9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please explain how "lethal threat" is either contradictory or illogical.

A threat, can't be lethal.

Threat being: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage; or an indication of something impending.

Lethal being: of, relating to, or causing death.

I personally can't tell the future. I don't believe any other human being as having the ability to tell the future. Therefore, any expression or indication that something was going to cause death is a purely an assumption; any statement implying it as fact, would be an one disregarding logic.

Logically, only an observer, empirically, can know that a threat is lethal, once it actually has caused death-- You wouldn't logically know a threat to be lethal until it was too late for that information to be applied in the hypothetical situation.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 10:27 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 10:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please explain how "lethal threat" is either contradictory or illogical.

A threat, can't be lethal.

Threat being: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage; or an indication of something impending.

Lethal being: of, relating to, or causing death.

I personally can't tell the future. I don't believe any other human being as having the ability to tell the future. Therefore, any expression or indication that something was going to cause death is a purely an assumption; any statement implying it as fact, would be an one disregarding logic.

Logically, only an observer, empirically, can know that a threat is lethal, once it actually has caused death-- You wouldn't logically know a threat to be lethal until it was too late for that information to be applied in the hypothetical situation.


Quote:Imminent danger is an immediate threat of harm, which varies depending on the context in which it is used. Some laws allow use of deadly force when imminent danger is present. Typical considerations to find imminent danger include the attacker’s apparent intent to cause great bodily injury or death, the device used by the attacker to cause great bodily injury or death, and the attacker’s opportunity and ability to use the means to cause great bodily injury of death.
Quote:In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels that their own life, the lives of their family, or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger.

If you want to put your life at risk, that is your choice. But you do not have the right to make me risk my life.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 11:02 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2013 11:21 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Personally, I like broad statements like 'reasonable response to a (physical) harm' a lot more than specific ones like 'lethal force to a (lethal) threat'.

And I also like to see where a person actually has to have action taken on them first, as most realistic situations would reflect either that action will be taken on a person first or that any action they take will likely put them in more danger than they would have otherwise been in if they acted to remove themselves from the situation as opposed to doing the opposite.

I'd rather see a person go to prison for a year, or two, with a manslaughter change, for what he might have thought was just protecting his family, a lot more than I would want to see a person not even having to go through with a full trail after just murdering someone who they were losing to in a fight, that might have instigated in the first place.

Keep it simple and broad and leave it up to the state, a jury and judge to decide. People getting the idea that they should have the right, especially that they actually do have the right, in any situation they feel uncomfortable or threatened, to take action with intention to murder another individual, is just completely idiotic and absurd.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 10:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you want to put your life at risk, that is your choice. But you do not have the right to make me risk my life.

LOL. I'm not putting my life at risk-- if I wanted to do that, I'd just sell drugs.

I'm also not a president and this isn't Vietnam, so I don't even see it as having a right to put someone's life at risk.

But, this is getting way off topic now.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 11:02 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Personally, I like broad statements like 'reasonable response to a (physical) threat' a lot more than specific ones like 'lethal force to a (lethal) threat'.

And I also like to see where a person actually has to have action taken on them first, as most realistic situations would reflect either that action will be taken on a person first or that any action they take will likely put them in more danger than they would have otherwise been in if they acted to remove themselves from the situation as opposed to doing the opposite.

I'd rather see a person go to prison for a year, or two, with a manslaughter change, for what he might have thought was just protecting his family, a lot more than I would want to see a person not even having to go through with a full trail after just murdering someone who they were losing to in a fight, that might have instigated in the first place.

Keep it simple and broad and leave it up to the state, a jury and judge to decide. People getting the idea that they should have the right, especially that they actually do have the right, in any situation they feel uncomfortable or threatened, to take action with intention to murder another individual, is just completely idiotic and absurd.


No one is contending that lethal force is always allowed. Any homicide will be investigated and could result in prosecution. However, killing an intruder who threatens harm is almost invariably judged to be a justifiable homicide.

This has been true in common law as long as there has been the common law.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 11:52 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No one is contending that lethal force is always allowed. Any homicide will be investigated and could result in prosecution. However, killing an intruder who threatens harm is almost invariably judged to be a justifiable homicide.

This has been true in common law as long as there has been the common law.

I wasn't trying to make it seem like I thought anyone was contending that it was always allowed.

As far as killing an intruder, I stand by the views I've already expressed on that. I don't think the laws should reflect anything that allows it to be justified homicide on an assumed threat, an expressed threat or simply upon entering a home, alone. Obviously, it is extremely likely that you would not even know what actually took place in most of those situation; the evidence probably wouldn't be able to get you past reasonable doubt as long a person was simply able make up a good story, within the law, about what happened. I just don't think the laws should reflect, or promote an attitude, that a person has some sort of right to murder someone in certain situations.

Maybe that could cause trouble in a society like ours, where a jury of peers, as opposed to more scholarly people, get to make the decision; but those are the same people getting to vote for representatives to make, enact and enforce laws, so if they aren't educated enough to make those decisions, we'd be screwed regardless.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 11:52 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(22-01-2013 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No one is contending that lethal force is always allowed. Any homicide will be investigated and could result in prosecution. However, killing an intruder who threatens harm is almost invariably judged to be a justifiable homicide.

This has been true in common law as long as there has been the common law.

I wasn't trying to make it seem like I thought anyone was contending that it was always allowed.

As far as killing an intruder, I stand by the views I've already expressed on that. I don't think the laws should reflect anything that allows it to be justified homicide on an assumed threat, an expressed threat or simply upon entering a home, alone. Obviously, it is extremely likely that you would not even know what actually took place in most of those situation; the evidence probably wouldn't be able to get you past reasonable doubt as long a person was simply able make up a good story, within the law, about what happened. I just don't think the laws should reflect, or promote an attitude, that a person has some sort of right to murder someone in certain situations.

Maybe that could cause trouble in a society like ours, where a jury of peers, as opposed to more scholarly people, get to make the decision; but those are the same people getting to vote for representatives to make, enact and enforce laws, so if they aren't educated enough to make those decisions, we'd be screwed regardless.


And I contend that an intruder in my home has already presented himself as a threat.
I will interpret any aggression on his part as potentially lethal and will respond with lethal force.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  How the NRA killed the debate. witerat 23 935 17-01-2013 06:04 PM
Last Post: TheBlackKnight
Forum Jump: