Forums | MacLife

MrJ in OZ wrote:

I have grown weary of this flame war. make ur cracks if you please it's taking away from my work and from reading other threads/posts. If I makes you feel better, Im swrong wherever, whatever. I'll find some way to live with that I suppose.

I'm sorry I made you feel that way.

iBubba wrote:

robco wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Do you believe there should be a punishment if someone is genuinely mistaken about a supposed "threat" in public?

Yes.  But that what the judiciary is for, isn't it?  If the judge/jury feels that the person was legitimately threatened - or had reason to believe so, then they were justified.  If not, then they're punished.

Who determines if someone actually felt threatened? Is the court going to summon the resident empath to judge this?!

To prove that someone committed the tort of assault (which means, in this context, being threatened by someone) requires proving just that.  That tort has been around for a long time, as it's part of the common law.  So apparently courts don't find it too difficult to prove one way or another.  Not too different, I guess, from establishing that murder is premeditated.  For that matter, I believe there are already statutory limits on threatening other people.

Last edited by charon (2005-04-10 4:03 pm)

charon wrote:

iBubba wrote:

robco wrote:

Yes.  But that what the judiciary is for, isn't it?  If the judge/jury feels that the person was legitimately threatened - or had reason to believe so, then they were justified.  If not, then they're punished.

Who determines if someone actually felt threatened? Is the court going to summon the resident empath to judge this?!

To prove that someone committed the tort of assault (which means, in this context, being threatened by someone) requires proving just that.  That tort has been around for a long time, as it's part of the common law.  So apparently courts don't find it too difficult to prove one way or another.  Not too different, I guess, from establishing that murder is premeditated.  For that matter, I believe there are already statutory limits on threatening other people.

If you blow someone away in a paniced frenzy - if you truly feel threatened regardless of the intent of the recipient of your bullet - WHO THE F*CK IS GOING TO TELL YOU YOU WERE WRONG FOR BEING SCARED SH*TLESS?!?

Last edited by iBubba (2005-04-10 9:33 pm)

KingFred wrote:

No one has come up with a sensible reason yet why the "first attempt to flee or avoid confrontation before moving right up to blasting" part needs to be done away with. Why does avoiding the conflict need to be removed as a first choice, keeping in mind that this does NOT preclude going from step one to step two and if neither are possible, then going to step three?

1)Attempting to flee may be more dangerous than resisting with deadly force.  2)Someone is more likely to attack you if they know that you're obligated to run, if possible, rather than fight back.

bratboy wrote:

charon wrote:

To prove that someone committed the tort of assault (which means, in this context, being threatened by someone) requires proving just that.  That tort has been around for a long time, as it's part of the common law.  So apparently courts don't find it too difficult to prove one way or another.  Not too different, I guess, from establishing that murder is premeditated.  For that matter, I believe there are already statutory limits on threatening other people.

...the stakes are quite different, though.

Yes, but that cuts both ways.

I guess I [i]would rather err on side the sde of life.

Why is it when someone steals $100 with a gun they're violent criminals who should be locked up for life, but people who steal $100 million with a pen are given a slap on the wrist?

I guess our definitions of steal are different.

Steyr AUG wrote:

MrJ in OZ wrote:

yea, What ever happened with that Black guy in New York that got blown away by the cops where they shot him like 32 times and he was only reaching for his wallet?

I wonder how long 32 shots takes.

If cops can't decide for tham selves, citizens that are untrained shouldn't do it.

Between 2 people? about 4 seconds.

How would the Rules of Engagement be worded in this case? 

"If the individual makes a sudden movement, be sure you empty your clip as fast as possible into the individual!"

Hmmm, this is a tough subject. Back when I was about 9 months pregnant with my son I came out of the grocery store and someone was stealing my car. Of course there wasn't a thing that I could (or would) do. Called the police, thinking that they didn't have it that long, they'd be able to find it. No such luck. It was found, about 2 weeks later, completely stripped. And of course my daughter's car seat was gone.

What REALLY sucked though, was that it was an older car, and to save money only had liability insurance on it. There was no way that we could replace that car. And we only had the one car between us! So we had to rely on rides until we were able to at least buy a beater. Not to mention the cost of a new car seat.

My point is...that was property that we desperatly needed. Whoever stole it sold it for parts or to get crack money. Either way, I'm guessing that he maybe got a hundred bucks for it, if that. Not worth that much to him, but the world to us!

And what right did he have to take it? Just kills me, people bust their ass to have what little they might have, and some JERK thinks he can just come along and take it. And does, and usually doesn't even get caught.

I don't know what I trying to say here...except maybe that property can mean everything to one person, and just a $20 hit to the next. Can't just say, oh it's just STUFF.

Laura wrote:

Hmmm, this is a tough subject. Back when I was about 9 months pregnant with my son I came out of the grocery store and someone was stealing my car. Of course there wasn't a thing that I could (or would) do. Called the police, thinking that they didn't have it that long, they'd be able to find it. No such luck. It was found, about 2 weeks later, completely stripped. And of course my daughter's car seat was gone.

What REALLY sucked though, was that it was an older car, and to save money only had liability insurance on it. There was no way that we could replace that car. And we only had the one car between us! So we had to rely on rides until we were able to at least buy a beater. Not to mention the cost of a new car seat.

My point is...that was property that we desperatly needed. Whoever stole it sold it for parts or to get crack money. Either way, I'm guessing that he maybe got a hundred bucks for it, if that. Not worth that much to him, but the world to us!

And what right did he have to take it? Just kills me, people bust their ass to have what little they might have, and some JERK thinks he can just come along and take it. And does, and usually doesn't even get caught.

I don't know what I trying to say here...except maybe that property can mean everything to one person, and just a $20 hit to the next. Can't just say, oh it's just STUFF.

The question remains:  would your need for that car justify your shooting and killing the prick who stole it?  A human life vs. a couple of hundred bucks worth of parts?

The New Guy wrote:

Why is it when someone steals $100 with a gun they're violent criminals who should be locked up for life, but people who steal $100 million with a pen are given a slap on the wrist?

Well, there's hyberbole with "locking them up for life"...as well as fallacy of "slap on the wrist."

White collar crimes should have heftier sentances, but ask Bernie Ebbers about the slap on his wrist.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Laura wrote:

Hmmm, this is a tough subject. Back when I was about 9 months pregnant with my son I came out of the grocery store and someone was stealing my car. Of course there wasn't a thing that I could (or would) do. Called the police, thinking that they didn't have it that long, they'd be able to find it. No such luck. It was found, about 2 weeks later, completely stripped. And of course my daughter's car seat was gone.

What REALLY sucked though, was that it was an older car, and to save money only had liability insurance on it. There was no way that we could replace that car. And we only had the one car between us! So we had to rely on rides until we were able to at least buy a beater. Not to mention the cost of a new car seat.

My point is...that was property that we desperatly needed. Whoever stole it sold it for parts or to get crack money. Either way, I'm guessing that he maybe got a hundred bucks for it, if that. Not worth that much to him, but the world to us!

And what right did he have to take it? Just kills me, people bust their ass to have what little they might have, and some JERK thinks he can just come along and take it. And does, and usually doesn't even get caught.

I don't know what I trying to say here...except maybe that property can mean everything to one person, and just a $20 hit to the next. Can't just say, oh it's just STUFF.

The question remains:  would your need for that car justify your shooting and killing the prick who stole it?  A human life vs. a couple of hundred bucks worth of parts?

My point is that some are being so casual about your property in here...but it's not just about STUFF. That smurfhead was not entitled to my car, and I needed it - and it wasn't a luxury, by any means. Who the hell did he think he was just walking up and taking it? He had no idea or I'm sure even CARED about what turmoil that put my life into for a long time. Or people who have generations worth of things in their homes, and the thief just does a clean sweep of what he thinks is available, and then winds up throwing it away because it's not 'worth' anything.

Sorry, I just realized that I went OT here. That happened over 13 years ago, can you tell it still pisses me off?