Its possible to argue that a person thats been rehabilitated (proper counselling, emotional management, etc) would be less likely to offend than a good portion of the population which had not had that type of support.
Its possible to argue that a person thats been rehabilitated (proper counselling, emotional management, etc) would be less likely to offend than a good portion of the population which had not had that type of support.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Fuzzy do you think a store owner has the right to defend his property? If so then he did nothing wrong. We aren't going to punish people for accidentally killing someone in the heat of the moment when they are defending their property!Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Now if you don't think we have a right to defend our personal property then lets have a discussion about that.
Extremely unlikely - people who commit crimes are far more likely to do them again then the general population.
under current conditions. we aren't discussing current conditions. way to go not reading the entire post. I understand it was a rather long sentence.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
We base it on result for simplicity, and the fact it generally tells the story well enough. You're right in an ideal world intention would be used to determine the severity of the crime, and if a crime took place.
Switzerland is the ideal world
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
By wanting to co-mingle prosecutions with sentencing....without considering context, mitigating or extenuating circumstances. By separating action and intent from actual outcome or result, you're making advance decisions about who's the victim, and would bypass the courts on the front-end. But only in areas you've decided don't need to use a courtroom to adjudicate crimes/punishments, like "justifiable homicide". That's not Due Process.
Fuzzy's too smart to fall for your bait. I, on the other hand, will beat the dead horse....on the outside chance you'll eventually see that your view, and 'proposal', is full of bullshit and hypocrisy.
Our judicial system isn't about "safety".That's for our legislative branches, creating Laws and Regulations, and social policy (health, education, welfare). Safety is also a communitarian concern -- that you like to <mis>label as SSSocialism.
If you were truly concerned about populace safety, preventing and deterring crime (particularly violent crime), you wouldn't wait until the judicial process kicks in....but would focus on education, health, jobs, and opportunities from childhood through adulthood. Those are the things that can prevent and deter many crimes, by ameliorating the poverty, desperation, anger or apathy that can cause 'good people' to do 'bad things'.
Disconnecting actions/intentions from results, privatizing prisons, bypassing court adjudication, and handing out automatic sentences with a disregard for context....isn't Justice. And it certainly doesn't make us more "safe" by de-constructing or de-funding public services like health/education/welfare, Social Security, police/fire, infrastructure, R & D, etc.
Lewk, do you think a man has the right to defend himself with lethal force when he's attacked, regardless of the circumstances?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I dislike the use of of "regardless of circumstance." In some instances I can see restraint being required. If a 4 year old walks up and hits you with his toy it shouldn't be OK to shoot him. If a police officer busts down your door you don't get to shoot him. However in the vast majority of circumstances people have a right to defend themselves and their property with lethal force.
But that "regardless of circumstances" is the exact standard you were implicitly invoking in your response to me. Circumstances do matter, and any right you might possess to defend your property is not black and white as you attempted to portray it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I think your not understanding my position. My beef isn't that "tooth paste thieves need to be punished with capital punishment" it is that store owners have a right to self defense. I'm pointing out the self defense issue because it is an individual defending their property NOT the state passing a sentence.
To what extent and in which ways does justice differ depending on whether or not it's done by an individual or by the state?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There you go again. So people have the right to defend themselves (and their property) and this justifies strangling a guy to death for shoplifting a tube of toothpaste. How does it not justify shooting a girl who just slapped you? For defending yourself from being abducted by people driving the car with the shiny lights on top?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
By statute and through case law of course. Lewk only wants to be able to shoot people in junior high or older, ie. people who can be expected/required to know better than to void the social contract and risk death by stealing toothpaste. We can set an age limit that all courts have to accept.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
/boggle
The state has a monopoly on force. There are tons of things individuals should be able to do that we don't want to empower the state with.
1. The person resisted. The suspect should have stopped struggling at the store itself, instead he ran.
2. The death was ruled an accident. The suspect KEPT struggling after the good guy caught up with him.
3. This was a case of a criminal action that was ongoing. A more adequate comparison is if someone KEPT slapping you and did not stop. The thief was in the process of stealing and had not stopped the theft (proof is that they found items from the store on his person).
The guy was ganged up on by six people. They beat him when he was on the ground and strangled him to death. There is video footage of this. The coroner ruled it a homicide but the police refused to press charges despite that, an absolute travesty in light of the surveillance footage. It wasn't an accident, it was manslaughter, maybe even 2nd degree murder, and no interpretation of self-defense can possibly justify it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In context: a petty thief struggling against being strangled, or running away from a guy with a gun...sounds like the normal reaction to protect himself against threats of physical harm. That "good guy" didn't have to chase after the thief since (a) his personal safety wasn't at risk, and (b) his stolen 'property' would have been covered under an insurance claim (if it had any real value beyond some personal hygiene products like a $2 tube of toothpaste), and (c) once a thief leaves a property/premises it becomes a police matter to continue pursuit.
NO, it's not a better comparison to pull out a gun and shoot someone who keeps slapping your face.
He shouldn't have stolen. He shouldn't have ran. He shouldn't have struggled. He made his coffin and now he's dead in it.
And this is why you have no credibility when discussing crime and punishment.
Your son might steal a pack of gum at the grocery check-out, hiding it in his pocket. He might steal a few grapes in the produce aisle, swallowing the evidence of his crime. He shouldn't steal, of course. He shouldn't run away when confronted by the cashier or shopkeeper...or you, his parent. He shouldn't struggle when tackled by a bunch of adults, either. But he probably would. That shouldn't escalate into a death sentence.
That's what "context" means.
That's why its important to instill fear in people's minds. Do I steal if it has a risk of a horrible death? People don't do bad things for gain for two reasons.And this is why you have no credibility when discussing crime and punishment.
Your son might steal a pack of gum at the grocery check-out, hiding it in his pocket. He might steal a few grapes in the produce aisle, swallowing the evidence of his crime. He shouldn't steal, of course. He shouldn't run away when confronted by the cashier or shopkeeper...or you, his parent. He shouldn't struggle when tackled by a bunch of adults, either. But he probably would. That shouldn't escalate into a death sentence.
That's what "context" means.
1. Morals and ethics. If everyone had them then there would be no need for laws against theft.
2. Fear. Fear of the police. Fear of jail. Fear of people defending themselves.
We know criminals are already morally bankrupt so obviously #1 isn't going to stop them. What is going to persuade them not to steal? The answer is fear.
Instilling morals and ethics into the human conscience doesn't require using FEAR, let alone fear of a horrible death.
We also know that criminality can't be tied moral bankruptcy....or you wouldn't be an advocate for de-criminalizing prostitution or marijuana.
Morals and ethics are principles that include variations, degrees, and cultural context. There's nothing simple, or black-and-white about these things, or how they're incorporated into legal definitions. You may want to think so, and try to shape the world to fit your narrow view...but that doesn't make it right, or just, or even rational.
And there's nothing in it that looks the slightest bit like either justice or self defense.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
What do you mean when you say "the state has a monopoly on force" in the context of a discussion wherein you champion the de facto right of Americans to run down a fleeing homeless toothpaste thief and choke him to death?Or the right to forcefully take the law into their own hands in various other ways? That does not sound like a monopoly to me. What kind of things would you like the state to not be able to do in contrast to the individual citizen? Kill someone for example?
And, most importantly,
Is it okay for an individual to rape an innocent kid but not okay for the state to do it? What exactly do you mean?To what extent and in which ways does justice differ depending on whether or not it's done by an individual or by the state?
Last edited by Aimless; 05-30-2013 at 09:44 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
These are not capital offenses, nor are battery and strangling legal punishments for toothpaste-theft. I get the distinct impression you neither know not care what justice is
Let me explain in simple words who shouldn't have done what: they shouldn't have beaten him, they shouldn't have strangled him to death. It was an indefensible extrajudicial killing and at least one of them should have been tried for manslaughter. The off-duty officer who was at the scene and did nothing to stop the killing, instead choosing to sneak off and let the man die, should also be tried for her part in the killing.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They had the right to defend their property. If the criminal threw down the belongings and surrendered going completely passive then yes killing him would be a tad excessive. But since he didn't do that and continued to struggle and did not return the stolen goods they had a right to prevent him from fleeing. They stated that the death was the accident as did the detectives who reviewed the video footage. But I guess you and Fuzzy are far better trained the experienced detectives eh?These are not capital offenses, nor are battery and strangling legal punishments for toothpaste-theft. I get the distinct impression you neither know not care what justice is
Let me explain in simple words who shouldn't have done what: they shouldn't have beaten him, they shouldn't have strangled him to death. It was an indefensible extrajudicial killing and at least one of them should have been tried for manslaughter. The off-duty officer who was at the scene and did nothing to stop the killing, instead choosing to sneak off and let the man die, should also be tried for her part in the killing.
I can choose not to associate with someone. The state doesn't get to decide who it associates with. (IE if I run a business I can turn people away, we don't want DMV to turn people away because you voted for the other party). Ditto for things like curtailing speech. If I own a business I can decide I don't want to hear certain talk in my building, government doesn't get to do that. When it comes to "justice" I give far more lattitude to the homeowner defending his home the police hunting down a criminal (though in general I'm on the side of the police in most cases).What do you mean when you say "the state has a monopoly on force" in the context of a discussion wherein you champion the de facto right of Americans to run down a fleeing homeless toothpaste thief and choke him to death?
And, most importantly,
Is it okay for an individual to rape an innocent kid but not okay for the state to do it? What exactly do you mean?
Do you just not pay attention? Fear doesn't make people suddenly become good, it makes them afraid to do bad. The point isn't to try to install morals and ethics into morally bankrupt people it is to make them scared to death to pull anything. The most evil vile murderer alive is still not going to run his mouth off if there are 10 people with guns pointed at him ready to kill him. The 10 people with guns didn't make the vile person good they just prevented him from doing bad.
The LAST thing the state should be doing is to try to instill ethics in people. That's a return to the dark ages. The point is to create a deterrent to bad people stepping out of line.
It doesn't matter if it was an "accident" or not; what matters is the consequence of their unnecessary and entirely unjustified actions. The consequence of the manager's unnecessary and unjustified actions--chasing, beating, choking--was a death that should be tried in court. You don't "accidentally" run after a man, beat him and kick him and then choke him. The only "accident" is the death that is in reality an expected consequence of such deliberate--ie. non-accidental--actions.
Of course the police would like to keep this out of court. Can you imagine how fun it would be for them if people got in the habit of trying people for "accidentally" killing criminals through choking?
Who says they had a right to prevent him from fleeing in such a way that they caused--directly caused--his death? Yes, directly caused. It was deemed a homicide by the medical examiner's office, but I guess you and sneaky untrustworthy American cops are better trained and have more integrity than whoever it is that works at the medical examiner's office eh? Eh?
Jesus.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely the cops are better qualified then the medical examiner. A medical examiner can see the wound on the body and have NO IDEA what the intent and motivations were. A man shot in the chest is a mad who died of a gun shot wound. Doesn't matter if its in self defense, in a shoot out with police or an actual murder. That's why we have police who make arrests and DAs who prosecute crimes. Both the DA's office AND the police didn't think it was worth going after.
Running after a thief and protecting your property is a right - says who? Says me and a lot of other people who still believe that property rights are important. I suppose you disagree, I guess we should just not have armed security in banks. After all its just money right? Its not worth the risk of someone being shot!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote