• 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

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're trying to analyze an entire encounter by isolating a single moment within it. Once you have your limbs broken, obviously your choices are limited. If you're allowing your limbs to be broken you're falling to protect yourself, and by extension you're increasing the risk to your attacker's life because now it's "self defense" as opposed to prevention where no one gets seriously hurt.
 
Unrepresented said:
No one should be killed "because they're a threat." That's not justice.
Click to expand...
Reality isn't just.

But more applicably, my understanding is that legally, police officers and in some cases private individuals are allowed to defend themselves against what they consider to be a threat to their life - by applying lethal force if the situation warrants it.

It is my further understanding that this is the case because it is currently considered the best of the available options, by the society we live in.

If you're arguing that the law and interpretation thereof is incorrect, that is something for you to work towards changing.


But the current state of affairs is in place because the society we live in has determined it is best...so you have to change minds and get them to change laws if you want it different.

Whether it is unjust in your opinion is effectively irrelevant, unless you can convince enough others to agree.
 
Unrepresented said:
My first goal would be to protect my own life, not to kill another person.

The two actions are not the same.
Click to expand...

Are you going to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand like they used to do in the old western movies?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are you going to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand like they used to do in the old western movies?
Click to expand...

I think I saw/read somewhere that it is usually considered optimal for you to shoot "center of mass", in a self-defense situation, as that is the most likely to incapacitate the person, rather than just making them angry.

Especially if you are using a firearm that has greater dispersion, and/or if you're minimally trained (or not trained).


It is obvious that this often results in the person you are shooting at dieing - but while this is generally considered a negative, it is also generally considered better than simply letting them harm/kill you.
 
Unrepresented said:
You're trying to analyze an entire encounter by isolating a single moment within it. Once you have your limbs broken, obviously your choices are limited. If you're allowing your limbs to be broken you're falling to protect yourself, and by extension you're increasing the risk to your attacker's life because now it's "self defense" as opposed to prevention where no one gets seriously hurt.
Click to expand...

So the cop forfeits his life because he didnt shoot the lethal danger (to the public as well, which it's his job to protect) as soon as he saw him? Or he didnt run away, therefore also not doing his job? Or calling back up and waiting while the shovel-weilder beat others?

Again....blaming the victim and no honest answer because your selfish and unrealistic view cannot be supported honestly.

I guess it was your daughter's fault for not escaping fast enough when the rapist grabbed her. Or not knowing martial arts to disable him? So she forfeited her body and possibly her life and any (armed) bystander should just let him rape her while calling 911 and waiting for the cops to get out there on the jogging trail?

Yes? No? Please, pick one. Or admit that there is no way to honestly support your position.
 
Last edited:
Unrepresented said:
You're trying to analyze an entire encounter by isolating a single moment within it. Once you have your limbs broken, obviously your choices are limited. If you're allowing your limbs to be broken you're falling to protect yourself, and by extension you're increasing the risk to your attacker's life because now it's "self defense" as opposed to prevention where no one gets seriously hurt.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, what actions on the part of a person are sufficient to reach the threshold at which you would support a police officer or private citizen killing them?
 
Unrepresented said:
My first goal would be to protect my own life, not to kill another person.

The two actions are not the same.
Click to expand...

So you are refusing to answer my question? If someone pulled a gun on you, and you were armed, what would be your actions? Be specific for us.
 
Unrepresented said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking you to answer the self defense question that you've been dodging all week. If you were armed, and someone pulled a gun on you, what would be your actions. Please be specific for us.

I'll paint the scenario (this is a real scenario from last month I read about in the NYP):

You are walking home from work. You walk past two men who have just shot a man they were robbing. You see this happen, and they see you. They realize you are a witness. They then turn their guns on you and charge at you. They are getting closer, they are about 40 feet away. Realizing that they are now splitting up to make sure you don't run, you are trapped, you have a glock on your waist, what happens next?

Please be vivid.
 
11Bravo said:
I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking you to answer the self defense question that you've been dodging all week. If you were armed, and someone pulled a gun on you, what would be your actions. Please be specific for us.

I'll paint the scenario (this is a real scenario from last month I read about in the NYP):

You are walking home from work. You walk past two men who have just shot a man they were robbing. You see this happen, and they see you. They realize you are a witness. They then turn their guns on you and charge at you. They are getting closer, they are about 40 feet away. Realizing that they are now splitting up to make sure you don't run, you are trapped, you have a glock on your waist, what happens next?

Please be vivid.
Click to expand...

Not sure it's good example. He would probably let them kill him...that's a personal choice and he's welcome to it. I'm disturbed that he would choose to legislate away the right to life for others that COULD save their own lives with lethal force if necessary.

Part of the reason he would just say let them kill him is because he cannot actually imagine these scenarios in a realistic manner. He obviously avoided any empathy with the victims in the examples I gave, refused to put himself in their places.....to do so, would make his position even more unreasonable. He cant imagine the speed and violence of predatory attacks either. He thinks you have lots of time.

He cant imagine surviving it so he'd just capitulate. But this inability to truly understand life or death situations...and the denial that they are not rare....leaves many holes in his moral position.

One that you and I and others have clearly observed since he refuses to directly answer those questions.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Not sure it's good example. He would probably let them kill him...that's a personal choice and he's welcome to it. I'm disturbed that he would choose to legislate away the right to life for others that COULD save their own lives with lethal force if necessary.

Part of the reason he would just say let them kill him is because he cannot actually imagine these scenarios in a realistic manner. He obviously avoided any empathy with the victims in the examples I gave, refused to put himself in their places.....to do so, would make his position even more unreasonable. He cant imagine the speed and violence of predatory attacks either. He thinks you have lots of time.

He cant imagine surviving it so he'd just capitulate. But this inability to truly understand life or death situations...and the denial that they are not rare....leaves many holes in his moral position.

One that you and I and others have clearly observed since he refuses to directly answer those questions.
Click to expand...

That's a great way to put it. He truly doesn't understand life or death situations. This individual one day will realize what we're talking about. I'm assuming he's fairly young. His argument makes absolutely no sense to the common man.
 
The Mark said:
Reality isn't just.

But more applicably, my understanding is that legally, police officers and in some cases private individuals are allowed to defend themselves against what they consider to be a threat to their life - by applying lethal force if the situation warrants it.

It is my further understanding that this is the case because it is currently considered the best of the available options, by the society we live in.

If you're arguing that the law and interpretation thereof is incorrect, that is something for you to work towards changing.


But the current state of affairs is in place because the society we live in has determined it is best...so you have to change minds and get them to change laws if you want it different.

Whether it is unjust in your opinion is effectively irrelevant, unless you can convince enough others to agree.
Click to expand...

Everything posted on this board amounts to the opinions of people with no real power. I'm just another voicing a concern from conflicts I perceive in our application of justice.
Dittohead not! said:
Are you going to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand like they used to do in the old western movies?
Click to expand...
I don't own a gun, so that's an unlikely event.

Lursa said:
So the cop forfeits his life because he didnt shoot the lethal danger (to the public as well, which it's his job to protect) as soon as he saw him? Or he didnt run away, therefore also not doing his job? Or calling back up and waiting while the shovel-weilder beat others?

Again....blaming the victim and no honest answer because your selfish and unrealistic view cannot be supported honestly.

I guess it was your daughter's fault for not escaping fast enough when the rapist grabbed her. Or not knowing martial arts to disable him? So she forfeited her body and possibly her life and any (armed) bystander should just let him rape her while calling 911 and waiting for the cops to get out there on the jogging trail?

Yes? No? Please, pick one. Or admit that there is no way to honestly support your position.
Click to expand...

The cop isn't protecting someone by killing them. Even the accused is still a member of the public and entitled to protection.

The Mark said:
In your opinion, what actions on the part of a person are sufficient to reach the threshold at which you would support a police officer or private citizen killing them?
Click to expand...

Ideally none. I see "justifiable homicide" as the failure to prevent escalation. If we're preventing the escalation, we don't have reasons to reach "kill or be killed" moments.

11Bravo said:
So you are refusing to answer my question? If someone pulled a gun on you, and you were armed, what would be your actions? Be specific for us.
Click to expand...

A)I wouldn't be armed.

B) Comply. If they have a loaded, lethal weapon aimed at me and I don't have a loaded lethal weapon aimed at them I have almost no option but to comply.

C) If I did have a loaded, lethal weapon on me, I can't aim it at everyone who may aim their loaded, lethal weapon at me.

