• 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

Tettsuo said:
Do you run into a lot of bad people? I don't, and I live in Brooklyn.

I don't walk around scared that someone's going to attack me... do you?

I'm asking this because I can understand people behaving in a fearful way if there's danger always lurking around each and every corner (like Somalia). But, the vast majority of Americans live in extremely violence free environments (comparatively speaking), so the message of "be ready to kill!" seems grossly overblown to me.

Hell, I grew up in Brooklyn during the height of the crack epidemic. It was absolutely crazy. So from my lens, all of this fear looks extreme to me.
Click to expand...

Well good for you Tet....But who are you to tell others how to live?
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm a fan of removing the least amount of eyes. I see "self defense" as the most blinding of the options.
Click to expand...

It's more about whether the attacker or the person being attacked gets to keep his eye.

I vote for the person being attacked. Hypothetically, that could be me. In the case being discussed here, it was the cops. If someone is going to be blind or dead, let it be the criminal.
 
j-mac said:
Well good for you Tet....But who are you to tell others how to live?
Click to expand...

I don't see where I told anyone how to live. What I did do, was ask a few questions.
 
Tettsuo said:
I don't see where I told anyone how to live. What I did do, was ask a few questions.
Click to expand...

No I don't walk around scared of other people

and

No I don't walk around scared that someone will attack me....

However, what came after those questions is what I addressed with my own....But you knew that....Now let me say, that you don't have to live in fear to be prudent....People are unpredictable, and preparedness is a hallmark of any intelligent persons thought process....So why would you mock those looking to be prepared?
 
j-mac said:
No I don't walk around scared of other people

and

No I don't walk around scared that someone will attack me....

However, what came after those questions is what I addressed with my own....But you knew that....Now let me say, that you don't have to live in fear to be prudent....People are unpredictable, and preparedness is a hallmark of any intelligent persons thought process....So why would you mock those looking to be prepared?
Click to expand...

I didn't mock anyone. The second half was me giving my personal mindset and my difficulty in understand what seems to me to be folks that are not subject to violence on a regular basis, who appear to overly concerned about being attacked by some phantom boggyman that's always waiting to get them.

What I was addressing was a mindset. The idea that people should live on the edge because someone is lurking in the shadows to cause us harm is paranoia... especially amongst those that are living in relatively safe environment. Now if you said you live in a high crime area, I'd understand, because I grew up in such an area. But if you live in an area with very little crime, what are you afraid of?
 
Unrepresented said:
You're arguing that the right to your perceived risk to life supersedes justice for someone else's life, and you're calling me selfish.
Click to expand...

I dont say it...it is what our justice system "says," observes and enforces, based on it's interpretation of the Constitution, not yours.

It's interesting that you think the act of rape or being bludgeoned by a shovel are only 'perceived' risks to life. Or maybe you think women should allow themselves to raped, since it's not generally fatal (I mean hey, sometimes they let you live after, right? Another yes or no question: a cop with a broken arm and leg should allow a man to continue to bludgeon him with a shovel. Is there any chance that you can answer this honestly? You have not yet, not a single time.

C'mon now...let's see you support your selfless moral conviction and put it into words: Yes, in those three incidents, they should have just allowed the deaths or rape of your daughter.

And this one's an easy yes or no answer:

Lursa said:
Altho you still do not have the strength of your own convictions to come out and say that you believe it preferable that the police allow themselves to be bludgeoned to death with a shovel and run over by a car.
Click to expand...
 
Tettsuo said:
I didn't mock anyone. The second half was me giving my personal mindset and my difficulty in understand what seems to me to be folks that are not subject to violence on a regular basis, who appear to overly concerned about being attacked by some phantom boggyman that's always waiting to get them.

What I was addressing was a mindset. The idea that people should live on the edge because someone is lurking in the shadows to cause us harm is paranoia... especially amongst those that are living in relatively safe environment. Now if you said you live in a high crime area, I'd understand, because I grew up in such an area. But if you live in an area with very little crime, what are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

Why does it bother you that I would exercise my rights?
 
j-mac said:
Why does it bother you that I would exercise my rights?
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

Why do you think anything I asked relates to your right to self defense? Nothing in posts has anything to do with that right from what I can see.
 
Tettsuo said:
It doesn't.

Why do you think anything I asked relates to your right to self defense? Nothing in posts has anything to do with that right from what I can see.
Click to expand...

Because you are casting me in this ridiculous characterization of frightened individuals if I choose to carry.
 
11Bravo said:
Lol, when someone's life is in danger, there's not going to BE a trial, the officer MUST eliminate the threat to himself or the public. Since there was a giant man trying to murder him, he did the right thing by putting him down. 100% legal, 100% fair. Brown chose to try and end the officer's life, and the correct scenario pllayed out. The justice system proved this to be correct.

You don't get taken to trial if you are a threat to a police officer or especially the general public. You will be killed.
Click to expand...
Show me where on the constitution I'm missing the asterisk that denies you multiple rights if a police officer subjectively determines you're trying to murder them.
j-mac said:
Then you do NOT believe in this nations independence....That you said you did was a lie.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

un•al•ien•a•ble (ɪnˈeɪl yə nə bəl, -ˈeɪ li ə-)

adj.
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.

unalienable - definition of unalienable by The Free Dictionary

IOW, The founders believed that we as a people, in fact all of mankind period were endowed by "Natural Rights"....Rights that government can not take away, because they didn't grant them....

You just destroyed your own entire argument....Thanks.

*drops mic, and leaves the stage*
Click to expand...
The epistemology of how they came to their ideology and the ideology itself are two different things. I can appreciate and support the Bill of Rights even if I view the rationale behind their crafting to be primitive.
Dittohead not! said:
It's more about whether the attacker or the person being attacked gets to keep his eye.

I vote for the person being attacked. Hypothetically, that could be me. In the case being discussed here, it was the cops. If someone is going to be blind or dead, let it be the criminal.
Click to expand...
Both have eyes and both have rights to retain both eyes. I'm not prepared to deny a citizen constitutional rights without a very, very significant justification. Perception of threat isn't necessarily a legitimate reason to deny them -- I'm surprised a libertarian would disagree with this analysis.

Lursa said:
I dont say it...it is what our justice system "says," observes and enforces, based on it's interpretation of the Constitution, not yours.

It's interesting that you think the act of rape or being bludgeoned by a shovel are only 'perceived' risks to life. Or maybe you think women should allow themselves to raped, since it's not generally fatal (I mean hey, sometimes they let you live after, right? Another yes or no question: a cop with a broken arm and leg should allow a man to continue to bludgeon him with a shovel. Is there any chance that you can answer this honestly? You have not yet, not a single time.

C'mon now...let's see you support your selfless moral conviction and put it into words: Yes, in those three incidents, they should have just allowed the deaths or rape of your daughter.

And this one's an easy yes or no answer:
Click to expand...
I don't endorse anyone raping or killing anyone, which seems to be your repeated implication.

I do endorse the least amount of infringement of constitutional rights on as many many people as possible. Legally permitting "self defense" is a conflict to retaining the greatest constitutional rights for the most people.
 
Unrepresented said:
Both have eyes and both have rights to retain both eyes. I'm not prepared to deny a citizen constitutional rights without a very, very significant justification. Perception of threat isn't necessarily a legitimate reason to deny them -- I'm surprised a libertarian would disagree with this analysis.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who would be denying anyone the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. That would be the attacker. In the case of the guy who wanted to run over the cops, that would be the driver, not the cops, trying to deny someone of their rights.
 
Unrepresented said:
I don't endorse anyone raping or killing anyone, which seems to be your repeated implication.

I do endorse the least amount of infringement of constitutional rights on as many many people as possible. Legally permitting "self defense" is a conflict to retaining the greatest constitutional rights for the most people.
Click to expand...

No, that has clearly not been the question. You are/desire to remove the option of lethal force that in those cases, would SAVE them. Their lives.

No one is endorsing crime of any kind here and you just used this lie to avoid answering the question again.


Lursa said:
It's interesting that you think the act of rape or being bludgeoned by a shovel are only 'perceived' risks to life. Or maybe you think women should allow themselves to raped, since it's not generally fatal (I mean hey, sometimes they let you live after, right? Another yes or no question: a cop with a broken arm and leg should allow a man to continue to bludgeon him with a shovel. Is there any chance that you can answer this honestly? You have not yet, not a single time.

C'mon now...let's see you support your selfless moral conviction and put it into words: Yes, in those three incidents, they should have just allowed the deaths or rape of your daughter.

And this one's an easy yes or no answer
Click to expand...

Making "self defense" illegal is a conflict to retaining the greatest constitutional rights for the most people. It's not about numbers....our justice system is based on more than numbers. It's about providing justice for those in the right....just like our laws protecting minorities from discrimination and abuse. The idea of expecting someone to die before their attacker can be tried in court is insane.
 
Unrepresented said:
The epistemology of how they came to their ideology and the ideology itself are two different things. I can appreciate and support the Bill of Rights even if I view the rationale behind their crafting to be primitive.
Click to expand...

Whoa there professor....I'm a simple guy....You want to put this into english for me?
 
Unrepresented said:
Show me where on the constitution I'm missing the asterisk that denies you multiple rights if a police officer subjectively determines you're trying to murder them.

The epistemology of how they came to their ideology and the ideology itself are two different things. I can appreciate and support the Bill of Rights even if I view the rationale behind their crafting to be primitive.

Both have eyes and both have rights to retain both eyes. I'm not prepared to deny a citizen constitutional rights without a very, very significant justification. Perception of threat isn't necessarily a legitimate reason to deny them -- I'm surprised a libertarian would disagree with this analysis.


I don't endorse anyone raping or killing anyone, which seems to be your repeated implication.

I do endorse the least amount of infringement of constitutional rights on as many many people as possible. Legally permitting "self defense" is a conflict to retaining the greatest constitutional rights for the most people.
Click to expand...

Your questions are irrelevant because you are LYING. The police officer did NOT attack brown. Brown attacked the police officer, giving the police officer the right to use lethal force. Hell, while brown attacked him, brown tried to murder him in cold blood with his firearm. Luckily, the officer is very brave, and highly trained and was able to put the savage animal down.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not the one who would be denying anyone the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. That would be the attacker. In the case of the guy who wanted to run over the cops, that would be the driver, not the cops, trying to deny someone of their rights.
Click to expand...
You're half right. The attacker was attempting to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who killed him also did.
Lursa said:
No, that has clearly not been the question. You are/desire to remove the option of lethal force that in those cases, would SAVE them. Their lives.

No one is endorsing crime of any kind here and you just used this lie to avoid answering the question again.
Click to expand...
You're arguing that killing people saves lives.

I'm going to type that again to let it sink it:

You're arguing that killing people saves lives.
Lursa said:
Making "self defense" illegal is a conflict to retaining the greatest constitutional rights for the most people. It's not about numbers....our justice system is based on more than numbers. It's about providing justice for those in the right....just like our laws protecting minorities from discrimination and abuse. The idea of expecting someone to die before their attacker can be tried in court is insane.
Click to expand...
Neither party has been recognized by the state as having committed a crime. They should both be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Just because you see one as "the bad guy" doesn't mean that the justice system shouldn't provide due process. You're not and should not be the justice system. It's called a system for a reason.
j-mac said:
Whoa there professor....I'm a simple guy....You want to put this into english for me?
Click to expand...
I disagree with the rationale behind "natural rights" even if I think that the Constitutional rights it affords are valuable.
11Bravo said:
Your questions are irrelevant because you are LYING. The police officer did NOT attack brown. Brown attacked the police officer, giving the police officer the right to use lethal force. Hell, while brown attacked him, brown tried to murder him in cold blood with his firearm. Luckily, the officer is very brave, and highly trained and was able to put the savage animal down.
Click to expand...
If the officer used lethal force, that's attacking.
 
Unrepresented said:
You're half right. The attacker was attempting to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who killed him also did.

You're arguing that killing people saves lives.

I'm going to type that again to let it sink it:

You're arguing that killing people saves lives.

Neither party has been recognized by the state as having committed a crime. They should both be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Just because you see one as "the bad guy" doesn't mean that the justice system shouldn't provide due process. You're not and should not be the justice system. It's called a system for a reason.

I disagree with the rationale behind "natural rights" even if I think that the Constitutional rights it affords are valuable.

If the officer used lethal force, that's attacking.
Click to expand...

"You're half right. The attacker was attempting to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who killed him also did.". Lol, I'm actually whole-right. The judicial system proved my version true, and yours false. As Brown tried to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (lol) of Wilson. Luckily, and we all thank god for this, Wilson was highly trained and focused and was able to over-power the savage animal and put him to rest.

"If the officer used lethal force, that's attacking." in a literal sence, absolutely, you are right. That's like saying the French police attacked the terrorists. In the eyes of the LAW, you are wrong. Legal lethal force is a necessary precaution, not an attack.

Lol, I'm enjoying this argument.
 
Unrepresented said:
You're arguing that killing people saves lives.

I'm going to type that again to let it sink it:

You're arguing that killing people saves lives.
Click to expand...


And you are arguing that if people can save themselves thru lethal force, they legally and morally may not and must allow themselves to be killed or raped.

Now....does that sound rational at all? Of course, you still refused to answer specifically if the cops and the daughter should indeed have allowed themselves to continue to be attacked until death/raped. Seems like moral quicksand since you cannot stand up and articulate it honestly.
 
11Bravo said:
"You're half right. The attacker was attempting to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who killed him also did.". Lol, I'm actually whole-right. The judicial system proved my version true, and yours false. As Brown tried to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (lol) of Wilson. Luckily, and we all thank god for this, Wilson was highly trained and focused and was able to over-power the savage animal and put him to rest.

"If the officer used lethal force, that's attacking." in a literal sence, absolutely, you are right. That's like saying the French police attacked the terrorists. In the eyes of the LAW, you are wrong. Legal lethal force is a necessary precaution, not an attack.

Lol, I'm enjoying this argument.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not arguing what our current legal standards based on case law are. I'm arguing the conflicts in the legal theory of "self defense."

Lursa said:
And you are arguing that if people can save themselves thru lethal force, they legally and morally may not and must allow themselves to be killed or raped.

Now....does that sound rational at all? Of course, you still refused to answer specifically if the cops and the daughter should indeed have allowed themselves to continue to be attacked until death/raped. Seems like moral quicksand since you cannot stand up and articulate it honestly.
Click to expand...

I can prevent myself from being raped if I were to proactively kill every human on the planet. That's not defense, however. It's still murder.

At what point to we prioritize prevention of rape v access to due process?
 
Unrepresented said:
I can prevent myself from being raped if I were to proactively kill every human on the planet. That's not defense, however. It's still murder.

At what point to we prioritize prevention of rape v access to due process?
Click to expand...

Barely and only circumspectly a response to the post (reposted below). That is pretty desperate.

So, still cannot honestly come out and defend your apparently indefensible opinion with a direct answer.

Lursa said:
And you are arguing that if people can save themselves thru lethal force, they legally and morally may not and must allow themselves to be killed or raped.

Now....does that sound rational at all? Of course, you still refused to answer specifically if the cops and the daughter should indeed have allowed themselves to continue to be attacked until death/raped. Seems like moral quicksand since you cannot stand up and articulate it honestly.
Click to expand...
 
Unrepresented said:
You're half right. The attacker was attempting to deprive life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who killed him also did.

You're arguing that killing people saves lives.

I'm going to type that again to let it sink it:

You're arguing that killing people saves lives.

Neither party has been recognized by the state as having committed a crime. They should both be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Just because you see one as "the bad guy" doesn't mean that the justice system shouldn't provide due process. You're not and should not be the justice system. It's called a system for a reason.

I disagree with the rationale behind "natural rights" even if I think that the Constitutional rights it affords are valuable.

If the officer used lethal force, that's attacking.
Click to expand...
When you were born, did the government tell you when to enter the world?
 
Unrepresented said:
Again, I'm not arguing what our current legal standards based on case law are. I'm arguing the conflicts in the legal theory of "self defense."



I can prevent myself from being raped if I were to proactively kill every human on the planet. That's not defense, however. It's still murder.

At what point to we prioritize prevention of rape v access to due process?
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure why you decided to use that completely irrelevant analogy, but good luck with it. No one was murdered. An officer or citizen that kills their attacker, it's not murder. It's JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. It is legal in all 50 states and federally. It means you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force, when someone is already attacking you with lethal force. Grabbing and trying to shoot a police officer with their gun is 100% that category. It means the savage criminal (brown) caused his own death.

I hope this helped clear up your confusion/ignorance of the way our society works.
 
11Bravo said:
I'm not even sure why you decided to use that completely irrelevant analogy, but good luck with it. No one was murdered. An officer or citizen that kills their attacker, it's not murder. It's JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. It is legal in all 50 states and federally. It means you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force, when someone is already attacking you with lethal force. Grabbing and trying to shoot a police officer with their gun is 100% that category. It means the savage criminal (brown) caused his own death.

I hope this helped clear up your confusion/ignorance of the way our society works.
Click to expand...

He knows and believes that law is unConstitutional. This is what he believes and he makes no attempt to deny it:

Lursa said:
And you are arguing that if people can save themselves thru lethal force, they legally and morally may not and must allow themselves to be killed or raped.
Click to expand...

He believes that it is a miscarriage of justice and that the attacker should be allowed to kill and THEN be tried in the courts.
 
Lursa said:
He knows and believes that law is unConstitutional. This is what he believes and he makes no attempt to deny it:
Click to expand...

If this individual believes you cannot protect yourself with lethal force when someone is using it on you, than this individual needs to move to Fantasy Land where all your dreams come true!
 
Lursa said:
He knows and believes that law is unConstitutional. This is what he believes and he makes no attempt to deny it:



He believes that it is a miscarriage of justice and that the attacker should be allowed to kill and THEN be tried in the courts.
Click to expand...

Protecting the rights of the murderer. That's a new one.
 
Unrepresented said:
Again, I'm not arguing what our current legal standards based on case law are. I'm arguing the conflicts in the legal theory of "self defense."



I can prevent myself from being raped if I were to proactively kill every human on the planet. That's not defense, however. It's still murder.

At what point to we prioritize prevention of rape v access to due process?
Click to expand...
At the point that some (bleep!) attacks a woman and someone is near enough to help her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom