To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21704
21703  |  21705
Subject: 
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:48:31 GMT
Viewed: 
578 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:

I am still baffeled at the 'logic' of punishing someone for defending thier
own property/lives.

  Doh!  Straw man!

  No one is punishing anyone for "defending their own property/lives."  Instead,
people are being forced to accept the consequences of their actions when they
choose to kill someone.  Unless there is no way to defend yourself short of
killing the intruder (which you must demonstrate), then you've acted with
excessive force.
  To extend your logic, I could justifiably kill just about anyone in my house,
as long as I make the claim that I thought that the person was an intruder, or I
thought that I was in danger.  The problem is that, once the "intruder" is dead,
it's hard to ascertain his side of the story.

  What is your intent in killing the supposed intruder?  Is it to stop the
intruder from posing a danger, or is your goal instead to punish the intruder,
thereby appointing yourself judge/jury/executioner?  Would you undertake an
action of lesser force, if that action would have stopped the intruder?  For
example, if you're upstairs and you hear an intruder downstairs, would you rush
down the steps, guns blazing?  Or would you consider announcing that you are
armed, perhaps loudly cocking a shotgun for emphasis?
  The reason I ask is because I perceive that your intent is to open fire
without considering other possibilities, and you seem not to want to accept the
responsibility for such rash action.  I know from previous posts that you
embrace the idea of personal responsibility, so I confess that I'm puzzled at
the apparent shift.

Well in this case "personal responsibility" falls on the person that breaks into
someone elses home and winds up dead for it. The fact that the person was killed
by the homeowner (who in my view is only defending their lives from the
possibility of attack by intruder) does not mean the homeowner is responsible
for that person breaking into their home and dying. The only one responsible is
the person that risked their life by breaking into the home of someone else.
This is a case of the law not equalling what is morally right.

-Mike Petrucelli



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
(...) That's where I believe you're making an unsubstantiated leap. Even within the bounds of this discussion, you appear unwilling to consider any response other than "kill the intruder/it's his own fault" when other options truly are available to (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
 
(...) Doh! Straw man! No one is punishing anyone for "defending their own property/lives." Instead, people are being forced to accept the consequences of their actions when they choose to kill someone. Unless there is no way to defend yourself short (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

73 Messages in This Thread:

















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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR