• 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

Dittohead not! said:
A. Yes, that's right. It's best to have your weapon ready ahead of time.
B. Including defending yourself and others.
Click to expand...
A) Your weapon can only be aimed in one direction at a time, and it doesn't make you bulletproof. That's poor planning, considering the variables it doesn't actually address.

B) killing someone isn't legal 99.999999% of the time. I believe it should simply be rounded up to 100% to remain consistent.
 
Unrepresented said:
A) Your weapon can only be aimed in one direction at a time, and it doesn't make you bulletproof. That's poor planning, considering the variables it doesn't actually address.

B) killing someone isn't legal 99.999999% of the time. I believe it should simply be rounded up to 100% to remain consistent.
Click to expand...

A) what the hell are you talking about, this is about a man that tried to use his car to kill police. They responded and killed him...

B) rounding can cost your own life....If it is me or the dirtbag, the dirtbag looses. Period.
 
j-mac said:
A) what the hell are you talking about, this is about a man that tried to use his car to kill police. They responded and killed him...

B) rounding can cost your own life....If it is me or the dirtbag, the dirtbag looses. Period.
Click to expand...

A) Responding to a hypothetical provided by another poster.

B) Justice shouldn't be determined by the survivors.
 
Unrepresented said:
A) Responding to a hypothetical provided by another poster.

B) Justice shouldn't be determined by the survivors.
Click to expand...

A) stick to the thread topic...That makes your answers more clear...

B) Justice is not for you to determine either.
 
j-mac said:
A) stick to the thread topic...That makes your answers more clear...

B) Justice is not for you to determine either.
Click to expand...
A) I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to another poster which is probably why you're confused.

B) Justice is determined in combination by the authorities that designed our nation in combination with a collective acceptance. It's not decided by a single person with a deadly weapon.
 
Unrepresented said:
A) I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to another poster which is probably why you're confused.

B) Justice is determined in combination by the authorities that designed our nation in combination with a collective acceptance. It's not decided by a single person with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

A) I'll respond to whom I want when I want in an open thread thank you...My confusion stems from you trying to be too clever by half with your answers and circular logic.

B) It's not decided by you that's what I know...You have a pretty warped sense of this nation, and its laws...Are you from America?
 
j-mac said:
A) I'll respond to whom I want when I want in an open thread thank you...My confusion stems from you trying to be too clever by half with your answers and circular logic.

B) It's not decided by you that's what I know...You have a pretty warped sense of this nation, and its laws...Are you from America?
Click to expand...

A) Didn't say you couldn't reply, just that you'll be less confused if you read the context of the post I'm replying to.;)

B) I'm a fully American product.
 
Unrepresented said:
A) Didn't say you couldn't reply, just that you'll be less confused if you read the context of the post I'm replying to.;)

B) I'm a fully American product.
Click to expand...

A) Good, but I am not confused at all, that is just you trying to circle talk.

B) Then our education system failed.
 
j-mac said:
A) Good, but I am not confused at all, that is just you trying to circle talk.

B) Then our education system failed.
Click to expand...
A) You sounded confused. I try and be a good citizen and solve problems when possible.

B) I minored in polisci at a highly rated university, you'd think I'd be one of the few here that our education system hasn't failed. Sad.
 
Unrepresented said:
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.
Click to expand...
Building codes are based on quantifiable things.

Same with medical research.

Human interaction is not even CLOSE to being understood to the same degree.


Edit: Further, there's the question of whether we should try to codify and control it if we could. Freedom of thought and expression? Dangerous ground there.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Building codes are based on quantifiable things.

Same with medical research.

Human interaction is not even CLOSE to being understood to the same degree.


Edit: Further, there's the question of whether we should try to codify and control it if we could. Freedom of thought and expression? Dangerous ground there.
Click to expand...

Everything is quantifiable.

As for freedom of expression and thought, I'm entirely in support of it. We can codify proper behaviors for citizens to engage in, we do it all the time in the lawmaking process. We've codified non-killing as the proper behavior for people in the overwhelming majority of social interactions. If we increase the percentage of non-killing to 100% that increases the freedom of expression and thought of all those people otherwise killed, unless you're studying with killing being an extreme example of "behavior and thought" worthy of protection.
 
Unrepresented said:
Everything is quantifiable.

As for freedom of expression and thought, I'm entirely in support of it. We can codify proper behaviors for citizens to engage in, we do it all the time in the lawmaking process. We've codified non-killing as the proper behavior for people in the overwhelming majority of social interactions. If we increase the percentage of non-killing to 100% that increases the freedom of expression and thought of all those people otherwise killed, unless you're studying with killing being an extreme example of "behavior and thought" worthy of protection.
Click to expand...
Killing is a valid, if regrettable, response to extreme threats.


Or at least I think it is?
 
The Mark said:
Killing is a valid, if regrettable, response to extreme threats.


Or at least I think it is?
Click to expand...
It is currently seen that way by case law. I see it as a preventable, unacceptable response to extreme threats.
 
Unrepresented said:
You can defend yourself, but your defenses should be defense. Shooting someone isn't defense.



The legal status is significant because without it, the accused is denied multiple constitutional rights, specifically the 6th Amendment in nearly its entirety.
Click to expand...

There are zero constitutional rights for someone carrying out a murder. In the commission of a murder, you lose all rights. If someone sees your murdering someone, THEY (witness) are legally allowed to act if necessary, which can cause death to the attacker. It's how the world works so murderers can be stopped from murdering others. That will never changd, until people stop trying to kill people (never). Sorry bud!
 
11Bravo said:
There are zero constitutional rights for someone carrying out a murder. In the commission of a murder, you lose all rights. If someone sees your murdering someone, THEY (witness) are legally allowed to act if necessary, which can cause death to the attacker. It's how the world works so murderers can be stopped from murdering others. That will never changd, until people stop trying to kill people (never). Sorry bud!
Click to expand...
Please show where in the Constitution it notes where citizens can be accused to crimes without trial and shot, because the majority of the BoR pretty much says the opposite.
 
Unrepresented said:
Please show where in the Constitution it notes where citizens can be accused to crimes without trial and shot, because the majority of the BoR pretty much says the opposite.
Click to expand...
If a person is actively attacking a police officer (or anyone?) with a deadly weapon, current law does not require even an accusation, let alone a trial, before police/civilians are allowed to shoot them in self-defense and/or to protect the lives of others.

Preventing such occurrences from happening by disallowing police/civilians from shooting people who attack them is not a good idea - it would only lead to police dying more, not to mention civilians who carry also dying...That, or going to jail for defending their own life, which is not something that should be illegal IMO.

Rather, the optimal way to prevent such is to stop the person from reaching the point where they are attacking police/civilians.

To do this we need to improve the access to and availability of health care for all issues, but especially mental issues.

Additionally we need to cut WAY the **** back on imprisoning people for petty, stupid, things.

Prisons have a tendency to make some people MORE prone to crime, rather than the reverse, simply because of the environment they are placed in.
Placing a person in prison for something that did no real harm to anyone except possibly themselves is not acceptable.

Edit: In short, the solution to the problem you see - police/civilians killing people who are committing crimes - is NOT to prevent the killing, but rather to prevent the crimes that IMO often completely justify the killing.
 
The Mark said:
If a person is actively attacking a police officer (or anyone?) with a deadly weapon, current law does not require even an accusation, let alone a trial, before police/civilians are allowed to shoot them in self-defense and/or to protect the lives of others.

Preventing such occurrences from happening by disallowing police/civilians from shooting people who attack them is not a good idea - it would only lead to police dying more, not to mention civilians who carry also dying...That, or going to jail for defending their own life, which is not something that should be illegal IMO.

Rather, the optimal way to prevent such is to stop the person from reaching the point where they are attacking police/civilians.

To do this we need to improve the access to and availability of health care for all issues, but especially mental issues.

Additionally we need to cut WAY the **** back on imprisoning people for petty, stupid, things.

Prisons have a tendency to make some people MORE prone to crime, rather than the reverse, simply because of the environment they are placed in.
Placing a person in prison for something that did no real harm to anyone except possibly themselves is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of the second half of your post, but I believe that we're currently far too biased towards property rights and law enforcement at the detriment to general protections of citizens. The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are basically a permission slip for giving capital sentences to mid level criminals.

We need to dissuade lethal answers and increase prevention.
 
Unrepresented said:
I agree with much of the second half of your post, but I believe that we're currently far too biased towards property rights and law enforcement at the detriment to general protections of citizens. The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are basically a permission slip for giving capital sentences to mid level criminals.

We need to dissuade lethal answers and increase prevention.
Click to expand...
In my mind, if it's a choice between a police officer/civilian losing their life and a person who wants to kill/harm them losing his/her life, the police officer/civilian takes precedence in almost every case.

This is why I'm focused on preventing people from placing themselves in that position rather than preventing what I consider an appropriate response if they have already placed themselves in that position.
 
The Mark said:
In my mind, if it's a choice between a police officer/civilian losing their life and a person who wants to kill/harm them losing his/her life, the police officer/civilian takes precedence in almost every case.

This is why I'm focused on preventing people from placing themselves in that position rather than preventing what I consider an appropriate response if they have already placed themselves in that position.
Click to expand...
If we create a severe disincentive for allowing people to reach that state, we're increasing the incentive for early prevention. Our current laws encourage falling to address these problems proactively.
 
Unrepresented said:
Please show where in the Constitution it notes where citizens can be accused to crimes without trial and shot, because the majority of the BoR pretty much says the opposite.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think you're not yet a Junior in high school.

Someone in THE COMMISSION of a MURDER is not "accused". They are subject to ZERO constitutional rights when IN THE COMMISSION of a murder. I've cited the section code of federal law for you like 3 times. Either you start reading THE LAW, or learn it when you get to college.

There's a reason people can defend themselves with lethal force. There's a REASON Wilson is not EVEN indicted. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Unrepresented said:
If we create a severe disincentive for allowing people to reach that state, we're increasing the incentive for early prevention. Our current laws encourage falling to address these problems proactively.
Click to expand...
The criminal doesn't care if he kills you, shouldn't you care about protecting yoir life?
 
j-mac said:
The criminal doesn't care if he kills you, shouldn't you care about protecting yoir life?
Click to expand...

The individual you are questioning believes the murderer deserves more rights than the victim. He believes that someone trying to kill you deserves the right to kill you and live.
 
11Bravo said:
The individual you are questioning believes the murderer deserves more rights than the victim. He believes that someone trying to kill you deserves the right to kill you and live.
Click to expand...
Actually, he is saying both should live, only he doesn't understand that when faced with the attack police can't run like he would. Is that the world he wants to live in? One where police run from criminals rather than one where police stop criminals?
 
j-mac said:
Actually, he is saying both should live, only he doesn't understand that when faced with the attack police can't run like he would. Is that the world he wants to live in? One where police run from criminals rather than one where police stop criminals?
Click to expand...

Lol this person is on their own planet.
 
Unrepresented said:
It is currently seen that way by case law. I see it as a preventable, unacceptable response to extreme threats.
Click to expand...

Is death an acceptable response to extreme threats to you then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom