Printable View
Better to shoot the bastards, right? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The appeal to intelligence doesn't work so well when you post like an idiot. :bored:Quote:
Defending yourself != going to a school administrator (21 months later) and saying you were raped. If you don't get that you are even less intelligent than I imagined.
Except the majority of the impromptu executions Lewk applauds here aren't self-defense. They're entrapment, like the guy who baited the exchange student, or they're chasing people down. That's not self-defense, it's not even "castle doctrine." You understood the difference in the car-chase thread, I don't see why you're unclear on it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I didn't support Lewk in the entrapment case either.
'Entrapment' LOL! If I ever heard of a crap excuse for criminal behavior...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Bottom line that example the criminal entered into someone else's property with the intent to steal *just like he had done several times prior.*
Good to know that you're a mind reader who knows people's intentions. Better yet, you're a mind reader who knows how a jury and a judge would determine someone's intentions. Why don't you put some candy at the entrance of your garage and then shoot the first 5-year-old that steps through the door.
It is telling you'll use an absurd example instead of what actually happened. a teenager who had repeatedly stolen already entered into the garage for the sole purpose of stealing some more. That's what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A) The guy had no way of knowing that it was a thief.
B) The guy was never in danger. He created the whole situation. This is like inviting someone into your house just to shoot them and claim castle doctrine.
He didn't invite the guy over. The guy entered into the garage in order to steal. Come on don't be dense Loki - you know and I know the guy was thief. Your real argument is that you don't think people should be able to shoot thieves and/or that thievery shouldn't be met with death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Come on man, you and I both know that those college guys raped those girls and deserve whatever punishment they get
I feel like you're just trolling now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Why? It's the same standard of evidence and burden of proof, the same lack of ability for the accused to defend themselves against the allegations. The ones whose deaths you regularly cheer actually get less of that last, they're executed without any chance to defend themselves at all, their side of the story silenced before anyone ever gets a chance to hear it. You never seem to grasp that when you cheer someone's death on here, you are almost invariably reaching your conclusions based solely on the word of the person or people who carried out an extra-judicial execution. And you routinely object to even the basic judicial processes which would investigate and weigh whether that testimony had any validity at all, much less sufficient to justify killing another person. You're only for the rule of law when it would defend people like you in situations you might end up in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Dear kettle ,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Your blackness is indeed most remarkable.
Kind regards,
Pot
You say that as though it is absurd. If little Lewk ever takes gum from the grocery store should he be met with death? This isn't a violent robbery with the threat of physical violence, it certainly does not warrant death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Except that wasn't what prosecutors were claiming. No one thought the guy asked the teenager to come over for milk and cookies. The prosecutors stated exactly what happened. He left some stuff out to be stolen and then attacked when the guy came in to steal his property. The difference is one camp things 'entrapment' and premeditated self defense with the intent to kill should be illegal. Others don't. Completely different than what is going on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
To be fair, that fuckhead was sentenced to like a thousand years in jail for breaking the law. However, I believe Fuzzy was thinking not only of that case but also of the other cases that have featured in the media over the past year or so, esp. the ones involving black men being killed by cops.
"Premeditated self defense", ehehehe
No, the prosecutors did not state exactly what happened. The prosecutors don't know exactly what happened, they can't know exactly what happened. The guy who shot the kid made certain of that. The prosecutors can only guess what happened which is one of the reasons they came down so hard on the premeditated trap. There was no possible claim of self-defense there. Lethal force may be justified in defense of one's body and life, Lewk, it is not justified in defense of property. Property is less important than a life, including the life of a possible criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
"premeditated self defense"? you mean, clairvoyance?Quote:
premeditated self defense
Actually several states have passed legislation allowing you to defend your property. Only liberals who want to be subservient to the government advocate for punishing the victims of the criminal class. If someone tries to take your stuff you have ever right to defend your stuff. In what world do you have LESS right to your property than the person stealing from it. Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws are great. They frankly don't go far enough (which is why this guy got prosecuted) and I feel bad that he is in prison but let's never forget the world is a far better place now that the thief is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You don't have less right to your property than a thief does. However, the importance of your right to your property pales in comparison to the thief's right to his life, not to mention everyone's right to live in a society governed by law rather than by your sick fetishes and whims. You believe that thieves have no right to life; that they have, through their actions, forfeited the most basic--and, indeed, inalienable--right a human can have. You are obv kinda wrong :o the murderer who shot that kid has obv forfeited the right to be free though.
Just saying, you know, if anyone in this thread wanted to do some kind of ][ear style confession of being nothing but a troll for the past decade now would be as good a time as any.
Just putting that out there.
I guess there may be some appeal to Lewk's fantasy-world where these women could have (in theory. Women, after all) shot and killed truly innocent men and then gotten away with it by claiming they were defending themselves against rape. Perhaps that would in some strange way be better than (maybe) letting them (occasionally) get away with getting an innocent man off of their campus (for a while). I guess :bulb:
No, wait, that sounds insane. And dumb
You've got just the same problem that Loki, Fuzzy, Enoch and anyone else has who has ever tried to make sense of Lewkowski's positions - you're looking for consistency and an underlying coherent world view in the ideas he expresses on this forum when there simply isn't any.
He just says stuff he thinks will "outrage liberals". Nothing more.
The knowledge that you'll likely be invaded. If you've had things stolen from you multiple times it is quite likely you'll have the thief return when he sees something valuable inside your open garage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If someone tries to grab your wallet do you have the right to try to hold it? The thief gets violent... do you have the right o defend yourself? It escalates further and the thief tries to kill you, do you have the right to fight back with lethal force? Now given the fact that the first person who escalates the fight to lethal terms often wins (ie pulls a gun) wouldn't it make sense to allow the would be victim to immediately defend themselves against the thief with lethal force? Absolutely! Thus the castle doctrine. Something goes bump in the night on your property you get the right to defend yourself even if you aren't certain the vile scumbag is there to kill you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The straw-man here is conflating two separate issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You don't have the right to defame someone's character and a college should definitely not abandon all common sense and automatically assume an accuser is telling the truth where there is no other evidence to substantiate the truth.
These ideas are not contrary. They aren't in any way working at cross purposes.
This is like the idea that someone is in favor of less government and some ass hat on a forum goes "LOLbetarian I guess you just want no laws because that is less government!" :|
If I have the knowledge that you'll probably say something stupid about getting "criminal scum" "off the streets" if I continue this conversation (and I do), which will cause me physical discomfort in the form of a mild headache, which would be the most reasonable method of self-defence?Quote:
The knowledge that you'll likely be invaded. If you've had things stolen from you multiple times it is quite likely you'll have the thief return when he sees something valuable inside your open garage.
1) Not responding to your nonsense
2) Shooting you in the face
????
The problem is that you have no idea what 'self-defence' means in a kind of legal or moral framework, and refuse to accept any kind of limitation on the behavior of anyone who claims to be acting in self-defence, whether they provoked the initial confrontation, wildly over escalated or simply acted in "self-defence" long after the danger to themselves or their property is passed. You also refuse to acknowledge any kind of unintended consequences encouraging such behaviour might have where over-eager would-be self-defenders misinterpret a situation and kill or injure someone who had no violent or criminal intent whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This leads naturally to all kinds of internal contradictions in your supposed world-view which people like Enoch or Fuzzy seem to think they can get you to acknowledge if they can some how come up with the right way to frame their arguments. However, I'm merely trying to get them to understand that this is futile, because your entire M.O is to repeat the same tired nonsense over and over again, then vanish for the thread only to repeat the the same farcical performance again in another new thread a few weeks later and that you have no consistent worldview and that your sole purpose is to "outrage" people by posting about killing criminal scum or whatever, i.e you are nothing but a troll.