11Bravo said:
I'm not arguing anything. I'm asking you to answer the self defense question that you've been dodging all week. If you were armed, and someone pulled a gun on you, what would be your actions. Please be specific for us.

I'll paint the scenario (this is a real scenario from last month I read about in the NYP):

You are walking home from work. You walk past two men who have just shot a man they were robbing. You see this happen, and they see you. They realize you are a witness. They then turn their guns on you and charge at you. They are getting closer, they are about 40 feet away. Realizing that they are now splitting up to make sure you don't run, you are trapped, you have a glock on your waist, what happens next?

Please be vivid.
Click to expand...
At that point continue running and seek a safe, secure location to hide until police come so that I can give information about the crime I witnessed. I don't carry a gun, nor do I wish to.

The situation you're describing is best prevented earlier, rather than dealt with at the stage you're describing.
 
Unrepresented said:
Everything posted on this board amounts to the opinions of people with no real power. I'm just another voicing a concern from conflicts I perceive in our application of justice.

I don't own a gun, so that's an unlikely event.



The cop isn't protecting someone by killing them. Even the accused is still a member of the public and entitled to protection.



Ideally none. I see "justifiable homicide" as the failure to prevent escalation. If we're preventing the escalation, we don't have reasons to reach "kill or be killed" moments.



A)I wouldn't be armed.

B) Comply. If they have a loaded, lethal weapon aimed at me and I don't have a loaded lethal weapon aimed at them I have almost no option but to comply.

C) If I did have a loaded, lethal weapon on me, I can't aim it at everyone who may aim their loaded, lethal weapon at me.


At that point continue running and seek a safe, secure location to hide until police come so that I can give information about the crime I witnessed. I don't carry a gun, nor do I wish to.

The situation you're describing is best prevented earlier, rather than dealt with at the stage you're describing.
Click to expand...

Ok it's clear you are intentionally dodging the questions. I suspect your age to be very young, hence why you have so much ignorance in the subject. I mean, there's no lawmaker in the world that would side with you. There is no country in the world that doesn't allow self defense. There's a reason for that. Your argument is nonexistant. Are you on any medication that could be clouding your judgement? I do not mean that as an insult, I am wondering if maybe something is preventing you from responding to my question and understanding the facts.
 
11Bravo said:
Ok it's clear you are intentionally dodging the questions. I suspect your age to be very young, hence why you have so much ignorance in the subject. I mean, there's no lawmaker in the world that would side with you. There is no country in the world that doesn't allow self defense. There's a reason for that. Your argument is nonexistant. Are you on any medication that could be clouding your judgement? I do not mean that as an insult, I am wondering if maybe something is preventing you from responding to my question and understanding the facts.
Click to expand...
I don't think you fully understand my viewpoint.

The various scenarios that every poster keeps inventing ignores the potential for avoiding the scenario beforehand.

"What do you do when you've allowed your foot to get infected to the point of having to cut it off?"

The correct answer isn't "cut it off" the correct answer is "don't let it get that infected."
 
Unrepresented said:
I don't think you fully understand my viewpoint.

The various scenarios that every poster keeps inventing ignores the potential for avoiding the scenario beforehand.

"What do you do when you've allowed your foot to get infected to the point of having to cut it off?"

The correct answer isn't "cut it off" the correct answer is "don't let it get that infected."
Click to expand...
Or live a life of running.
 
Unrepresented said:
I don't think you fully understand my viewpoint.

The various scenarios that every poster keeps inventing ignores the potential for avoiding the scenario beforehand.

"What do you do when you've allowed your foot to get infected to the point of having to cut it off?"

The correct answer isn't "cut it off" the correct answer is "don't let it get that infected."
Click to expand...

Guess what, Unrepresented, it's impossible to stop every foot from getting infected. I don't know what kind of insane theory that is, but it's physically impossible. Eventually you have to cut if off when it gets bad.

Just like you have to kill savage animals like Brown WHILE they are trying to kill you. It's how it works. Your vision of Earth is quite hilarious. It reminds me of a hippie in the 60's actually believing that violence will go away. That savage animals like Brown will cease to exist.

Sorry bro. Welcome to real life!
 
Something similar to this happened on the base in San Diego about 5 years ago. It was over an onbase DUI and the guy survived. He was trying to run over any of the cops onbase that were in his way while he was trying to get off base again (even though they had already activated the barricades at the gates).
 
11Bravo said:
Guess what, Unrepresented, it's impossible to stop every foot from getting infected. I don't know what kind of insane theory that is, but it's physically impossible. Eventually you have to cut if off when it gets bad.

Just like you have to kill savage animals like Brown WHILE they are trying to kill you. It's how it works. Your vision of Earth is quite hilarious. It reminds me of a hippie in the 60's actually believing that violence will go away. That savage animals like Brown will cease to exist.

Sorry bro. Welcome to real life!
Click to expand...

Through education and access to resources you can prevent losing virtually any foot. I believe the same can be argued for denying citizens due process.
j-mac said:
I dont/won't live in fear.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that the person feeling compelled to carry a lethal weapon around lives in greater fear than the one who doesn't feel the need.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'd argue that the person feeling compelled to carry a lethal weapon around lives in greater fear than the one who doesn't feel the need.
Click to expand...

Sure you would....What makes you think that people like me walk around "compelled to carry a lethal weapon"? Although I am a CCW holder, I do not carry everywhere I go...But one thing you have to understand is that although you may want to go through life "avoiding" things, that isn't for everybody, or really anybody...It can't be done successfully your entire life...See, there is this uncontrollable factor, called other people...Some are dangerous, some are crazy, and some just don't give a ****...So, if you want to give it a try, go ahead...This is a free country, and I don't look down on you for wanting to do so, but you seem to look down on those that don't think like you do...Sorry for that.
 
j-mac said:
Sure you would....What makes you think that people like me walk around "compelled to carry a lethal weapon"? Although I am a CCW holder, I do not carry everywhere I go...But one thing you have to understand is that although you may want to go through life "avoiding" things, that isn't for everybody, or really anybody...It can't be done successfully your entire life...See, there is this uncontrollable factor, called other people...Some are dangerous, some are crazy, and some just don't give a ****...So, if you want to give it a try, go ahead...This is a free country, and I don't look down on you for wanting to do so, but you seem to look down on those that don't think like you do...Sorry for that.
Click to expand...
I look down on those that violate the liberties of their fellow citizen.

As for "avoiding" life, I spend my days in the public, surrounded by everything from millionaires to homeless. I have never felt the need or desire to arm myself against them.
 
Unrepresented said:
Ideally none. I see "justifiable homicide" as the failure to prevent escalation. If we're preventing the escalation, we don't have reasons to reach "kill or be killed" moments.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to prevent all escalation.
 
Unrepresented said:
Through education and access to resources you can prevent losing virtually any foot. I believe the same can be argued for denying citizens due process.

I'd argue that the person feeling compelled to carry a lethal weapon around lives in greater fear than the one who doesn't feel the need.
Click to expand...

Your argument is about as strong as a mouse. Hence why no nation has never, nor will ever, adopt your ideology.
 
Unrepresented said:
I look down on those that violate the liberties of their fellow citizen.

As for "avoiding" life, I spend my days in the public, surrounded by everything from millionaires to homeless. I have never felt the need or desire to arm myself against them.
Click to expand...

You may look down on them, but you are failing to acknowledge that in the case of a confrontation, someone is violating someones rights...according to you, your solution is to run, but if the person seeking to violate your rights won't let you, then you are stuck, and I guess you're fine with having YOUR rights violated....That's fine. But, why would you think I should be ok with that?
 
The Mark said:
It is impossible to prevent all escalation.
Click to expand...
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.
11Bravo said:
Your argument is about as strong as a mouse. Hence why no nation has never, nor will ever, adopt your ideology.
Click to expand...
It certainly is not in keeping with the violence prone nature of humans, I agree. That doesn't mean it's unreachable.
j-mac said:
You may look down on them, but you are failing to acknowledge that in the case of a confrontation, someone is violating someones rights...according to you, your solution is to run, but if the person seeking to violate your rights won't let you, then you are stuck, and I guess you're fine with having YOUR rights violated....That's fine. But, why would you think I should be ok with that?
Click to expand...
If someone wants to kill me, someone will kill me. I can't prevent it. A gun on my hip won't protect me, it doesn't make me bulletproof. Killing people won't make me bulletproof either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom