• 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

j-mac said:
Removing the right of self defense for police is just plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
Simply not true.
Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it is.
Removing it from civilians is also ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Lursa said:
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!
Click to expand...
Killing people is not a defensive act. Maternal instinct doesn't permit you to kill people. Sex doesn't permit you to kill people. Being scared shouldn't permit you to kill someone. They're all primal, but all expected to obey recognition of the rights of others. Killing someone doesn't recognize their rights. It violates their rights. Your right to be scared shouldn't supersede the enumerated rights of others to due process.

Lursa said:
^^This was your answer to this:



So, how about an honest answer?
Click to expand...
You're accusing me of "fantasy" while you write melodramatic encounters.
 
Unrepresented said:
Killing people is not a defensive act. Maternal instinct doesn't permit you to kill people. Sex doesn't permit you to kill people. Being scared shouldn't permit you to kill someone. They're all primal, but all expected to obey recognition of the rights of others. Killing someone doesn't recognize their rights. It violates their rights. Your right to be scared shouldn't supersede the enumerated rights of others to due process.


You're accusing me of "fantasy" while you write melodramatic encounters.
Click to expand...

Finding yourself in a kill or be killed scenario most certainly justifies killing, whether you're a cop or a civilian.
 
Unrepresented said:
The term "kill or be killed" is a concept, not a reality.
Click to expand...

When the perp draws a gun, it's reality. When the robber has a gun, it's reality. What are you supposed to do in a situation like that? Just put your head down and repeat, "That's not really a gun. You aren't really going to shoot me."

Absurd.
 
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...
You're saying a person should try to incapacitate another person who is intent on killing them.

Basically risking their own life in order to preserve the life of someone who wants to kill them.

That may be feasible in some situations, but by no means is your average random target of attempted killing going to have the training, skill, and ability to do so.
 
Dittohead not! said:
When the perp draws a gun, it's reality. When the robber has a gun, it's reality. What are you supposed to do in a situation like that? Just put your head down and repeat, "That's not really a gun. You aren't really going to shoot me."

Absurd.
Click to expand...
If they've already drawn on you, you're at their mercy regardless.

The Mark said:
You're saying a person should try to incapacitate another person who is intent on killing them.

Basically risking their own life in order to preserve the life of someone who wants to kill them.

That may be feasible in some situations, but by no means is your average random target of attempted killing going to have the training, skill, and ability to do so.
Click to expand...

Incapacitating is one method, escaping is another, avoiding is still a better bet.
 
Unrepresented said:
Killing people is not a defensive act. Maternal instinct doesn't permit you to kill people. Sex doesn't permit you to kill people. Being scared shouldn't permit you to kill someone. They're all primal, but all expected to obey recognition of the rights of others. Killing someone doesn't recognize their rights. It violates their rights. Your right to be scared shouldn't supersede the enumerated rights of others to due process.


You're accusing me of "fantasy" while you write melodramatic encounters.
Click to expand...

A felon gives up his rights when he tries to kill others. By attempting to run over the police he at that point only had the right to surrender, or be taken out. Period.
 
Unrepresented said:
If they've already drawn on you, you're at their mercy regardless.



Incapacitating is one method, escaping is another, avoiding is still a better bet.
Click to expand...

which is why you don't let them draw on you.
Escaping? Avoiding? Yes, avoiding beforehand is a good strategy. Once faced with the kill or be killed scenario, there is no escape or avoidance, not unless you can actually dodge bullets. I think that is something that only happens in cartoons.
 
Unrepresented said:
Incapacitating is one method, escaping is another, avoiding is still a better bet.
Click to expand...

Those options are not always available. Incapacitating a larger stronger opponent? Or after being ambushed? How about if they are faster than you? Or if there's nowhere to escape to?

And most people of course do try to avoid. It's dishonest to imply cops and other citizens are looking for trouble. OTOH, it's the cops job to *stop* people who are dangers to the public. If they avoid, others may die.

But I guess that's ok with you. I guess by your silence after my direct question, you feel it's necessary to let your daughter get raped or killed rather than a bystander use lethal force to stop it. I'm assuming that because I think you're too embarrassed or ashamed to answer and confirm it.
 
j-mac said:
A felon gives up his rights when he tries to kill others. By attempting to run over the police he at that point only had the right to surrender, or be taken out. Period.
Click to expand...
No one is a felon until convicted by the justice system.
Dittohead not! said:
which is why you don't let them draw on you.
Escaping? Avoiding? Yes, avoiding beforehand is a good strategy. Once faced with the kill or be killed scenario, there is no escape or avoidance, not unless you can actually dodge bullets. I think that is something that only happens in cartoons.
Click to expand...
Killing someone before they draw on you isn't defense.