I've know you, or at least your online persona, for over a decade. I kind of think I know your bag of tricks by now.
You don't have the right not to be discomforted an on-line discussion (or a real life discussion for that matter). You DO have the right not to have your property invaded. This is really not a hard concept. You have an inalienable right to the property you own. It is yours. It is not up for grabs and considering the % of time police actually catch thieves you absolutely cannot depend on the government to do it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Not like that they haven't. It's not self-defense if you set-up the conflict and carried out any escalations in force. Premeditation is irreconcilable with self-defense. Being the person pushing events is irreconcilable with self-defense. There exists no doctrine (nor should such a doctrine exist) whereby you have universal license to kill, Lewk, no matter how circumscribed the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And in the one (not several) state that allows anything of the sort, that law is used for purposes like this
You don't. But you do have less right to your property than anyone does to their own lives. Your propery, Lewk, is nowhere near as important as you think it is.Quote:
[In what world do you have LESS right to your property than the person stealing from it.
I and like five other people have been over this with you at least 35 times. Do you think we'd just forget about them when you start a new thread? Discussing anything with you is a waste of time.Quote:
You don't have the right not to be discomforted an on-line discussion (or a real life discussion for that matter). You DO have the right not to have your property invaded. This is really not a hard concept. You have an inalienable right to the property you own. It is yours. It is not up for grabs and considering the % of time police actually catch thieves you absolutely cannot depend on the government to do it for you.
There is a consistency in his positions. It's also about protecting the people like him and slaking his bloodthirst through the people who aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If your store has been robbed multiple times there is a high likelihood that it will be robbed again. Deciding to arm yourself so that you will be prepared next time you are robbed is absolutely premeditation and it is still self defense. Ditto for your own home. I really don't you get what it is like in certain parts of the community (I personally don't either) but in huge swathes of the country theft and armed robbery is a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Actually we do have the right to defend property and use force to do so. That is the law in Texas. Hell you can shoot people running away and the grand jury won't return an indictment. :0 (I posted this several years ago under the thread Texas Hero I believe).
It's weird, it's like you don't realise that there's a difference between you/your life and your property. Self-defense is when you defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Is this supposed to be a clever example? The obvious alternative is to not try to hold on to the wallet, ie. to literally do wjwd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You have the right to own property in general, and you have the right to have that right be safeguarded by eg. a police force and a criminal justice system. But, at the point where your right to any particular item collides with another person's right to 1. his life and 2. due process, or to everyone else's right to live in society where the rule of law reigns rather than the whim of man, one right will have to trump the other.
If you believe that some rights are truly inalienable then you have to be able to decide which inalienable rights are the most inalienable and absolute. Do you believe your right to keep the paltry contents of your wallet is more important than your own right to live? Would you rather die than give up your wallet? Unless you're completely insane you'd probably choose life over property. This isn't about rights being inalienable, it's about you believing that some people are in fact subhumans who have no rights, or have forfeited their rights due to some violation or other. In other words, you believe every single right you imagine you have and deserve trumps a suspected thief's right to life and to due process.
Incidentally, I believe that a man who takes the law into his own hands and murders a suspected thief has forfeited his own right to freedom. Glad he won't be able to vote ever again :o
Lewk is consistent even though his worldview isn't internally consistent or honest or informed and well-reasoned or even decent. We can't change that, but I derive some small pleasure from the thought that, somewhere deep down inside, he actually feels some small discomfort at being embarrassed/shamed at every turn :o it's also good exercise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Let's at least be honest here. Your position is clearly that you have the right to kill people and then get away with it by claiming it was in self-defense. Your position is literally that you should be able to get away with murder without even being put on trial. You want a world where a person can get away with killing an innocent person by claiming self-defense. Ie. you think it would be good if we lived in a world where these women could get away with killing the innocent men they have allegedly framed, even though you object to them almost (but not really) getting away with getting these men expelled or whatever. That's not a straw-man, it's quite literally what your position is. You're trying to solve the obvious problems with that retarded view by saying "only guilty people will get killed hooray", just like you've tried to get around the obvious problems with your retarded religious views by telling yourself "it's okay to follow blindly without thinking because we're only told true things in the Bible". Obv that's kinda dumb, because, if you think about it, you may end up being right sometimes but you'll often end up being disastrously wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Okay but just for the record you don't really want laws, it's clear that your views are antithetical to the rule of law.Quote:
This is like the idea that someone is in favor of less government and some ass hat on a forum goes "LOLbetarian I guess you just want no laws because that is less government!" :|
God Bless Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42
1. If someone LIES about self-defense they aren't entitled to using it. IE if they absolutely lured someone into their home under false pretenses (ie come over for some beers) and then shoots them and lies about it than absolutely that shouldn't be legal. I get *proving* it happened may be difficult but under no circumstances am I condoning people falsely claiming the facts of the situation. Hell if this thread is any indication of my views you should see this! I think those who lie to the police should absolutely have jail time (ie if you falsely accuse someone of something).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
2. I actually am in favor of laws that protect people from the criminals. Harsh sentencing for rapists thieves and arsonists is one of the few parts of the government I completely support. I want thieves to be scared shitless of being arrested by the police. I want thieves to be scared shitless of the citizenry who defend themselves against their parasitic attacks. And I do mean parasitic. Thieves are scum, they are parasites that attempt to transfer wealth from the law abiding to themselves. I frankly cannot imagine a punishment that I would ever deem too harsh for those animals. I want society to view them as the completely worthless pieces of garbage that they are. I believes in deterrence - in the end (outside the completely insane) people are motivated by consequences. Thieves (having no moral code) are unswayed by ethical considerations. The only way to prevent their pillaging is create consequences for their actions. Be it death or imprisonment. At the hands of their victims or at the hands of the state. When that happens you will see LESS crime (which may even save more lives than are lost!).
Robbers murder marine. http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/F...309376531.html
Robber murders pregnant woman. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1103070
Oh but hey let's worry about the robbers - lets worry about their 'rights.' When the police are minutes away you have seconds to act. Hell check out this story of a 14 year old boy whose father WAS KILLED BY A ROBBER!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...andmother.html
Good damned thing the boy was armed or he might have joined his father in death. Yup that's right robbery can be so prevalent that not only did his father die in one but six years later his house is also burglarized! And you 'ivory tower liberals' look down at people who defend themselves against intruders? Should the boy have waited to make sure the robber was actually going to kill him before shooting? Should if he asked "Oh do you want our stuff, please take it I'll just leave you alone but if you try to attack me I'll shoot you." Bull shit. he pulled the trigger and killed the pathetic waste of space. Is this a good news story? HELL YES! A kid and his grandma are safe and a completely worthless human being is dead.
What's "contrary" here is your attitude toward victims of crime. You place more value on things than one's body (as property goes). And you'll give the benefit-of-doubt to people who shoot and kill thieves, even though they're bypassing the legal system of adjudication....yet, you presume coeds who use the college "tribunal" system to address their assault/rape complaints are out to defame a guy's character because they're not set up like real courts. (Besides, there's a statute of limitations on assault and rape charges, so stop complaining that victims sometimes have a gap in reporting to the "real" police.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
What seems to be at "cross purposes" are your ideas about criminal justice, and who should use the official legal court system, or not. If you were criticizing the campus tribunal system -- instead of demonizing the victims who use it -- we could agree that's not a good way to address crime. But that's not what you're doing.
If we replaced the college scenario with a big corporation treating sexual assault or rape "in-house", which ultimately led to a firing and 'bad reputation' for one of its employees....I doubt you'd say it's because corporations are bastions of liberalism. :donkey: