But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
I don't think it is appropriate to break into a house to kill the offender, because that would be committing a crime. Nor do I think it is appropriate to enter the property of another party that hasn't given you previous consent. The rest of it, I guess is good to go - so long as it doesn't involve recklessness to the general populace.
But you do seem to think that committing a crime forfeits your right to life. The logical extension of this is that you forfeit all the rights living confers like property ownership, isn't it? Therefore, by your logic, a criminal is essentially a de facto dead man and thus has no claim to the property he once owned and thus breaking into and entering the unowned property is not a crime.
QED.
Very good response. I guess we're in agreement then. Let's go kill him.
PeekingDuck on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Hell, do you understand how criminal law even works?
I'm starting to have serious doubts.
So basically what you're saying here is that you believe that you should not be required to adhere to the requirements of our country's criminal justice system whatsoever when you defend your tv with deadly force.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
I don't think it is appropriate to break into a house to kill the offender, because that would be committing a crime. Nor do I think it is appropriate to enter the property of another party that hasn't given you previous consent. The rest of it, I guess is good to go - so long as it doesn't involve recklessness to the general populace.
But you do seem to think that committing a crime forfeits your right to life. The logical extension of this is that you forfeit all the rights living confers like property ownership, isn't it? Therefore, by your logic, a criminal is essentially a de facto dead man and thus has no claim to the property he once owned and thus breaking into and entering the unowned property is not a crime.
QED.
Very good response. I guess we're in agreement then. Let's go kill him.
The RIAA then announces that they've hired a PMC as an "intellectual property enforcement squad."
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
We've already happily established that you think theft is punishable by death. The punishment is to be carried out on the spot as a deterrent. The victim of the theft is to be pulling the trigger. This is going to make the world a better, safer place
Fix'd
Only if it is required to prevent the fleeing and proper prosecution of the criminal. I would rather they be prosecuted for theft, but if they decide that they can steal without any repercussions, then I don't have a problem with someone stopping them with a gun.
Do you understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or is that something you're not cool with either and would like to see changed?
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Do you ...do you know what a legal defense is?
Hell, do you understand how criminal law even works?
I'm starting to have serious doubts.
So basically what you're saying here is that you believe that you should not be required to adhere to the requirements of our country's criminal justice system whatsoever when you defend your tv with deadly force.
In his defense, it is a really nice TV.
Since the Supreme Court has inferred that my position is unconstitutional, I obviously don't.
PeekingDuck on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited July 2008
Wow, there's no point in arguing with him anymore.
There's just no real means for understanding such extreme beliefs.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
I haven't answered.
That's not the point, and you know it.
I answered.
Thank you kindly.
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
So a mentally unstable man grabbing your sandwich and running off should be shot in the back?
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
It has to do with your being civilized.
SithDrummer on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
So a mentally unstable man grabbing your sandwich and running off should be shot in the back?
That's up to the victim to decide.
PeekingDuck on
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
It has to do with your being civilized.
Well, you know, that too.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
I haven't answered.
That's not the point, and you know it.
I answered.
Thank you kindly.
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
You're welcome. We live in two very different countries and have two very different beliefs. This is an okay thing.
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
So a mentally unstable man grabbing your sandwich and running off should be shot in the back?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
fun fact: breaking in to get your stuff back, and then shooting them when they confront you, is second-degree murder.
(at least, up in NY. In Texas I hear they give you a medal.)
I don't think it is appropriate to break into a house to kill the offender, because that would be committing a crime. Nor do I think it is appropriate to enter the property of another party that hasn't given you previous consent. The rest of it, I guess is good to go - so long as it doesn't involve recklessness to the general populace.
But you do seem to think that committing a crime forfeits your right to life. The logical extension of this is that you forfeit all the rights living confers like property ownership, isn't it? Therefore, by your logic, a criminal is essentially a de facto dead man and thus has no claim to the property he once owned and thus breaking into and entering the unowned property is not a crime.
QED.
Very good response. I guess we're in agreement then. Let's go kill him.
The RIAA then announces that they've hired a PMC as an "intellectual property enforcement squad."
Associated Press, Washington DC
BLACKWATER CANCELS CONTRACT WITH US, OPENS ONE WITH RIAA AND MPAA
Blackwater CEO Erik Prince announced in a press conference today that they were ending their contract with the US military effective immediately and all their activities in Iraq would cease within fourteen hours. Extraction procedures have begun to take place with black choppers flying out to Blackwater's stealth carrier, the Santana Maria, named after the popular singer and song as well as alluding to the name of one of Christopher Columbus' explorer vessels in the 16th century.
Prince's announcement coincided with a SCOTUS decision to allow kill-on-sight justice for any and all crimes, and an immediate RIAA and MPAA press conference indicating that both organizations would be taking new measures to ensure the integrity of their consumer business enterprises.
Prince indicated that as soon as the Supreme Court decision had been made official, an unnamed RIAA executive had Prince on his satphone and had patched an unnamed MPAA executive in as well for a quick conference. Details were hammered out in five minutes.
"What can I say?" Prince told the confused room of journalists. "They were both offering both money with the promise of so many more people to kill than we're allowed or able to in Iraq. Plus, it'll be good to be back on Red, White, and Blue soil again which'll probably be a little redder in the coming weeks. Har har."
But I suppose that you can know all the information surrounding the man's actions and therefore rule out any of those defenses in the few seconds it takes you to pull out your gun and shoot him in the back?
I don't think necessity, insanity, involuntary intoxication, or duress are sufficient excuse to commit a crime and not expect retribution.
Since you're so fond of it: That's not Texas Law.
Didn't say I agreed with all of it. I've never understood the insanity plea. If they are a danger, then they are a danger.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
So a mentally unstable man grabbing your sandwich and running off should be shot in the back?
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
I haven't answered.
That's not the point, and you know it.
I answered.
Thank you kindly.
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
You're welcome. We live in two very different countries and have two very different beliefs. This is an okay thing.
Okay, fair enough. The funny thing is is that 12 years ago I would have been on your side on this. I am now the polar opposite for various reasons, namely my education and current occupation as a parole officer. I am very curious as to how you've come to your beliefs, putting aside our countries of origin. Probably the best place for this would be on PM so we don't derail this thread. If you want to have this discussion, just fire me off a PM.
Descendant X on
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
Apparently, the police officer said that one of the robbers ran towards horn and then turned and ran down the street.
PD likes to omit the second half of that.
I'm not omitting that at all. I fully understand that they were both shot in the back while running away. I'm okay with this.
A hypothetical question for you.
Offenses against property are apparently legitimate reasons to kill someone, right?
So let's say, hypothetically, the two guys got away before Horn could shoot. Would he be justified in chasing them and shooting them? Following them to their house and breaking in and shooting them? At what point does his "jurisdiction" end? I mean, it wasn't his property to begin with.
No, I think we'd all like to know at this point.
That's the first good question of the thread. I'm not sure.
Be careful how you answer, too. Have you ever, say, downloaded an MP3 of someone's music?
No, I haven't. And I am contemplating the answer. My first guess would be that it extends to the property of another that hasn't given permission for him to enter. Though I don't know what kind of legal ramifications there are as far as committing a crime while in the act of a different kind.
Jesus Christ. The very fact that you need to contemplate your answer demonstrates that you have absolutely no regard for the value of human life, no matter who they are. Breaking into someone's home in order to kill them, even if they've stolen something from your neighbour, is premeditated first-degree fuck murder.
I haven't answered.
That's not the point, and you know it.
I answered.
Thank you kindly.
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
You're welcome. We live in two very different countries and have two very different beliefs. This is an okay thing.
Okay, fair enough. The funny thing is is that 12 years ago I would have been on your side on this. I am now the polar opposite for various reasons, namely my education and current occupation as a parole officer. I am very curious as to how you've come to your beliefs, putting aside our countries of origin. Probably the best place for this would be on PM so we don't derail this thread. If you want to have this discussion, just fire me off a PM.
The 911 tape pretty clearly records him telling the dispatcher that he was going to go out and confront them, and that he was allowed to shoot them under the law, and then proceeds to keep recording as he threatens the subjects and then shoots them.
Again, if there had been any actual danger from the subjects, the cop would have gotten out of his fucking car
As I understand it, the cop said he was fearful that he might be shot as an assumed accomplice. The cops are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.
The 911 tape pretty clearly records him telling the dispatcher that he was going to go out and confront them, and that he was allowed to shoot them under the law, and then proceeds to keep recording as he threatens the subjects and then shoots them.
Again, if there had been any actual danger from the subjects, the cop would have gotten out of his fucking car
As I understand it, the cop said he was fearful that he might be shot as an assumed accomplice. The cops are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.
ya rly. see also some fairly recent supreme court case that I don't remember the name of off the top of my head.
And quit the stupid snide bullshit. If you have nothing to contribute but one-liners, quit fucking posting while pretending you're making a contribution to the thread.
Actually, PD is right about that. The courts have upheld numerous times that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual person.
However, that's not really relevant to the discussion because the idea of "protection" is meaningless when somebody is running away from you.
MikeMan: they have a responsibility to protect the public at large by apprehending criminals. They do not have a responsibility to respond to any particular 911 call or stop any particular crime in progress because putting that responsibility on them would be far too onerous. Basically, what it means is that if you call the cops and they fail to arrive in time to stop you from getting hurt, you can't sue them for negligence.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
A couple things to throw out there from my understanding of the situation:
The two men who were shot had entered Horn's property, meaning he could be considered acting in defense of his own, not his neighbor's.
The officer on the scene saw one of the men run towards Horn, then veer away. He was shot before he reached the curb (i.e. while still on Horn's property). The officer also said that the man was closer to Horn when he was shot than when the confrontation began.
According to the police, the confrontation was over in a matter of seconds. We don't know how much time passed between the man veering away and his being shot, or whether there was enough time for Horn to realize he was retreating and react accordingly (Horn was 61 and may actually have been in fear for his life).
PeekingDuck is an absolute sociopath.
I don't totally agree with what Horn did, but at the same time, if two guys burglarized my neighbor's house, then came running onto my property, I can't say I wouldn't set my dogs on them (I don't have a gun).
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Actually, PD is right about that. The courts have upheld numerous times that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual person.
However, that's not really relevant to the discussion because the idea of "protection" is meaningless when somebody is running away from you.
As I recall, it was relevant because people were claiming that if the burglars had actually made threatening actions against Horn, the officer on the scene would have stopped those actions, with the court ruling (and the fact that the guy was in plainclothes and thus at higher risk of being shot himself) saying otherwise.
I still think it's silly, upon further thought. In the US as far as I know there are very few or no Duty to Rescue laws (someone with a legal background can come in here and elaborate.) In many EU countries, however, persons above the age of 18 are, as I understand it, legally obligated to help someone, or at least call an emergency number, when doing so poses no danger of life and limb to themselves. This strikes me as a decent law.
Do I understand you right when you say, Feral, that police in the US do not even have the legal responsibility to help someone or stop a crime when doing so would not put them in peril? That they're not even held to the standards, with all their police training, that civilians in many EU countries are?
As I understand the situation, there were two men. One may have been running towards Horn. The other was definitely running away. Even if he may have been justified in shooting the former, isn't he pretty clearly not justified in shooting the latter? Legality aside, I mean. We already know that Crazy Texas Law allows you to shoot people at random for looking at you funny.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Do I understand you right when you say, Feral, that police in the US do not even have the legal responsibility to help someone or stop a crime when doing so would not put them in peril?
As in, a crime (say shoplifting) is happening in plain daylight right in front of them while they are on-duty and have nothing better to do?
I don't know, frankly.
This is where I cop out and say IANAL. All I know is that they don't have a responsibility to respond immediately to every 911 call, and they don't have a responsibility to run into a potentially dangerous situation to save a civilian. Other than that, I couldn't tell ya.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Do I understand you right when you say, Feral, that police in the US do not even have the legal responsibility to help someone or stop a crime when doing so would not put them in peril?
As in, a crime (say shoplifting) is happening in plain daylight right in front of them while they are on-duty and have nothing better to do?
I don't know, frankly.
I think that would be pretty silly.
Though I think it might even be likely, given the climate in this country.
I still think it's silly, upon further thought. In the US as far as I know there are very few or no Duty to Rescue laws (someone with a legal background can come in here and elaborate. In many EU countries, however, persons above the age of 18 are, as I understand it, legally obligated to help someone, or at least call an emergency number, when doing so poses no danger of life and limb to themselves. This strikes me as a decent law.
Do I understand you right when you say, Feral, that police in the US do not even have the legal responsibility to help someone or stop a crime when doing so would not put them in peril? That they're not even held to the standards, with all their police training, that civilians in many EU countries are?
That seems a bit stupid.
edit: I may be way off, here.
I think a police officer who was standing there drinking coffee while a robbery was going down would be suspended and/or fired. He would not, however, be subject to a lawsuit. In general, it's assumed that the police, as an institution, have a better idea of how to keep The Peace then a random bloke does. They need the ability to let some guy get away with a purse-snatching if, for example, some guy is shooting up a liquor store down the block. The police need the freedom to decide for themselves how best to maximize the use of limited resources, and sometimes this means not protecting a certain individual from harm.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Lawful judgment of his peers, and all that,.
"Lawful judgment" meaning, of course, some guy with a gun.
So now they need to be a danger? And not just a theif?
Very good response. I guess we're in agreement then. Let's go kill him.
In his defense, it is a really nice TV.
I'm not speaking in the context of this case. I'm talking in general regarding the insanity plea being used to get cleared of charges. I don't require danger in this case - neither does Texas.
The RIAA then announces that they've hired a PMC as an "intellectual property enforcement squad."
Since the Supreme Court has inferred that my position is unconstitutional, I obviously don't.
There's just no real means for understanding such extreme beliefs.
Thank you kindly.
Although your initial stance still boggles my mind. It definitely has to have something to do with the fact that I live in a country where gun crime is low and self-defense is based on reasonable force.
So a mentally unstable man grabbing your sandwich and running off should be shot in the back?
In his defense, it was a really awesome sandwich.
It had Grey Poupon and everything.
That's up to the victim to decide.
Well, you know, that too.
You're welcome. We live in two very different countries and have two very different beliefs. This is an okay thing.
Thank god it isn't.
Associated Press, Washington DC
BLACKWATER CANCELS CONTRACT WITH US, OPENS ONE WITH RIAA AND MPAA
Blackwater CEO Erik Prince announced in a press conference today that they were ending their contract with the US military effective immediately and all their activities in Iraq would cease within fourteen hours. Extraction procedures have begun to take place with black choppers flying out to Blackwater's stealth carrier, the Santana Maria, named after the popular singer and song as well as alluding to the name of one of Christopher Columbus' explorer vessels in the 16th century.
Prince's announcement coincided with a SCOTUS decision to allow kill-on-sight justice for any and all crimes, and an immediate RIAA and MPAA press conference indicating that both organizations would be taking new measures to ensure the integrity of their consumer business enterprises.
Prince indicated that as soon as the Supreme Court decision had been made official, an unnamed RIAA executive had Prince on his satphone and had patched an unnamed MPAA executive in as well for a quick conference. Details were hammered out in five minutes.
"What can I say?" Prince told the confused room of journalists. "They were both offering both money with the promise of so many more people to kill than we're allowed or able to in Iraq. Plus, it'll be good to be back on Red, White, and Blue soil again which'll probably be a little redder in the coming weeks. Har har."
It's not up to God, it's up to the victim.
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080630_tnt_hornreax.e591442.html
em - he's a hero in his neighborhood.
I'm unfortunately busy now, so I'll have to continue this discussion with the twenty of you later.
Okay, fair enough. The funny thing is is that 12 years ago I would have been on your side on this. I am now the polar opposite for various reasons, namely my education and current occupation as a parole officer. I am very curious as to how you've come to your beliefs, putting aside our countries of origin. Probably the best place for this would be on PM so we don't derail this thread. If you want to have this discussion, just fire me off a PM.
I'm afraid I'll get shot if I try and mess with someone else's quote tree in this thread.
ya rly. see also some fairly recent supreme court case that I don't remember the name of off the top of my head.
However, that's not really relevant to the discussion because the idea of "protection" is meaningless when somebody is running away from you.
MikeMan: they have a responsibility to protect the public at large by apprehending criminals. They do not have a responsibility to respond to any particular 911 call or stop any particular crime in progress because putting that responsibility on them would be far too onerous. Basically, what it means is that if you call the cops and they fail to arrive in time to stop you from getting hurt, you can't sue them for negligence.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well that's just dumb.
The two men who were shot had entered Horn's property, meaning he could be considered acting in defense of his own, not his neighbor's.
The officer on the scene saw one of the men run towards Horn, then veer away. He was shot before he reached the curb (i.e. while still on Horn's property). The officer also said that the man was closer to Horn when he was shot than when the confrontation began.
According to the police, the confrontation was over in a matter of seconds. We don't know how much time passed between the man veering away and his being shot, or whether there was enough time for Horn to realize he was retreating and react accordingly (Horn was 61 and may actually have been in fear for his life).
PeekingDuck is an absolute sociopath.
I don't totally agree with what Horn did, but at the same time, if two guys burglarized my neighbor's house, then came running onto my property, I can't say I wouldn't set my dogs on them (I don't have a gun).
- John Stuart Mill
Actually, it's not. See my edit.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But otherwise, I'm with you.
Ah, I had missed that. Thanks for the explanation.
Do I understand you right when you say, Feral, that police in the US do not even have the legal responsibility to help someone or stop a crime when doing so would not put them in peril? That they're not even held to the standards, with all their police training, that civilians in many EU countries are?
That seems a bit stupid.
edit: I may be way off, here.
As in, a crime (say shoplifting) is happening in plain daylight right in front of them while they are on-duty and have nothing better to do?
I don't know, frankly.
This is where I cop out and say IANAL. All I know is that they don't have a responsibility to respond immediately to every 911 call, and they don't have a responsibility to run into a potentially dangerous situation to save a civilian. Other than that, I couldn't tell ya.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think that would be pretty silly.
Though I think it might even be likely, given the climate in this country.
I think a police officer who was standing there drinking coffee while a robbery was going down would be suspended and/or fired. He would not, however, be subject to a lawsuit. In general, it's assumed that the police, as an institution, have a better idea of how to keep The Peace then a random bloke does. They need the ability to let some guy get away with a purse-snatching if, for example, some guy is shooting up a liquor store down the block. The police need the freedom to decide for themselves how best to maximize the use of limited resources, and sometimes this means not protecting a certain individual from harm.