Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:37:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1257 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> You misunderstand due to me not being more clear in that post. She was attacked
> by 7 different people. After the first 4 she bought a gun which was registered
> and she obtained a permit to carry it. 3 attackers later they arrested her. I
> am sorry but that is just plain crazy. If everyone did that there would not be
> crime. (except for the occasional nutcase whom we can never stop)
Before someone points out my error, I should have describe the woman's
actions as "second degree murder" rather than "third degree murder."
I'm reluctant to address the specifics of your story in case further
details should be revealed as we go along, and we still don't have anything
but your testimony; if we could read direct accounts of the story it would
be helpful for increasing our understanding.
You maintain the assertion that the woman's best course of action was to
continue using a proven-dangerous route, now armed with the nominal purpose
of defending herself. We need to know the particulars of the first four
alleged assaults (you don't indicate whether the attackers were found
guilty, so they remain "alleged" assaults). We also need to know the
particulars of the incidents in which she killed the subsequent three
alleged attackers; were they simply men who looked at her strangely? Did
they accidentally jostle her as they passed? Did they grab her or take
other threatening action? Did they merely resemble the other men who had
allegedly assaulted her? Couldn't she simply have shot them in the leg,
rather than killing them? It's a very determened attacker indeed who will
continue his assault with a bullet in his kneecap...
Do you see that, given the details you've provided, the case is not nearly
as clear-cut as you want it to be. Assault is a serious crime, but so is
murder. The fact that the woman chose to arm herself does not entitle her
to become judge, jury, and executioner.
And before anyone thinks that I'm blaming the victim, I'm most assuredly
not. If the woman was indeed assaulted, then her attackers should be tried
and convicted; nonetheless, she is not therefore entitled to shoot anyone
whom she perceives to threaten her.
> I am not talking about the people making the laws I am simply talking about
> the mechanics of the Government. They are not the same thing.
Of course they're not. However, if your fondly-recalled government was
capable of generating dumber laws than the later government that you revile,
then you must explain how a government that passes dumb laws is better than
a government that repeals those dumb laws. The legislature's role, after
all, is to write law!
> > Really? I find the cable company, which controls the market in my area,
> > is affecting me unwillingly--can I shoot the CEO? The newspaper delivery
> > boy is impoverished and, due to an illness, he was unable to deliver my
> > Sunday Times; his poverty prevents him from compensating me, so am I free to
> > shoot him? An Arabic family makes somebody feel unsafe while shopping at
> > the grocery store; is that frightened person authorized to kill the family,
> > since they're affecting him unwillingly?
>
> No, none of those cases actually affect someone unwillingly. There is no
> malicious intent or even any threat.
But how can you tell? What if your seven-times-assaulted woman merely
*perceived* that the latter three men willingly intended to affect her? If
we assume that the first four alleged assaults really occurred, then
obviously the woman might understandably be trigger-happy or paranoid, but
that's exactly the problem. If she's the only witness to the later three
alleged assaults, then how can we know that she was justified in killing
those men? And that goes for many what-ifs that we might cite. If my
hypothetical Arab-fearing-bigot *really* believed that the innocent Arab
family was a threat, such as if he perceived a mysterious package in the
back of their car to be an explosive, why shouldn't he shoot them, if his
fear is every bit as strong as the seven-times-assaulted-woman?
Or are you asserting that we can only take action after the injurious
effect has taken place against us?
> (Except maybe the cable monopoly.)
On that much we agree!
> > This is not about what "is" is (which, by the way, is a legitimate topic
> > of discussion in legal proceedings)
>
> Ok so we should shoot all the lawyers (I was being sarcastic) Seriously you
> have got to be kidding me. Anyone who does not know the meaning of "is" should
> go back to kindergarden.
And anyone who can't see that time is a constant should go back to grade
school as well, right?
I can't dig up the exact part of the transcript, but here's a (very) rough
paraphrase:
Rabid Prosecutor: Do you have a sexual relationship with Monica
Lewinsky?
Lusty Clinton: No.
[the sexual relationship has, at this point, truly been over for months]
Rabid Prosecutor: But Ms. Lewinsky has indicated that she is sexually
involved with you. Has she lied?
Lusty Clinton: Well, that depends what your definition of "is" is.
[Here, Clinton is correct: if the prosecutor defines "is" as 'currently or
previously existing,' then the answer is no, Monica has not lied. If
the prosecutor's definition of "is" is 'currently existing,' then
Monica has indeed lied; there at the time of testimony, there *is*
no sexual relationship.
It depends what your definition of "is" is.
Now, obviously, you and I know what "is" means in casual discourse, but in
legal terminology things do not always mean what our common sense "knows"
they should mean.
> > --this is about why you feel free to kill
> > someone just because you feel free to kill someone.
>
> No I would never kill somone unless they posed an actual danger to someone's
> life. That is the only "legal" reason to kill someone (even that is debatable
> whether it is legal) despite a handful of other morally correct reasons. I
> have no interest in doing harm to an innocent life. (going to prison might be
> an incovience too) That is why we have a Judicial system of "innocent until
> proven guilty" and fair trials and such.
And *that's* why the seven-times-assaulted-woman SHOULD have been
arrested! She deprived three men, by your account, of their civil rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She executed them without
allowing them a presumption of innocence or their day in court.
Naturally, if she shot them while in the process of assaulting her, she
can absolutely claim self-defense, but she must demonstrate that she was
being assaulted before that argument holds water. Further, I'd like to know
exactly how she carried her gun if she was able to take it out, remove the
safety, aim safely, and fire. Might it, in fact, have been sufficient to
fire *at* the attacker rather than *through* the attacker? Is it preferable
to kill someone if a lesser deterrent exists?
In any case, I must confess that I find this whole anecdote a little hard
to believe. Lacking a formal account of the incident, I'm not comfortable
rebutting your points, since the underlying story can change at the whim of
your recollection. I would think that such a story would have received
national coverage, especially considering the fact that the woman was
previously allegedly assaulted seven times.
> The problem is the courts argue over
> the meaning of "is" and do not do what is morally right.
I would say that that is expressly the purpose of the courts, although the
question is not always exactly the one you've cited.
> Just because something is legal doesn't make it right and just because
> something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. That is the problem with our
> society as a whole right now.
That is one of many, many problems with our society right now. Another
problem is that people think it's fine to shoot someone simply because that
person is perceived to be a threat.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
|
|
|
|
