Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 06:34:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1045 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> > > Not to be difficult, but I don't. :-) Well, sometimes. I think
> > > that some premeditated slayings should be accepted by society. If
> > > I am on a murder jury and it turns out that the perp killed someone
> > > who raped his daughter. I will never convict him.
> >
> > This stance kind of troubles me. It suggests that not only do you view
> > the death penalty as an appropriate penalty for rape,
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> When you say that I approve of "the death pnealty" it sounds like you're
> talking about a court-ordered penalty. I don't believe that courts should pass
> out death. Ever. Really!
>
> One of my stances is this: Government (at all, I mean as a very paradigm of
> social interaction) is just barely tolerable if it works right. Working right,
> to me, is in essence, capitalizing on the synergy of involvement of multiple
> persons in the accomplishment of some good and worthy task. Killing off the
> citizenry does not qualify.
>
> Another is this: In certain cases, it is acceptable and expected for people to
> act outside of what is normally considered acceptable. One of the infinitude
> of possible examples is that if someone hurts a loved one of mine, I may in my
> limited capacity for rational and empathic thought, hurt them in return. It
> isn't a matter of rightnes, or justice. It is how psychology works.
>
> Another is this: Given the context of a governance society, we have laws.
> Things like killing people need to be against the law. And, we have juries.
> Juries are not only for determining when a law was broken, but also if it is
> reasonable to punish the perpetrator for this particular instance of
> lawlessness. I think that our juries should be encouraged to more readily sit
> in judgement of circumstancial lawlessness.
>
> In the example of killing the rapist of a daughter, a person might be forgiven
> for such an action (but not if it became a trend, I suppose), but the
> government needs to be held to a higher standard. If the government is not
> above the mistakes of the people individually, then what the hell is it for?
> Why do we tolerate it at all?
>
> > but you don't even
> > expect that the alleged perpetrator should get a trial.
>
> When the state is punishing yes. When a victim is retaliating, what trial is
> needed? If you are beaten by your coworker, what can some kind of trial tell
> you? You know who did it and what they did.
I think there's a big difference between an act of self defense, and
chasing someone down after the fact. Vigilante justice should not be
tolerated. I know that it is a very fine line, but my feeling is that
once a perpetrator is leaving the scene that it is vastly different from
when the perpetrator is still on the scene (and in this case, I think
I'd give more allowance to the police than to a private citizen, in that
the police are expected to chase suspects, and may need to use force to
apprehend the suspect).
One case which I look back to as a definitely unreasonable use of force
by a home owner was a case where a bunch of kids were trying to break
into the guys house. He came to the door with a gun and they ran away.
He hit one of them from behind and killed him. He was not even charged
with a crime. I'm sorry, that isn't self defense.
I think I would also give the victim more latitude if the suspect is
know to be carrying your property (i.e. if you see him running away with
your TV, or he's running away with the diamond ring he just forced you
to give up.
I can certainly see where a victim may react out of passion and rage,
and some latitude should be given for that, but there has to be
consequences.
Of course there certainly are consequences of criminal activity, but we
need to be very careful.
Another case from down here was a kid who was coming into a convenience
store at night, he was wearing a "toboggan" (whatever that is exactly,
note that this was in the winter). The clerk blew him away out of fear -
before he even got in the door. After the fact, they found a knife (I
think it was a penknife) and the kid had a bit of a record (but the
clerk didn't recognize him as someone who had robbed the store before or
anything). Again, no charges. Now I have a habit of wearing a balaclava
sometimes when it's cold (a polypro balaclava is a nice small hat which
is convenient down here in NC since 99% of the time you don't need a
winter hat), and I guess that might fit the type of headgear that
someone might get suspicious of. Should I be at risk of getting blown
away just because I want to keep warm? Of course I'm sure if I got blown
away the clerk would find himself in court because they wouldn't find a
record and unless they planted a weapon, they wouldn't find a weapon
either.
Of course I expect that when we get rid of the war on drugs that the
whole tension level of our society would drop several notches and
perhaps convenience store clerks would feel less threatened, and I
suppose society would expect more restraint. These situations are
examples of just how the war on drugs isn't just a war on drugs but a
war on all of us. Would that fellow (sorry, my memory for names is poor)
have been filled with lead in NYC if we didn't have a war on drugs just
because he presumably was pulling out his wallet to show some ID to the
cops? Probably not (even with the war on drugs, I still place full blame
on the cops in that situation - they were the cause of the escalation to
deadly force - they could have just let the guy run away, you don't need
to chase everyone who gets afraid at night and runs - running away is a
reasonable act of self defense).
I also think the cops have things a bit backward. It seems that cops
want to accept less risk of injury than the general populace, but they
should accept MORE risk. That is part of the job. Their job is to
protect us, not blow us away because we twitched and made them think we
were going to try and kill them (of course, as a couple kids proved
earlier this year, it's quite possible for someone to get the drop on
the cops and even manage to use the cops own guns to take them out). Now
if you have a weapon in hand, and the cop isn't an undercover cop (one
of those got off without much penalty when he shot at a guy who had been
stopped because they thought he matched the description of a suspect
when the guy tried to drive away - apparently the "description" was
black guy, and to boot, there were several uniformed cops moments away,
perhaps the undercover cop should have just stayed out of it), and you
don't drop the weapon when the cop yells "drop it," then I won't feel
too sorry for you (of course if the cops are busting into your home
without a warrant [and we shouldn't accept ANY entry into a home without
a warrant and real clear identification unless the cop is chasing
someone who the cop either has a warrant for, or the cop observed the
fellow breaking the law], more power to you if you manage to take some
of them out, and of course an extra bonus if you manage to do so without
getting killed).
I've got no problem with the citizenry being armed to the teeth, I just
want there to be consequences if they use disproportionate force.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I too think that. Self defense doesn't even need to go to court. (...) Your opinion is noted and disagreed with. For two reasons: First, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with vigilante justice, if it is rightly applied. And I'll be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Hi Frank, When you say that I approve of "the death pnealty" it sounds like you're talking about a court-ordered penalty. I don't believe that courts should pass out death. Ever. Really! One of my stances is this: Government (at all, I mean as (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 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
|
|
|
|
