• 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!

Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

  • Agree

    Votes: 41 70.7%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 15 25.9%
  • I oppose the Second Amendment completely

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • There should be no rule of law

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Total voters
    58
And in the 1920s when the FBI or law learned where a mobster or gang leader was, they set up a firing line and just gun him down.

Very efficient.

Since then we have done immoral things, I guess to you, like giving people fair trials, giving people the right to defend themselves, and giving people the right to a jail cell when they are convicted and proven that they were a mobster. If you go back to your way of thinking joko, we will end up with salem witch trials. IE, we will just shoot a suspect and then say, "Oh ****! We gotta kill someone else now because he was wrong."
 
The forebrain (Pre-frontal cortex) is where consciousness exist. Everything else is subconscious. Anyways, I understand where you are coming from, look at it this way. For you to make a decision their is a reason, I'm hungry, I eat food, I'm happy, I debate politics, I'm thirsty, I get water, I'm tired, I sleep, I'm choosing a shirt, I choose one that matches (Unless you don't care about your appearance, you choose one seemingly at random). Where does that randomness come from. Obviously our thoughts can't just be random or it would seem that we are a sail caught in the wind. Our own thoughts would appear random to even us. Look in the criminal world, they are always looking for a motive. Do you think that all crimes have a motive? If so, then you have a chain of events that lead back to a cause to their criminal action.

So? We could trace events all the way back to the Big Bang too. Just blame it all either on randomness or on God - take your pick. Can't punish a person because of bad luck at birth or because God is cruel.

I hope you are not thinking of going into psychology as a profession. There many topics on this forum that I have little experience or knowledge of and, accordingly, I don't post on most subjections. But from what I can tell, of those on this forum I am way up the chart of those of childhood abuse experience and as an adult a propensity towards doing violence. It is possible I have been detained, questioned and arrested in the past by police for incidences of assault and aggravated assault as a suspect more than most on the forum, though no convictions although it also unquestioned or denied it was me. I think I'm the only person on the forum stating that unless facts change I think Zimmerman is one of the good guys and that I am untroubled by Martin's death. On the far extremes, circumstantially I am extremely anti-violence and extremely pro-violence.

And you can't deal with me at all. So this is a field you really should not go into.
 
Last edited:
The forebrain (Pre-frontal cortex) is where consciousness exist. Everything else is subconscious. Anyways, I understand where you are coming from, look at it this way. For you to make a decision their is a reason, I'm hungry, I eat food, I'm happy, I debate politics, I'm thirsty, I get water, I'm tired, I sleep, I'm choosing a shirt, I choose one that matches (Unless you don't care about your appearance, you choose one seemingly at random). Where does that randomness come from. Obviously our thoughts can't just be random or it would seem that we are a sail caught in the wind. Our own thoughts would appear random to even us. Look in the criminal world, they are always looking for a motive. Do you think that all crimes have a motive? If so, then you have a chain of events that lead back to a cause to their criminal action.


Right. No argument from me.... but here's the problem: You're postulating that at no point in this chain of events/decisions/thoughts, do we have an opportunity to change the outcome.

That simply isn't so. If we were simply slaves to our baser impulses we'd still be living in caves and cowering in fear of lightning. If behavior were purely deterministic then no theory of deterministic behavior could be devised by those suffering under such limitations.

People do change. I had a BIL who was an alcoholic; he hasn't had a drink in over a decade once he decided he was done.

I grew up with a young man named W.F. His parents were alcoholic petty thieves; his brother grew up to be the same. He was rough as a young man but he determined to do better than his family had and became a productive and law-abiding citizen.

People are not robots. We are subject to certain influences and we subject ourselves to some influences, but we also make choices.
 
Since then we have done immoral things, I guess to you, like giving people fair trials, giving people the right to defend themselves, and giving people the right to a jail cell when they are convicted and proven that they were a mobster. If you go back to your way of thinking joko, we will end up with salem witch trials. IE, we will just shoot a suspect and then say, "Oh ****! We gotta kill someone else now because he was wrong."

You have a hard time with variables, don't you? There are people for which there are questions of guilt. Probably most. If there is enough evidence to believe they would be convicted, then and only then should there be a trial. However, the number of people I would want arrested and sent to jail is maybe 1/10th as many as who are. In my law enforcement role (F-W, not beat cop) I almost never write anyone a ticket and arrest even less. If I feel there really should be a "punishment" as a lesson to that person and others by example, usually I have an option (not required) alternative self-imposed punishment to modern legaleze the person can pick. I'll give them a few minutes to decide. If not, then I go the modern legal ticket/arrest/seizure/jail/fines/trial route. They always have taken the alternative, no exceptions.

But there also are times where guilt is not a question at all and the ongoing violence, destruction and death the person is ongingly causing known. Bonny and Clyde and Machine Gun Kelly two examples. Since both bragged publicly, what question of guilt?

The "old west" is a different circumstance as it was where the rule of law was few and far between. Actually, back then, jail sentences were much shorter than now - check it out. The Texas Rangers did not hunt burglars and shoplifters. They hunted killers, had few Rangers to do so with, and accordingly to be effective their fear factors had to be high. It was that fear that is the reason there was any rule of law at all.

"I've known men that needed killing but I never knew a horse that needed stealing." Judge Roy Bean

Now too many people allow their platitudes to run ahead of realities even in the most extreme of circumstances. Word are just words, nothing more. It is alway reality that is what matters. I have no problem with people getting a fair trial. I hope they get one if a trial is warranted.

I'm really not into punishing people for "immoral acts."
 
Last edited:
Are you implying that they said, "He's coming right for us", just so they could shoot him, or did the escape attempt actually occur?
Criminal scum were executed in cold blood. Sometimes the Rangers would even give their word that they'd let a criminal live if he gave them some information, then executed him anyway. Our species is criticized for killing our own. But the human enemies of human progress should be considered traitors to the species and eliminated, just like cancers are not considered as part of our bodies even though they literally are.
 
And in the 1920s when the FBI or law learned where a mobster or gang leader was, they set up a firing line and just gun him down.

Very efficient.
As in "Bonnie and Clyde," starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.
 
And in the 1920s when the FBI or law learned where a mobster or gang leader was, they set up a firing line and just gun him down.

Very efficient.

I guess the good old days when law enforcement could shoot first and ask questions later are gone.
 
You have a hard time with variables, don't you? There are people for which there are questions of guilt. Probably most. If there is enough evidence to believe they would be convicted, then and only then should there be a trial. However, the number of people I would want arrested and sent to jail is maybe 1/10th as many as who are. In my law enforcement role (F-W, not beat cop) I almost never write anyone a ticket and arrest even less. If I feel there really should be a "punishment" as a lesson to that person and others by example, usually I have an option (not required) alternative self-imposed punishment to modern legaleze the person can pick. I'll give them a few minutes to decide. If not, then I go the modern legal ticket/arrest/seizure/jail/fines/trial route. They always have taken the alternative, no exceptions.

But there also are times where guilt is not a question at all and the ongoing violence, destruction and death the person is ongingly causing known. Bonny and Clyde and Machine Gun Kelly two examples. Since both bragged publicly, what question of guilt?

The "old west" is a different circumstance as it was where the rule of law was few and far between. Actually, back then, jail sentences were much shorter than now - check it out. The Texas Rangers did not hunt burglars and shoplifters. They hunted killers, had few Rangers to do so with, and accordingly to be effective their fear factors had to be high. It was that fear that is the reason there was any rule of law at all.

"I've known men that needed killing but I never knew a horse that needed stealing." Judge Roy Bean

Now too many people allow their platitudes to run ahead of realities even in the most extreme of circumstances. Word are just words, nothing more. It is alway reality that is what matters. I have no problem with people getting a fair trial. I hope they get one if a trial is warranted.

I'm really not into punishing people for "immoral acts."

Right, I think that is a completely fair way of looking at it. If you see someone with a gun yelling, "Time to die B***!", then obviously the man is guilty, but if someone gets caught with drugs in their car, they should have a criminal trial because the drugs may or may not be theirs, I believe. But if someone comes into a police station and says to a cop, "I murdered 12 children", although he is a monster, he shouldn't be shot because he is no longer committing a violent act at the time. NO ones life is in jeopardy if he lives to draw another breath because he is now in our failed justice system.
 
Right. No argument from me.... but here's the problem: You're postulating that at no point in this chain of events/decisions/thoughts, do we have an opportunity to change the outcome.

That simply isn't so. If we were simply slaves to our baser impulses we'd still be living in caves and cowering in fear of lightning. If behavior were purely deterministic then no theory of deterministic behavior could be devised by those suffering under such limitations.

People do change. I had a BIL who was an alcoholic; he hasn't had a drink in over a decade once he decided he was done.

I grew up with a young man named W.F. His parents were alcoholic petty thieves; his brother grew up to be the same. He was rough as a young man but he determined to do better than his family had and became a productive and law-abiding citizen.

People are not robots. We are subject to certain influences and we subject ourselves to some influences, but we also make choices.

Well, I don't know if you read my single blog post on the subject, there was a case where, long story short, two men set a house on fire after tying two children to the bed and they died of smoke inhalation. Later in a police interview they asked him, "Why didn't you untie the girls before you burned the house down?" with which the assailant replied, "It never crossed my mind." Where is the free will there?
 
So? We could trace events all the way back to the Big Bang too. Just blame it all either on randomness or on God - take your pick. Can't punish a person because of bad luck at birth or because God is cruel.

I hope you are not thinking of going into psychology as a profession. There many topics on this forum that I have little experience or knowledge of and, accordingly, I don't post on most subjections. But from what I can tell, of those on this forum I am way up the chart of those of childhood abuse experience and as an adult a propensity towards doing violence. It is possible I have been detained, questioned and arrested in the past by police for incidences of assault and aggravated assault as a suspect more than most on the forum, though no convictions although it also unquestioned or denied it was me. I think I'm the only person on the forum stating that unless facts change I think Zimmerman is one of the good guys and that I am untroubled by Martin's death. On the far extremes, circumstantially I am extremely anti-violence and extremely pro-violence.

And you can't deal with me at all. So this is a field you really should not go into.

joko, first of all saying that I shouldn't go into psychology is probably one of the most naive things I have heard. I don't currently hold a PHD in psychology so how can I be educated on the subject? I am taking psychology classes, and no not as a major, or at least not as of yet, but that in no means makes me a professional and I haven't claimed to be a professional. Most of this I'm posting is based on philosophy and not psychology.
 
Well, I don't know if you read my single blog post on the subject, there was a case where, long story short, two men set a house on fire after tying two children to the bed and they died of smoke inhalation. Later in a police interview they asked him, "Why didn't you untie the girls before you burned the house down?" with which the assailant replied, "It never crossed my mind." Where is the free will there?

The free will not to have started off with kidnapping and arson and murder to begin with.


Most of the time people don't do these things in a vacuum. They commit small crimes and get away with it. They commit somewhat larger crimes and mostly get away with it. They get to thinking they're never going to get busted for a big one, and start going to extremes and doing things like burning little girls in houses. It never occurred to them because they left their humanity behind somewhere along that chain of choices that lead to that moment.
 
The free will not to have started off with kidnapping and arson and murder to begin with.


Most of the time people don't do these things in a vacuum. They commit small crimes and get away with it. They commit somewhat larger crimes and mostly get away with it. They get to thinking they're never going to get busted for a big one, and start going to extremes and doing things like burning little girls in houses. It never occurred to them because they left their humanity behind somewhere along that chain of choices that lead to that moment.

Okay, so lets start with the small heinous crime. Were their other factors when they decided to try pot for the first time? Were they being influenced by any other outside behavior? While I agree that they shouldn't of started off with arson/kidnapping/murder, where did this idea come from? I mean how maddening would it be if you just suddenly got the brilliant idea to call up your friend and tell him about a home intrusion you would want to do. This, I think, paints more of a picture that our thoughts/actions are random and should be surprising even to us.
 
Something that I thought of when I was taking my shower. Would it, and part of this is me making something up, been out of character for Joshua Hayes, when called up by his career criminal partner, to respond to Steven when asked if he wanted to go steal some cash for him to of responded that he would prefer to give up the life of a criminal?
 
As in "Bonnie and Clyde," starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway.

Or the actual Bonnie and Clyde. The movie made them to be pretty cool people, didn't it?
 
joko, first of all saying that I shouldn't go into psychology is probably one of the most naive things I have heard. I don't currently hold a PHD in psychology so how can I be educated on the subject? I am taking psychology classes, and no not as a major, or at least not as of yet, but that in no means makes me a professional and I haven't claimed to be a professional. Most of this I'm posting is based on philosophy and not psychology.

I am shocked, stunned, to learn you are taking psychology classes. Who woulda guessed?
:lamo
 
Right, I think that is a completely fair way of looking at it. If you see someone with a gun yelling, "Time to die B***!", then obviously the man is guilty, but if someone gets caught with drugs in their car, they should have a criminal trial because the drugs may or may not be theirs, I believe. But if someone comes into a police station and says to a cop, "I murdered 12 children", although he is a monster, he shouldn't be shot because he is no longer committing a violent act at the time. NO ones life is in jeopardy if he lives to draw another breath because he is now in our failed justice system.

I am not aware of anyone here who has said otherwise.
 
I am shocked, stunned, to learn you are taking psychology classes. Who woulda guessed?
:lamo

You do realize that psychology is the study and measurement of how our brain works. Philosophy uses logical assumptions to get their thesis. Philosophy =/= Psychology in no way, shape, or form. Though philosophy is usually psychologies forefront.
 
Hmmm, do you think forum rule enforcement should take into consideration the subsconciousness and positive or negative self feelings of the infractor?

Wow, I have a good defense if so. I wonder what a mod would do with that? I send a PM telling of my horrific childhood, lack of any conditioning in normal civilized communications, lack of formal education - all due to no fault of my own... why do I think that would only not work, but maybe get me put off the forum for being psychologically incapable of functioning within the rules? Or, rather, should I be held to rules same as everyone else and THAT is how I learn "proper behavior?" Does it matter whether I learn or not at all anyway, why would that be their concern or responsibility?

Just an analogy of course. Know the rules or not, good motive or bad, because those rules are necessary for society to function therefore they are enforced equally.

Even the Supreme Court has explained the "fairness" of laws - whether tax law, civil law or criminal law - is NOT founded in the "justice" of the law. It is found in the law being univerally and equally applied towards everyone. THAT is what make a law "fair."

Once excuses of bad behavior are allowed to control, that fairness is gone. Whoever can tell the most pitiful story about their past gets the most breaks? If it isn't a trial of 1.) what happened and 2.) what punishment does the law call for if any for what happened, but rather becomes who can present the best self-pity-me excuses of their past, then the fundamental concept of fairness is gone.

How many people do horrific things while on drugs - explaining "it was the drugs, not me?" and that they didn't know drugs would "make" them do such a horrific thing. Answer? Doesn't matter. They are judged for what they did.

A person's subscious thoughts are their own. I see no reason those should ever be put on trial either way.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, do you think forum rule enforcement should take into consideration the subsconciousness and positive or negative self feelings?

Even the Supreme Court has explained the "fairness" of laws - whether tax law, civil law or criminal law - is NOT founded in the "justice" of the law. It is found in the law being univerally and equally applied towards everyone. THAT is what make a law "fair."

Once excuses of bad behavior or allowed to control, that fairness is gone. Whoever can tell the most pitiful story about their past gets the most breaks? If it isn't a trial of 1.) what happened and 2.) what punishment does the law call for if any, but rather becomes who can present the best self-pity-me excuses of their past, then the fundamental concept of fairness is gone.

A person's subscious thoughts are their own. I see no reason those should ever be put on trial either way.

Bad behavior is not excusable. If people weren't inharently bad, bad behavior would cease to exist. This can never happen though because where there is society there are people who want to take advantage of it. Also yes, I do think courts should take a look at this because then they would find that Corporal Punishment is unjustifiable if the person is merely a product of their society. This way we could say, "Hey he had no chance at becoming a normal member of society because he was beaten as a child, grew up with drug addicted parents, has an IQ of 80, grew up in a drug infested neighborhood, all of his friends are drug addicts/criminals." If we can say all this, I would find it surprising if someone in this situation didn't turn out to be a drug addict/career criminal. As for 2), think of it this way. Just because he had such a **** start and was probably inevitably going to be a criminal does not mean that he shouldn't be "punished". I mean we can't allow as a society for people to run around addicted to crack or murdering families. That would be why we remove them from society, offer them help with their mental disorder, and try and reprogram that mind so that it thinks that the right thing to do is become a normal person of society. If maximizing someone's well being entails that, then I am all for it.

I totally agree about the fairness of laws. The laws are set up to maximize well being. Their isn't much inherently wrong with our current justice system's way of thinking. The problem is when people say, "He should be punished for murdering that family." Why should he be punished? When he was born into this world did he suddenly think that when he grew up he wanted to be a career criminal? No, of course not. I think that our thoughts/consciousness is like a boat on the sea. The boat rises and falls with the tides that it has no control over, and the only input that this metaphorical boat has is other boats seemingly passing by.
 
You do realize that psychology is the study and measurement of how our brain works. Philosophy uses logical assumptions to get their thesis. Philosophy =/= Psychology in no way, shape, or form. Though philosophy is usually psychologies forefront.

Oh I don't know if I really understand that. I was not allowed essentially any education as a child and was a runaway fleeing for my life at 15. Really.

You have written a lot about psychology, so why duck it now? Doesn't philosphy tend to just assert various premises and then consider if so what conclusions should be drawn from those premises? For example... If God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good (assumed premises for discussion) - then how can there be evil? That is philosophy.

Psychology would be the question of why people believe in their mind there is a good, loving all powerful God given that there is such great evil all around? Is that the distinction between the two?
 
Oh I don't know if I really understand that. I was not allowed essentially any education as a child and was a runaway fleeing for my life at 15. Really.

You have written a lot about psychology, so why duck it now? Doesn't philosphy tend to just assert various premises and then consider if so what conclusions should be drawn from those premises? For example... If God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good (assumed premises for discussion) - then how can there be evil? That is philosophy.

Psychology would be the question of why people believe in their mind there is a good, loving all powerful God given that there is such great evil all around? Is that the distinction between the two?

Let me re-clarify, I believe philosophy draws a lot of its opinions from psychology. Philosophy then uses those opinions to look at the general actions within any group. Philosophy tends to answer those questions that are unanswerable with our current technology/understanding of it.

Psychology is about the effects in our brains, IE the study of what IS happening.

So no, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, what you wrote is wrong. I only wrote what I did to clarify even further the differences. I do not believe psychology deals with metaphysics of the brain...

And yes, I have written a few things on psychology that I have derived from my psychology class, such as IQ tests and memory, but I hardly doubt that is indicating my mastery of the subject.

Anyways, I don't see your point. Why does it matter that we clarify that we are talking about psychology or philosophy, which I believe we have been in philosophy's dome.

Although, I guess to give some credit, some people do think that metaphysics will one day fall under the domain of science.
 
Last edited:
Bad behavior is not excusable. If people weren't inharently bad, bad behavior would cease to exist. This can never happen though because where there is society there are people who want to take advantage of it. Also yes, I do think courts should take a look at this because then they would find that Corporal Punishment is unjustifiable if the person is merely a product of their society. This way we could say, "Hey he had no chance at becoming a normal member of society because he was beaten as a child, grew up with drug addicted parents, has an IQ of 80, grew up in a drug infested neighborhood, all of his friends are drug addicts/criminals." If we can say all this, I would find it surprising if someone in this situation didn't turn out to be a drug addict/career criminal. As for 2), think of it this way. Just because he had such a **** start and was probably inevitably going to be a criminal does not mean that he shouldn't be "punished". I mean we can't allow as a society for people to run around addicted to crack or murdering families. That would be why we remove them from society, offer them help with their mental disorder, and try and reprogram that mind so that it thinks that the right thing to do is become a normal person of society. If maximizing someone's well being entails that, then I am all for it.

I totally agree about the fairness of laws. The laws are set up to maximize well being. Their isn't much inherently wrong with our current justice system's way of thinking. The problem is when people say, "He should be punished for murdering that family." Why should he be punished? When he was born into this world did he suddenly think that when he grew up he wanted to be a career criminal? No, of course not. I think that our thoughts/consciousness is like a boat on the sea. The boat rises and falls with the tides that it has no control over, and the only input that this metaphorical boat has is other boats seemingly passing by.

I do understand what you are saying, though you think I don't. I just completely disagree.

Have you noticed that you NEVER mention victims? Never. Why?

I look at from the victim's perspective. Why does the rapists rotten past allow mitigating what he did to her? She didn't make that past. What possible relevance is that to her? Nor is there any green-light that will flash on when the rapist is "cured," so the question is what right is there to - based upon guessing his subconscious being "fixed" - to expose more potential victims to him?

To the extent a person can be fixed, how is the fixing accomplished? How is bad behavior prevented? One way is fear of what will happen as a result. I've addressed the problem of MANY bad behavior men towards women. Men increasingly harassing a woman for example. Without exception, given my reputation and known/proven abilities, if I told that man "you cut that s...t out or I'm going to break your collar bone" he would correct his behavior. And because of I and a few other men like me, the women were and felt safe. And no one, including him, was hurt. His behavior accordingly modified. If I instead approached saying, "it seems something is troubling you inside you, what is it?" I'd end up having to break his collar bone or worse to prevent him from continuing to try to hurt me figuring I'm just a wimp-ass.

It was FEAR that modified men's behavior away from misconduct they wished to do subconsciously. But, you know, as far as I'm concerned, they can violently rape that woman inside his mind and fantasy all he cares to. Think any damn thing he wants. I only cared what he does, not how he thinks or feels.

Is it FEAR or state-of-mind that prevents crime? Do kids not shoplift because of fear of getting caught? Or because they feel good about themselves? I think it is fear of getting caught. And I think it need be absolutely known that if a person ends up in court for a crime they can't use self-pity of their past as a defense.

A limitation on me in terms of violence against "evil men" has always been my sense of knowing where the line-of-law it. I might push it to the max but I wouldn't just disregard it. I didn't beat some of those men to death because I felt good about myself. It is because I did not want to go to prison. I could defend within law breaking their bones and dislocating joints pushing "defensing others" or myself to the max, but not beating the person to death. So I didn't. Doesn't mean I didn't want to or even didn't believe doing so was the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I have a good defense if so. I wonder what a mod would do with that? I send a PM telling of my horrific childhood, lack of any conditioning in normal civilized communications, lack of formal education - all due to no fault of my own... why do I think that would only not work, but maybe get me put off the forum for being psychologically incapable of functioning within the rules?

I'll play misery poker with you any day of the week.
 
Let me re-clarify, I believe philosophy draws a lot of its opinions from psychology. Philosophy then uses those opinions to look at the general actions within any group. Philosophy tends to answer those questions that are unanswerable with our current technology/understanding of it.

Psychology is about the effects in our brains, IE the study of what IS happening.

So no, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, what you wrote is wrong. I only wrote what I did to clarify even further the differences. I do not believe psychology deals with metaphysics of the brain...

And yes, I have written a few things on psychology that I have derived from my psychology class, such as IQ tests and memory, but I hardly doubt that is indicating my mastery of the subject.

Anyways, I don't see your point. Why does it matter that we clarify that we are talking about psychology or philosophy, which I believe we have been in philosophy's dome.

Although, I guess to give some credit, some people do think that metaphysics will one day fall under the domain of science.


too much college courses, not enough real life reality
 
I'll play misery poker with you any day of the week.

:lol:

Haven't seen you around for a while, maybe different threads.
I see hear alot of people do that, mostly women it seems. Which of them was more unfairly treated in the past, ie pity-contests. Sometimes it seems the whole country in involved it like the new national pasttime. Everyone psycho-analyzing themselves. Every problem someone else's fault.
 
Back
Top Bottom