• 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

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.

I have answered your question: The rights of both citizens need to be observed, both the one perceived to be committing the crime and the one perceived to be the victim of the crime. If there is a need for justice, let the justice system be the arbiter not the vigilante.
When you were born, did the government tell you when to enter the world?
In a sense, yes. It helped to determine who my parents were, it helped to build the hospital I was born in, it helped to educate the doctor who performed my birth, etc.

I am a product of society.

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.

I understand what the law considers "justifiable homicide." This isn't an argument over me not having a basic understanding of our law, it's a difference of opinion on the validity of the law.

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.

I don't believe the attacker should be allowed to kill, I just disagree about what constitutes self defense.
At the point that some (bleep!) attacks a woman and someone is near enough to help her.
She can be defended without killing citizens.
 
I have answered your question: The rights of both citizens need to be observed, both the one perceived to be committing the crime and the one perceived to be the victim of the crime. If there is a need for justice, let the justice system be the arbiter not the vigilante.

No...you did not. You continue to avoid it....preferring to hide the actual words that state for everyone your position. Because the rights of both citizens CANNOT be observed if one attacks and kills the other. Who is protecting the rights of the attacked? The laws supporting self-defense which only allow lethal force when there is no alternative. WHich you completely ignore OR are unable to understand. Can you clarify that for me? Do you understand that lethal force is only legal when there is no other alternative to save a life or from gross bodily harm?

So again: you stumble around trying to avoid answering: should the policeman being bludgeoned to death, already with a broken arm and leg, have to allow the attacker to kill him without using lethal force to stop him?

And, should a bystander, a woman like myself, just stand there, call 911, and let an armed man rape your daughter rather than use lethal force to stop him?

You have not answered these direct questions, not once.. And they are not rare....that has also been proven since we have obvious and recent examples right here in this thread.

So....any possibility you can honestly answer to support your moral belief...or not? The daughter gets raped, the cop gets bludgeoned to death...better than lethal intervention...yes or no?

Any cojones in there at all????? If not, it's apparent that your unrealistic and selfish moral position is not actually your true belief, especially when it affects you personally.


She can be defended without killing citizens.

How? How can a woman stop a rapist with a knife coming at her, with nowhere to escape to? Let's hear it.

C'mon, put something real beneath the shifting sands of your selfish moral stance.
 
I don't believe the attacker should be allowed to kill, I just disagree about what constitutes self defense.

The law is clear on self-defense.....you can only use lethal force if it's the only way to stop from being killed or from an attacker doing gross bodily harm.

So...what constitutes self-defense in your opinion?


And crazy question I know....if using lethal force to stop them is the ONLY way to stop the attacker....how do you 'not allow it?'

(It should be noted that the purpose of lethal force is to stop the attack as immediately as possible...not to kill. Lethal force often does not kill, but the victim must continue until the attack STOPS.)
 
I have answered your question: The rights of both citizens need to be observed, both the one perceived to be committing the crime and the one perceived to be the victim of the crime. If there is a need for justice, let the justice system be the arbiter not the vigilante.

In a sense, yes. It helped to determine who my parents were, it helped to build the hospital I was born in, it helped to educate the doctor who performed my birth, etc.

I am a product of society.



I understand what the law considers "justifiable homicide." This isn't an argument over me not having a basic understanding of our law, it's a difference of opinion on the validity of the law.



I don't believe the attacker should be allowed to kill, I just disagree about what constitutes self defense.

She can be defended without killing citizens.
It determined who you parents were? How's that?
 
I have answered your question: The rights of both citizens need to be observed, both the one perceived to be committing the crime and the one perceived to be the victim of the crime. If there is a need for justice, let the justice system be the arbiter not the vigilante.

In a sense, yes. It helped to determine who my parents were, it helped to build the hospital I was born in, it helped to educate the doctor who performed my birth, etc.

I am a product of society.



I understand what the law considers "justifiable homicide." This isn't an argument over me not having a basic understanding of our law, it's a difference of opinion on the validity of the law.



I don't believe the attacker should be allowed to kill, I just disagree about what constitutes self defense.

She can be defended without killing citizens.

Let me ask you this, Unrepresented:

If you stop to ask someone for directions and the person you ask for directions takes a bat and starts beating you (without you having physically touched this person), do you believe you have a right to defend yourself? We both know the answer to that question.

Brown physically attacked (of all people) a cop. The reason Wilson was not even indicted, was because he did the RIGHT thing. Killing Brown was not only necessary due to the situation, but likely prevented future murders from a savage animal. Anyone willing to murder an officer in cold blood in public, has likely killed before. I am sure once this dies down that they will likely dig into Brown's past to see if any unsolved murders are linked to him. Likely there are.
 
She can be defended without killing citizens.

Maybe, and maybe not. If the attacker is large, strong, and crazy on PCP and the defender is small, weak, but armed with a handgun or a baseball bat, then the only alternative to screaming and running in circles would likely be to shoot the attacker or bash him on the head.

Would you simply scream and run in circles, call the cops and wait for them to arrive, or perhaps just tell the attacker to pretty please wait for his trial?
 
No...you did not. You continue to avoid it....preferring to hide the actual words that state for everyone your position. Because the rights of both citizens CANNOT be observed if one attacks and kills the other. Who is protecting the rights of the attacked? The laws supporting self-defense which only allow lethal force when there is no alternative. WHich you completely ignore OR are unable to understand. Can you clarify that for me? Do you understand that lethal force is only legal when there is no other alternative to save a life or from gross bodily harm?

So again: you stumble around trying to avoid answering: should the policeman being bludgeoned to death, already with a broken arm and leg, have to allow the attacker to kill him without using lethal force to stop him?

And, should a bystander, a woman like myself, just stand there, call 911, and let an armed man rape your daughter rather than use lethal force to stop him?

You have not answered these direct questions, not once.. And they are not rare....that has also been proven since we have obvious and recent examples right here in this thread.

So....any possibility you can honestly answer to support your moral belief...or not? The daughter gets raped, the cop gets bludgeoned to death...better than lethal intervention...yes or no?

Any cojones in there at all????? If not, it's apparent that your unrealistic and selfish moral position is not actually your true belief, especially when it affects you personally.




How? How can a woman stop a rapist with a knife coming at her, with nowhere to escape to? Let's hear it.

C'mon, put something real beneath the shifting sands of your selfish moral stance.
I disagree with your view that self defense laws are appropriately limited, the statistics for citizens killed by police suggests that law enforcement is given far too much leeway:

KilledByPolice_circumstances_v3.0.png

The law is clear on self-defense.....you can only use lethal force if it's the only way to stop from being killed or from an attacker doing gross bodily harm.

So...what constitutes self-defense in your opinion?


And crazy question I know....if using lethal force to stop them is the ONLY way to stop the attacker....how do you 'not allow it?'

(It should be noted that the purpose of lethal force is to stop the attack as immediately as possible...not to kill. Lethal force often does not kill, but the victim must continue until the attack STOPS.)
If this was reality, unarmed men wouldn't be getting killed while armed men go free.

syg_graphic_web.png

It determined who you parents were? How's that?
Extrapolate my earlier response.

Let me ask you this, Unrepresented:

If you stop to ask someone for directions and the person you ask for directions takes a bat and starts beating you (without you having physically touched this person), do you believe you have a right to defend yourself? We both know the answer to that question.

Brown physically attacked (of all people) a cop. The reason Wilson was not even indicted, was because he did the RIGHT thing. Killing Brown was not only necessary due to the situation, but likely prevented future murders from a savage animal. Anyone willing to murder an officer in cold blood in public, has likely killed before. I am sure once this dies down that they will likely dig into Brown's past to see if any unsolved murders are linked to him. Likely there are.

I have a right to defend myself. Killing the other person isn't defending myself.

Maybe, and maybe not. If the attacker is large, strong, and crazy on PCP and the defender is small, weak, but armed with a handgun or a baseball bat, then the only alternative to screaming and running in circles would likely be to shoot the attacker or bash him on the head.

Would you simply scream and run in circles, call the cops and wait for them to arrive, or perhaps just tell the attacker to pretty please wait for his trial?

And maybe the attacker is a vampire, and has laser beams he shoots from his eyes, and other unrealistic additions meant to prey on societal fears that rarely occur.
 
I disagree with your view that self defense laws are appropriately limited, the statistics for citizens killed by police suggests that law enforcement is given far too much leeway:

KilledByPolice_circumstances_v3.0.png


If this was reality, unarmed men wouldn't be getting killed while armed men go free.

syg_graphic_web.png


Extrapolate my earlier response.



I have a right to defend myself. Killing the other person isn't defending myself.



And maybe the attacker is a vampire, and has laser beams he shoots from his eyes, and other unrealistic additions meant to prey on societal fears that rarely occur.
Why don't you just explain your ridiculous statement? How did the state choose your parents?
 
I disagree with your view that self defense laws are appropriately limited, the statistics for citizens killed by police suggests that law enforcement is given far too much leeway:

KilledByPolice_circumstances_v3.0.png


If this was reality, unarmed men wouldn't be getting killed while armed men go free.

syg_graphic_web.png


Extrapolate my earlier response.



I have a right to defend myself. Killing the other person isn't defending myself.



