
B. Including defending yourself and others.
 
Back
Top Bottom