Subject:
|
Re: socialism etc. (was: Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:36:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1271 times
|
| |
|
|
<38344C17.6EF@mindspring.com> <38355C1E.55A6BED2@eclipse.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > day). The clerk, I suspect in sincere belief that I was trying
> > something, pulled his gun out, and said he was going to call the cops. I
>
> Wow, that's pretty dramatic. I've been a clerk at a gas station and we
> had a button that called the cops in case of emergency, but never a gun,
> and that seems like an inappropriate action anyway. Did you ruin the
> kid's life for it? Some gas-jocky punk pulls a gun on me and I'm going
> to fully retaliate against him and the business. (I mean legally, not
> by getting my even larger gun out ;-)
It was not a kid. No I didn't bother to do anything about it. I doubt I
would have been successefull.
> > said, by all means. Under your legal code, he probably would have been
> > justified in shooting me (after all, he had a sincere belief that I was
> > trying something funny).
>
> I guess you mean my legal code? I'm not sure why you think that.
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. If he thought you were trying
> to lure him outside so you could kill and rob him, then calling the
> police was reasonable. If he thought he was in immediate danger, maybe
> pulling the gun was reasonable. Shooting customers because they seem a
> little aggravated is definitely not reasonable.
Perhaps I've misinterpreted your code. But please explain why you think
you should be able to blow away a perceived rapist (and suffer no
consequences) and a store clerk shouldn't be able to blow away someone
who they fear may be trying to rob them. Or correct my misunderstandings
of your scenario.
I believe the law recognizes a place of buisiness as almost the same as
a home as far as what you are able to do to protect yourself. Perhaps
that should be more different.
> > Fortuanately our legal code doesn't allow vigilante justice, and
>
> Well, actually it does, but only in special cases. (Citizen's arrest,
> self defense, etc.)
I don't consider citizen's arrest and self defence when used properly as
vigilante justice. To me at least, vigilante justice is when someone
takes action to punish a perceived criminal. Blowing away someone who is
busting into your house, or charging you, or otherwise taking agressive
action towards you is not vigilante justice. Blowing away someone who is
in the process of leaving your property after having tried to break in
is. We had a case a few years ago here. Group of kids tried to rob a
house. Owner was home and had a gun. Kids ran. Owner shot one of the
kids in the back as he was running away. Owner never went to court. I
think they did consider charges but dropped them. I would have no
problem if the owner had shot one of the kids while said kid was facing
him with a baseball bat (I believe they did have bats). Once the kid was
running away, the immediate danger to the owner is over.
> > Was I being stupid - yes. Was I taking justified action - yes. The
>
> No, yes. At least that's how it sounds to me.
I think my making a fuss about a leaky pump after midnight, and
especially trying to get out of paying for the gas which went all over
the pavement instead of into my gas tank, was not the most brilliant
moves. I probably should have gone in, said the pump was leaky and I was
going to move the car to another pump, and pay both bills, and then ask
the clerk how to get in touch with the owner about a refund for the
leaky pump.
> > Of course by your legal code you would already be dead. Personally, I'd
> > prefer to take the courts and all their (perceived) faults over
> > vigilante justice.
>
> When did I express that all crime (in our society) should be handled ad
> hoc by the citizenry?
I guess I'm misunderstanding your example. One problem with setting up
examples like this is that one usually choses examples which are
somewhat extreme. One also leaves out a lot (I'll plead guilty of the
same with my example. I'm sure I've mis-remembered some of what went on,
and I'm also sure I'm not giving a sufficiently accurate rendition of
what I remember).
In debates like this it is always important to examine multiple
scenarios because one then has a chance to see how each person is
applying their ideas in a variety of scenarios. Most people do not use a
"one rule fits all circumstances" code.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) It's also good netiquette. (...) If you come home, find someone there, and shoot him, you have shot down an innocent man and therefore deserve to be punished. That is what "innocent until proven guilty" means. (...) The US. Socialist. Please, (...) (25 years ago, 18-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 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
|
|
|
|