And maybe the attacker is a vampire, and has laser beams he shoots from his eyes, and other unrealistic additions meant to prey on societal fears that rarely occur.

Being large, strong, and under the influence of PCP or some other such substance is not at all unrealistic.

You do have a point that there have been questionable shootings by the police. You don't have a point that a cop or anyone else shouldn't have the right to self defense, even if that means killing someone who is a threat.
 
Why don't you just explain your ridiculous statement? How did the state choose your parents?

And provide sources for all that too. It's something pulled together by someone named Darla apparently, who could pick and choose at will.

And has nothing to do with what I claimed....the laws are clear. Enforcement and convictions are not...juries are not predictable and laws are interpreted differently. Those things go to juries...the very thing he DEMANDS. He makes no sense at all.
 
No...you did not. You continue to avoid it....preferring to hide the actual words that state for everyone your position. Because the rights of both citizens CANNOT be observed if one attacks and kills the other. Who is protecting the rights of the attacked? The laws supporting self-defense which only allow lethal force when there is no alternative. WHich you completely ignore OR are unable to understand. Can you clarify that for me? Do you understand that lethal force is only legal when there is no other alternative to save a life or from gross bodily harm?

So again: you stumble around trying to avoid answering: should the policeman being bludgeoned to death, already with a broken arm and leg, have to allow the attacker to kill him without using lethal force to stop him?

And, should a bystander, a woman like myself, just stand there, call 911, and let an armed man rape your daughter rather than use lethal force to stop him?

You have not answered these direct questions, not once.. And they are not rare....that has also been proven since we have obvious and recent examples right here in this thread.

So....any possibility you can honestly answer to support your moral belief...or not? The daughter gets raped, the cop gets bludgeoned to death...better than lethal intervention...yes or no?

Any cojones in there at all????? If not, it's apparent that your unrealistic and selfish moral position is not actually your true belief, especially when it affects you personally.


How? How can a woman stop a rapist with a knife coming at her, with nowhere to escape to? Let's hear it.

C'mon, put something real beneath the shifting sands of your selfish moral stance.

^^^So, huge attempt at diversion but still no answers? Why is that? Why cant you honestly answer? Obviously you cannot without admitting that your position is a fantasy.
 
Why don't you just explain your ridiculous statement? How did the state choose your parents?
The state obviously didn't make my parents compulsory breed me, but the state did provide all the factors that led to my parents meeting, breeding, and giving birth to me.

Being large, strong, and under the influence of PCP or some other such substance is not at all unrealistic.

You do have a point that there have been questionable shootings by the police. You don't have a point that a cop or anyone else shouldn't have the right to self defense, even if that means killing someone who is a threat.

No one should be killed "because they're a threat." That's not justice.
 
I don't believe the attacker should be allowed to kill, I just disagree about what constitutes self defense.


So...what constitutes self-defense in your opinion?



So again...no answer? Is it not possible to provide a direct answer to any question that threatens your position?
 
The state obviously didn't make my parents compulsory breed me, but the state did provide all the factors that led to my parents meeting, breeding, and giving birth to me.



No one should be killed "because they're a threat." That's not justice.

So, you allow them to kill someone else.
 
So, you allow them to kill someone else.

He refuses to directly answer that. He says that self defense is wrong because it deprives the attacker of 'justice.'

So then yes, you must allow them to kill you or another if there is no other escape. But he wont admit that.
 
He refuses to directly answer that. He says that self defense is wrong because it deprives the attacker of 'justice.'

So then yes, you must allow them to kill you or another if there is no other escape. But he wont admit that.

Admit it or not, it's reality. The story in the OP is a prime example.

Most people will never have to face a kill or be killed scenario unless they become cops or soldiers, but that doesn't mean that we forfeit the right to act appropriately in our own defense should we ever be in that situation.

If I were the one whose life was in danger, Unrepresented would be the last one I'd want to be armed and ready to act. He'd want to conduct a trial before pulling the trigger.
 
I disagree with your view that self defense laws are appropriately limited, the statistics for citizens killed by police suggests that law enforcement is given far too much leeway:

KilledByPolice_circumstances_v3.0.png


If this was reality, unarmed men wouldn't be getting killed while armed men go free.

syg_graphic_web.png


Extrapolate my earlier response.



I have a right to defend myself. Killing the other person isn't defending myself.



And maybe the attacker is a vampire, and has laser beams he shoots from his eyes, and other unrealistic additions meant to prey on societal fears that rarely occur.

65% of fights that involve one person having a weapon to assault with, result in the death of the other person being attacked. Meaning, 65% of those people are doomed to die because they can't shoot the person attacking them because they were unarmed (using a gun for example). Had they had a weapon, they could have lived.

Uniform Crime Report. I keep asking you to look at it and you refuse.

If someone is about to shoot you, and YOU have a gun, are you just going to let them shoot you? Hell no! You're going to take yours out and fire and hope you live! Sure it would be nice to have great aim and to shoot the guy in the hand, making him drop the gun. Chances are, you'll hit them somewhere where they are going to bleed a lot (chest or stomach area). That doesn't mean you intended to kill them. It means you defended yourself by shooting your attacker. That's why it's justifiable.
 
So again...no answer? Is it not possible to provide a direct answer to any question that threatens your position?
Defense is escaping, disarming, seeking shelter, getting assistance, trapping, calming, avoiding, etc.

If you're using a weapon you're not defending.
 
Defense is escaping, disarming, seeking shelter, getting assistance, trapping, calming, avoiding, etc.

If you're using a weapon you're not defending.

Then by all means, let's get rid of all of the weapons owned by the cops and military. They can defend us by escaping, disarming, seeking shelter, getting assistance, trapping, calming, avoiding, etc.
 
Defense is escaping, disarming, seeking shelter, getting assistance, trapping, calming, avoiding, etc.

If you're using a weapon you're not defending.

No, factually NONE of those things is defense except perhaps disarming.

And you know it too. So you are lying. And making up stuff to admit that your position has no foundation in reality OR justice.

You need a dictionary for more than just 'justice,' that's apparent.

You are factually wrong in your description.
 
So, you allow them to kill someone else.
There's no guarantee that anyone's killing anyone. You're advocating brinksmanship based on fear.

He refuses to directly answer that. He says that self defense is wrong because it deprives the attacker of 'justice.'

So then yes, you must allow them to kill you or another if there is no other escape. But he wont admit that.

If there's no escape, there's no escape. Lethal violence or death is almost always a false dichotomy.

Admit it or not, it's reality. The story in the OP is a prime example.

Most people will never have to face a kill or be killed scenario unless they become cops or soldiers, but that doesn't mean that we forfeit the right to act appropriately in our own defense should we ever be in that situation.

If I were the one whose life was in danger, Unrepresented would be the last one I'd want to be armed and ready to act. He'd want to conduct a trial before pulling the trigger.

I also imagine I'd be the one you'd prefer behind the trigger if you'd made a mistake rather than a trigger happy vigilante with an "us or them" mentality.

65% of fights that involve one person having a weapon to assault with, result in the death of the other person being attacked. Meaning, 65% of those people are doomed to die because they can't shoot the person attacking them because they were unarmed (using a gun for example). Had they had a weapon, they could have lived.

Uniform Crime Report. I keep asking you to look at it and you refuse.

If someone is about to shoot you, and YOU have a gun, are you just going to let them shoot you? Hell no! You're going to take yours out and fire and hope you live! Sure it would be nice to have great aim and to shoot the guy in the hand, making him drop the gun. Chances are, you'll hit them somewhere where they are going to bleed a lot (chest or stomach area). That doesn't mean you intended to kill them. It means you defended yourself by shooting your attacker. That's why it's justifiable.

You seem to be arguing, based on my link that the people killed by people claiming "self defense" should've been armed.
 
There's no guarantee that anyone's killing anyone. You're advocating brinksmanship based on fear.



If there's no escape, there's no escape. Lethal violence or death is almost always a false dichotomy.



I also imagine I'd be the one you'd prefer behind the trigger if you'd made a mistake rather than a trigger happy vigilante with an "us or them" mentality.



You seem to be arguing, based on my link that the people killed by people claiming "self defense" should've been armed.

No i'm trying to get you to directly answer the self defense question. I proposed a very common case.

If you are armed, and someone decides they are going to shoot you, would you not take out your weapon and fire back to preserve your life? Or would you feel that they should kill you?
 
No i'm trying to get you to directly answer the self defense question. I proposed a very common case.

If you are armed, and someone decides they are going to shoot you, would you not take out your weapon and fire back to preserve your life? Or would you feel that they should kill you?
My first goal would be to protect my own life, not to kill another person.

The two actions are not the same.
 
If there's no escape, there's no escape. Lethal violence or death is almost always a false dichotomy.

So the cop with the broken arm and broken leg continuing to be bludgeoned by a man with a shovel: false dichotomy? How was he escaping?

False dichotomy: yes or no?

Again: should he have allowed the attack to continue rather than use lethal force?

It's a yes or no question. Try it: yes no. Pick one.
 
The state obviously didn't make my parents compulsory breed me, but the state did provide all the factors that led to my parents meeting, breeding, and giving birth to me.


You must be a romantic...
 
Back
Top Bottom