Subject:
|
Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:09:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
788 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 1. Considering that we are talking about felonies, it's rather a large
> point. And yes, the constant statement is "I'm going to come out blazing no
> matter what the circumstances are, and I'll fake evidence and even execute
> people to cover my tracks if my unthinking attitude puts me into a bad
> situation." It is this attitude that may get you into trouble, and I'm
> trying to point out that you are on serious shakey grounds, legally and >morally.
Actually, that last bit there riles me up some. Mostly because this sort of
started (at least on my end of it) because I did not sufficiently qualify
the scenarios I made up. I really never stated anything to the effect that
I would come out shooting irrespective of the actual situation -- that puts
stuff in MY mouth. Now I'm faking evidence first, and then executing
people? Wow! Who knew?! But actually NOT -- I put together a scenerio in
which I feared for my life and safety, which drops me to number 2. Faking
evidence is only necessary if my fear was skewed by uncertainty and the
facts turn out to be other than I had originally thought at the time of the
shooting -- and also much depends on the jurisdiction I happen to be in --
but my intent is in the clear and entirely justified by what I thought when
I fired. Your arguing this point SO vehemently is a sadder commentary on
the state of the law than on my morals -- but you can decide whatever please
you.
> 2. There are scenarios where you have every right to come out blazing - why
> the collective lot of you seem to think I have said otherwise, I don't know.
Well, ideally this means this debate is over.
Why is my state of mind and my actual fear at the time of the shooting not a
factor? Intent is an important factor of deciding the facts surrounding any
such incident. Why does the criminal get the benefit of the doubt but I
somehow do not? But wait, if I am charged with murder -- don't I get the
the benefit then? I think some of the standing law on such matters, some
like to call that stare decisis (it's supposed to have the connotation of
"once decided, always decided'), is unfair to freepersons in this country.
And you can lean on such case law if you want, so far without even a case
citation, but why is that a good thing?
[N.B. Bruce, I have lot's of legal knowledge. I attended law school at
Northwestern besides (it didn't damage my knowledge much). If I still had
access to Lexus/Nexus, I'd show you case law of every color on this subject.
Stop acting like it IS a settled matter. I was letting you have your way on
that point, to make a larger philosophical point. But if you are going to
get nit-picky with me, I withdraw my previous generosity and would ask you
to cite case law.]
> 3. I have neither mentioned stare decisis, or expressed an opinion on it.
> Kindly do not make up stuff out of the blue and project it onto me.
Well, you seem to be relying on some currently vague body of case decisions.
I chose to call it stare decisis so that we wouldn't argue over it. But
whatever...why don't you scrounge up some meat on the matter?
> 5) Duck for cover and if they come around the corner let 'em have it (intent
> implied by pursuit).
How does anyone know the intruder's intent? How does anyone know the person
pursued you? Better make sure s/he is dead and if the person is unarmed
better plant a weapon on him/her to boot. I think you are well in range of
"one survivor, one story" here.
> 6) Don't wait for them to fumble and spin, but announce they are trespassing
> and covered by a weapon and take it from there ("Freeze or die!" sort of
> thing). Now if they fumble and spin, I shoot. If they dive out the window,
> fine by me (the police don't clean up the gore). If they turn on the light
> and show that it's just Uncle Harry a little drunk and had walked into the
> wrong house, better still.
How does anyone ever get to know what you said and did? I need qualifiers!!!
=oP
When people are hopped up with fear and the excitement of entering your
house illegally they have the adrenalin advantage on you (you'd better hope
it's just adrenalin too, because if it's something else you may not have
enough ammo to drop this sucker). How about while your waiting for a verbal
response they just answer you with a bullet? Scenarios, scenarios,
everyone's got scenarios...
> 7) Don't be a moron and go downstairs. Instead, call the police, then
> announce to the trespasser that they can steal whatever the heck the want,
> but they are hamburger if they come upstairs (i.e. don't force a
> confrontation)? Punctuate pronouncement with the intimidating sound of a 12
> gauge chambering a round.
God you must be at your best waking from a deep sleep, Bruce. Your presence
of mind is AMAZING!!! I have the strange idea you'd be a lot more scared,
or even just staggering in confusion trying to figure out what's what. Your
scenario seems to presume you are 100% functional and reasonable in the
middle of the night when you are suddenly aware of a stranger's presence in
the house. Probably not...
I will change the scenario now: the two of them are in your room by the
dresser. You awake from a deep sleep and discover them. Your pistol is in
the drawer of the nightstand. What now? You're going to make nice nice?
I somehow think not.
Do I have to qualify the above scenario to death, or will you grant me the
benefit of the doubt and give me an automatic drop to number 2?
> Gosh - now that I have something besides straw man choices, it seems a bit
> easier. I'd go with seven. Maybe keep my mouth shut, but I know my wife
> would probably start screaming.
Aw heck, Bruce, your choices still suck and are just as straw man is my own
options (mine were simpler though). I think it's unfair to impose on people
ridiculous expectations of what they will do in a possibly life or death
situation. Lots of times people just "freeze" and can't do anything. I
happen to be very good in such situations and have even been trained in
first aid treatment and emergency response, so I can probably do pretty
well. But again, that's me and not everybody.
I would really like to err on the side of giving the law abiding person in
their own home the benefit of the doubt, while not really giving a damn
about the intruder who was a person doing stuff where they probably should
not have been in the first place. You can do otherwise. But again, I ask
you -- why would doing so be a good thing? Do you merely hope to inform me
of the law (case law) as you understand it. Or do you actually believe there
is some huge good that comes from sparing the lives of scumbags at the
possible expense of the lives of good, decent people?
I'm not sure I understand why a person who believes in argument 2 is arguing
to make every scenario under argument 2 a scenario under argument 1 instead?
I get the idea that you are the kind of person who can justify his own
possibly wrong actions but not have the simple humanity and empathy to
understand the possibly wrong actions of another.
The world is an imperfect place and we are imperfect beings within it. I
don't think killing another person is an easy thing, but I can see myself
doing it when I am legitimately scared to death or if I understand my
situation to be one of life or death. I would not personally play Mr.
Hindsight with another's fear as you might apparently do, Bruce. Not when
that person was in their own home. Hindsight is 20/20 -- fear is 100%
adrenalin rush. Your standards might be a tad too high for us poor
earthlings to reach...that's my point about case law in accord with your
apparent views.
And if they are not your views -- then why the big hubbub, bub?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
| (...) <snip> Richard I totally agree with you here but would just like to point out that Bruce MIGHT be responding to Tom S. who I think is shading a bit more towards planting evidence than you. But you're doing great so don't let me stop you! :-) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
| (...) 1. Considering that we are talking about felonies, it's rather a large point. And yes, the constant statement is "I'm going to come out blazing no matter what the circumstances are, and I'll fake evidence and even execute people to cover my (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