Lursa said:
Those options are not always available. Incapacitating a larger stronger opponent? Or after being ambushed? How about if they are faster than you? Or if there's nowhere to escape to?

And most people of course do try to avoid. It's dishonest to imply cops and other citizens are looking for trouble. OTOH, it's the cops job to *stop* people who are dangers to the public. If they avoid, others may die.

But I guess that's ok with you. I guess by your silence after my direct question, you feel it's necessary to let your daughter get raped or killed rather than a bystander use lethal force to stop it. I'm assuming that because I think you're too embarrassed or ashamed to answer and confirm it.
Click to expand...

You're scenario is unrealistic. You're describing a Hollywood movie plot and not reality. Things that happen in suspense films shouldn't be how we decide daily life.
 
Unrepresented said:
No one is a felon until convicted by the justice system.
Click to expand...

They were attempting to effect a felony warrant on the man, when he tried to kill them...yeah, I think it is safe to say he was a felon.
 
j-mac said:
They were attempting to effect a felony warrant on the man, when he tried to kill them...yeah, I think it is safe to say he was a felon.
Click to expand...
Which element of the justice system determined they were a felon prior to his execution?
 
Unrepresented said:
You're scenario is unrealistic. You're describing a Hollywood movie plot and not reality. Things that happen in suspense films shouldn't be how we decide daily life.
Click to expand...

Of course it's true. It can happen, it can happen in many ways. You just dont want to answer the question: If, as a bystander, I saw your daughter about to be raped and could shoot to stop the attacker (as a woman I dont have alot of options for stopping a man where he wouldnt just turn and then attack me)...should I do so? Or just call the cops and wait til they get there? The cops could easily be 30 minutes away in many situations.
 
Lursa said:
Of course it's true. It can happen, it can happen in many ways. You just dont want to answer the question: If, as a bystander, I saw your daughter about to be raped and could shoot to stop the attacker (as a woman I dont have alot of options for stopping a man where he wouldnt just turn and then attack me)...should I do so? Or just call the cops and wait til they get there? The cops could easily be 30 minutes away in many situations.
Click to expand...
You're probably not going to have to wait 30 minutes on a rape call. You're also probably not going to be absolutely devoid of other citizens who can restrain a rapist without killing him. A rapist is probably also not going to be doing his raping in a public space you're likely to stumble upon him. Your scenario isn't realistic.
 
Unrepresented said:
You're probably not going to have to wait 30 minutes on a rape call. You're also probably not going to be absolutely devoid of other citizens who can restrain a rapist without killing him. A rapist is probably also not going to be doing his raping in a public space you're likely to stumble upon him. Your scenario isn't realistic.
Click to expand...

Probably probably probably.

It happens all the time. Women wouldnt BE raped if there were other people around and the cops were close by. Happens all the time on jogging trails, in parks, etc.

It's very realistic and you refuse to answer.
 
Lursa said:
Probably probably probably.

It happens all the time. Women wouldnt BE raped if there were other people around and the cops were close by. Happens all the time on jogging trails, in parks, etc.

It's very realistic and you refuse to answer.
Click to expand...
You're trying to bait me with an emotionally charged question on what should be a rational discussion.
 
Unrepresented said:
You're trying to bait me with an emotionally charged question on what should be a rational discussion.
Click to expand...

No, it's a realistic situation and you refuse to discuss it rationally. As a former park ranger, I personally am aware of similar situations.

Another point to be made here is: you have clearly stated that it would NOT be acceptable for a bystander to use lethal force in such a situation. So now you have been asked if you would hold that view when you are personally impacted. You apparently do not wish to look like a hypocrite or admit your zero tolerance policy is indeed selfish and unrealistic.

Even simpler: I'm an armed park ranger. I see your daughter being raped. We are miles out on a hiking trail. Can I use lethal force to save her? This is a completely realistic scenario.
 
Lursa said:
No, it's a realistic situation and you refuse to discuss it rationally. As a former park ranger, I personally am aware of similar situations.

Another point to be made here is: you have clearly stated that it would NOT be acceptable for a bystander to use lethal force in such a situation. So now you have been asked if you would hold that view when you are personally impacted. You apparently do not wish to look like a hypocrite or admit your zero tolerance policy is indeed selfish and unrealistic.

Even simpler: I'm an armed park ranger. I see your daughter being raped. We are miles out on a hiking trail. Can I use lethal force to save her? This is a completely realistic scenario.
Click to expand...
Every law will have situations that seem unreasonable. You run the risk of creating a situation where the law is inconsistent in order to satisfy each situation, or so unyielding that it's a complicated moral issue where you place the rights of citizens who are innocent until proven guilty v the desires of the citizen to perform a "common sense" workaround.

The situation you're describing is vigilante justice. It's not how our Constitution intended our dealings between citizens or with government to be based on the Amendments they enacted to ensure justice for all citizens.
 
Unrepresented said:
Every law will have situations that seem unreasonable. You run the risk of creating a situation where the law is inconsistent in order to satisfy each situation, or so unyielding that it's a complicated moral issue where you place the rights of citizens who are innocent until proven guilty v the desires of the citizen to perform a "common sense" workaround.

The situation you're describing is vigilante justice. It's not how our Constitution intended our dealings between citizens or with government to be based on the Amendments they enacted to ensure justice for all citizens.
Click to expand...

So you wont put into words what you just danced around: Yes you would prefer someone to stand there and let your daughter be raped because you believe that *saving her* is vigilante justice and lethal force would be wrong.

Thank you. That's all. Seems like there is quite a bit of moral cowardice in not actually putting the words behind a 'belief.'
 
Lursa said:
So you wont put into words what you just danced around: Yes you would prefer someone to stand there and let your daughter be raped because you believe that *saving her* is vigilante justice and lethal force would be wrong.

Thank you. That's all. Seems like there is quite a bit of moral cowardice in not actually putting the words behind a 'belief.'
Click to expand...
Congratulations on finding an extremely unlikely scenario that you feel justifies an entire system of daily scenarios where people are denied their Constitutional rights.
 
Unrepresented said:
Which element of the justice system determined they were a felon prior to his execution?
Click to expand...

Execution? Man, you are out there. What should they have done? "Oh please Mr. crazy man, please don't run us over?" "Pretty please?"

Hands up, don't shoot! :roll:
 
countryboy said:
Execution? Man, you are out there. What should they have done? "Oh please Mr. crazy man, please don't run us over?" "Pretty please?"

Hands up, don't shoot! :roll:
Click to expand...
The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments deserve to be honored.
 
Unrepresented said:
Congratulations on finding an extremely unlikely scenario that you feel justifies an entire system of daily scenarios where people are denied their Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

It's not remotely unlikely. I ran across such situations. However the other bystander was not armed, was intimidated by the knife the assailant had. Women are raped all the time. You seem to think they should allow it instead of, if necessary, shooting their attacker. That is SICK.

These are not edge cases, you are lying to deny it.

And we all have a right to LIFE as stated in the DOI. We all have the right to protect our own lives, up to and including lethal force. To state that someone should allow an attacker to do gross bodily harm or murder them in order to preserve the malicious person's life is selfish and a 100% misguided idea of justice. How is their right to life...as the initiator of violence...more important than the innocent's right to life?
 
Unrepresented said:
Which element of the justice system determined they were a felon prior to his execution?
Click to expand...

You just don't get it do you? Pacini made online threats that he was going to kill police, and they issued a warrant for his arrest based on those threats, when confronted he fled, and when the police cornered him to effect the arrest,... Now pay freaking attention here,....HE TRIED TO RUN THEM OVER WITH HIS CAR. Ofcourse they shot him, he was using a 2000lb vehicle as a weapon to KILL the police trying to arrest him....If you are concerned about him getting a trial, maybe he should have allowed himself to be arrested, THEN he would get a trial....

Jesus, how simple can this be?
 
Unrepresented said:
Congratulations on finding an extremely unlikely scenario that you feel justifies an entire system of daily scenarios where people are denied their Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

BTW, the people you are claiming are denied their Constitutional Rights? At least 90% of them are initiating the violence or committing a crime. And if they dont try to kill the cop arresting them, they will indeed get their day in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom