• 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

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?

It is very simple for him, black and white.

He would prefer a law preventing lethal force under any circumstances...such as stopping the rape of a family member. He finds that to be justice. (Of course if you dont stop him and the police cant get there in time, he'll just escape and do it to someone else. So not even justice.) Does this sound rational?
 
It is very simple for him, black and white.

He would prefer a law preventing lethal force under any circumstances...such as stopping the rape of a family member. He finds that to be justice. (Of course if you dont stop him and the police cant get there in time, he'll just escape and do it to someone else. So not even justice.) Does this sound rational?

No it doesn't sound rational at all, and I would have given up on him long ago, but I just can not understand how one gets to a place where a criminal should be allowed to get away, and tie cops hands to the point where if they die at the hands of trash like this guy, then he says "oh well".... :shrug:
 
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?
The right to life should be observed for everyone, not just the people who individuals feel deserve to be killed.

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?

I realize he's not a sympathetic case, but that doesn't change my view that denying him a trial is a violation of his rights.
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.
Initiating a crime shouldn't deny your right to trial.

It is very simple for him, black and white.

He would prefer a law preventing lethal force under any circumstances...such as stopping the rape of a family member. He finds that to be justice. (Of course if you dont stop him and the police cant get there in time, he'll just escape and do it to someone else. So not even justice.) Does this sound rational?

The justice system should provide justice, not citizens, not the executive branch. They're overstepping their boundaries by acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

No it doesn't sound rational at all, and I would have given up on him long ago, but I just can not understand how one gets to a place where a criminal should be allowed to get away, and tie cops hands to the point where if they die at the hands of trash like this guy, then he says "oh well".... :shrug:

The person hasn't committed a crime until convicted by a court of law, therefore they're not a criminal, they're potentially a suspect. Suspects have rights under our Constitution, even the ones we don't like.
 
The right to life should be observed for everyone, not just the people who individuals feel deserve to be killed.

I realize he's not a sympathetic case, but that doesn't change my view that denying him a trial is a violation of his rights.

Initiating a crime shouldn't deny your right to trial.

The justice system should provide justice, not citizens, not the executive branch. They're overstepping their boundaries by acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

The person hasn't committed a crime until convicted by a court of law, therefore they're not a criminal, they're potentially a suspect. Suspects have rights under our Constitution, even the ones we don't like.

You have continually been dishonest and denied reality, like true-life scenarios (that are not uncommon) to attempt to shore up your position, yet would not commit an honest answer admitting that you would prefer your daughter raped or killed rather than saved by a citizen or officer using lethal force. Because to you, the citizen or officer would be acting immorally and unConstitutionally.

Again, such selfish and fantastical changes in legislation will not happen.
 
You have continually been dishonest and denied reality, like true-life scenarios (that are not uncommon) to attempt to shore up your position, yet would not commit an honest answer admitting that you would prefer your daughter raped or killed rather than saved by a citizen or officer using lethal force. Because to you, the citizen or officer would be acting immorally and unConstitutionally.

Again, such selfish and fantastical changes in legislation will not happen.
I have not been dishonest.

You're implying that the average self defense killing is a lone female killing a rapist midway through the act, when in reality it's much more likely to be a middle aged man killing a kid trying to steal his DVD player.

It's not selfish to prefer living citizens over dead ones.
 
I realize he's not a sympathetic case, but that doesn't change my view that denying him a trial is a violation of his rights.

He denied himself a trial the moment he tried to run down the police...They have a right not be injured, or killed trying to take him in...Or should they have let him go too?
 
He denied himself a trial the moment he tried to run down the police...They have a right not be injured, or killed trying to take him in...Or should they have let him go too?
The sixth amendment says he's entitled to a trial.
 
I have not been dishonest.

You're implying that the average self defense killing is a lone female killing a rapist midway through the act, when in reality it's much more likely to be a middle aged man killing a kid trying to steal his DVD player.

It's not selfish to prefer living citizens over dead ones.

I never implied that. I said that such scenarios where the only way to protect one's self or others using lethal force are not uncommon.

And yes, your choosing to deny people the right to protect their own lives is definitely selfish. You dont prefer living "citizens." You prefer living criminals. Because the dead victims would not come to trial, they were innocent when they were executed.

Your ignorance shows further since it is illegal to use lethal force almost anywhere in the US to protect property. That person using lethal force would go to jail. So you, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.

You have been told many times that the legal bar for using lethal force is very high. ONLY to protect yourself from gross bodily harm or death. And for police, to also do so in the interests of public safety. Yet you continue to write otherwise. Is there something wrong with your ability to process the facts?

It boggles the mind that when robberies and home invasions are common when people are home, that you think that I should not have the right to shoot someone that breaks into my home at night and tries to kill or rape me in the commisssion of their crime. I am 25 minutes from town. The thought that I should have to just call the cops and suffer and die is ***insane.*** thankfully at least some parts of our legal system are not.
 
I realize he's not a sympathetic case, but that doesn't change my view that denying him a trial is a violation of his rights.

Initiating a crime shouldn't deny your right to trial.

So this cop should have just allowed the man to continue and beat him to death with a shovel? And then go on to threaten the people in the neighborhood again, to attack them? Is that what you are saying is preferable, rather than allowing people to defend themselves when necessary, with lethal force?

Those were the words James Dudley Barker’s longtime friend used to describe allegations that Barker used a shovel to attack a Salt Lake City police officer with bone-breaking force before the officer shot Barker to death in a yard just one block from Barker’s home.
"James was an incredibly peaceful person," said Summer Osburn, who became friends with Barker 20 years ago while they were students at Brigham Young University.
When the officer approached Barker on the porch of another house, a "verbal altercation" began, police said. Barker allegedly attacked the officer with the shovel, striking his arm and leg before the officer fired several times, police said.
SLCPD shooting: Neighbors stunned to learn victim was their 'peaceful' neighbor (with video) | The Salt Lake Tribune

What's even sadder is that not only you but others would say that the cop wasnt even in deadly danger....the man *only had a shovel.* If the cop had shot BEFORE he was beaten, there would probably be a public uproar. With attitudes like that (which we have seen clearly in the media and here on this forum and in the extreme, you.....we will end up with no cops. Why should anyone put themselves at such risk for pay that's no better than many office jobs?)
 
So this cop should have just allowed the man to continue and beat him to death with a shovel? And then go on to threaten the people in the neighborhood again, to attack them? Is that what you are saying is preferable, rather than allowing people to defend themselves when necessary, with lethal force?



SLCPD shooting: Neighbors stunned to learn victim was their 'peaceful' neighbor (with video) | The Salt Lake Tribune

What's even sadder is that not only you but others would say that the cop wasnt even in deadly danger....the man *only had a shovel.* If the cop had shot BEFORE he was beaten, there would probably be a public uproar. With attitudes like that (which we have seen clearly in the media and here on this forum and in the extreme, you.....we will end up with no cops. Why should anyone put themselves at such risk for pay that's no better than many office jobs?)

Welcome to the world of the new left, kid. Welcome.
 
So this cop should have just allowed the man to continue and beat him to death with a shovel? And then go on to threaten the people in the neighborhood again, to attack them? Is that what you are saying is preferable, rather than allowing people to defend themselves when necessary, with lethal force?



SLCPD shooting: Neighbors stunned to learn victim was their 'peaceful' neighbor (with video) | The Salt Lake Tribune

What's even sadder is that not only you but others would say that the cop wasnt even in deadly danger....the man *only had a shovel.* If the cop had shot BEFORE he was beaten, there would probably be a public uproar. With attitudes like that (which we have seen clearly in the media and here on this forum and in the extreme, you.....we will end up with no cops. Why should anyone put themselves at such risk for pay that's no better than many office jobs?)

Welcome to where the left falls to pieces with reality. The wolves are there regardless.
 
Attempted Murder while in the act of, is subject to self defense of those he is attempting to murder.

I never implied that. I said that such scenarios where the only way to protect one's self or others using lethal force are not uncommon.

And yes, your choosing to deny people the right to protect their own lives is definitely selfish. You dont prefer living "citizens." You prefer living criminals. Because the dead victims would not come to trial, they were innocent when they were executed.

Your ignorance shows further since it is illegal to use lethal force almost anywhere in the US to protect property. That person using lethal force would go to jail. So you, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.

You have been told many times that the legal bar for using lethal force is very high. ONLY to protect yourself from gross bodily harm or death. And for police, to also do so in the interests of public safety. Yet you continue to write otherwise. Is there something wrong with your ability to process the facts?

It boggles the mind that when robberies and home invasions are common when people are home, that you think that I should not have the right to shoot someone that breaks into my home at night and tries to kill or rape me in the commisssion of their crime. I am 25 minutes from town. The thought that I should have to just call the cops and suffer and die is ***insane.*** thankfully at least some parts of our legal system are not.

So this cop should have just allowed the man to continue and beat him to death with a shovel? And then go on to threaten the people in the neighborhood again, to attack them? Is that what you are saying is preferable, rather than allowing people to defend themselves when necessary, with lethal force?



SLCPD shooting: Neighbors stunned to learn victim was their 'peaceful' neighbor (with video) | The Salt Lake Tribune

What's even sadder is that not only you but others would say that the cop wasnt even in deadly danger....the man *only had a shovel.* If the cop had shot BEFORE he was beaten, there would probably be a public uproar. With attitudes like that (which we have seen clearly in the media and here on this forum and in the extreme, you.....we will end up with no cops. Why should anyone put themselves at such risk for pay that's no better than many office jobs?)
Show me your Constitutional right to "self defense."

The Sixth Amendment gives citizens rights that "self defense" denies them.
True. And the shovel says he's entitled to a bullet.
Being in possession of a weapon doesn't deny you right to a fair trial. There's no asterisk on the Bill of Rights that states that.
Killing someone after they've already killed you isn't possible.
Agreed, but I don't see how that's related to this discussion.
 
Show me your Constitutional right to "self defense."

The Sixth Amendment gives citizens rights that "self defense" denies them.

Being in possession of a weapon doesn't deny you right to a fair trial. There's no asterisk on the Bill of Rights that states that.

Agreed, but I don't see how that's related to this discussion.
Yes, I'm aware that you don't.
 
This thread has too many people watching suspense movies and not enough who appreciate the middle Amendments.

People in this thread have posted *real life* situations where people needed to use lethal force to save their own lives and in each case you refuse to address the actual incident and hide behind moral cowardice avoiding saying that yes...it's better that the man run over the police than be shot. Yes...it's better that my daughter be raped than her attacker be shot. Yes....it's better that the cop be bludgeoned to death with a shovel than shot.

You were unable to address ANY of those specifically and say yes, those are the best options because otherwise, *my sense of justice* is outraged.

Everyone has a right to life, first and foremost, before any of the 'middle Constitutional amendments.' And just like you insist on preserving the protections of the 'middle amendments,' self defense is the LEGAL mechanism for preserving one's right to life. To think that the right to due process supersedes the right to prevent the crime in the first place is idiocy.
 
The middle amendments? Like the 13th.? That one is smack in the middle.
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.
People in this thread have posted *real life* situations where people needed to use lethal force to save their own lives and in each case you refuse to address the actual incident and hide behind moral cowardice avoiding saying that yes...it's better that the man run over the police than be shot. Yes...it's better that my daughter be raped than her attacker be shot. Yes....it's better that the cop be bludgeoned to death with a shovel than shot.

You were unable to address ANY of those specifically and say yes, those are the best options because otherwise, *my sense of justice* is outraged.

Everyone has a right to life, first and foremost, before any of the 'middle Constitutional amendments.' And just like you insist on preserving the protections of the 'middle amendments,' self defense is the LEGAL mechanism for preserving one's right to life. To think that the right to due process supersedes the right to prevent the crime in the first place is idiocy.
As you say, "everyone has a right to life" even the people committing what we believe to be criminal acts.
 
Show me your Constitutional right to "self defense."

The Sixth Amendment gives citizens rights that "self defense" denies them.

Being in possession of a weapon doesn't deny you right to a fair trial. There's no asterisk on the Bill of Rights that states that.

Agreed, but I don't see how that's related to this discussion.

When a person decides to use something as a weapon, the state has the power (and duty, imo) to stop that threat-life does not occur in a courtroom and your distance from reality is something to see.
 
When a person decides to use something as a weapon, the state has the power (and duty, imo) to stop that threat-life does not occur in a courtroom and your distance from reality is something to see.
The state is the arbitrator of conflicts arising from violations of law. It is the state's duty to arbitrate and the state's duty to arbitrate according to the constitutional rights of those involved.
 
The state is the arbitrator of conflicts arising from violations of law. It is the state's duty to arbitrate and the state's duty to arbitrate according to the constitutional rights of those involved.

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?
 
As you say, "everyone has a right to life" even the people committing what we believe to be criminal acts.

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)
 
As you say, "everyone has a right to life" even the people committing what we believe to be criminal acts.

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?

People in this thread have posted *real life* situations where people needed to use lethal force to save their own lives and in each case you refuse to address the actual incident and hide behind moral cowardice avoiding saying that yes...it's better that the man run over the police than be shot. Yes...it's better that my daughter be raped than her attacker be shot. Yes....it's better that the cop be bludgeoned to death with a shovel than shot.

You were unable to address ANY of those specifically and say yes, those are the best options because otherwise, *your sense of justice* is outraged.
 
Back
Top Bottom