• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Let's.



How is this:







An answer to this:







I didn't mention unconsciously or anything else. I said that once your expectation of being home is reasonable, is it not also reasonable to defend it?



Your answer was to a different question. I suspect by your behaviour that the answer is "no", but then it would mean that you don't think you have a right to defend your home in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ah you wanted an answer to a hypothetical that has nothing to do with this incident. Sorry I didn't realise that, thought it was just your usual cack handed wording.

To your hypothetical my answer would be no.
 
Darat said:
Ah you wanted an answer to a hypothetical that has nothing to do with this incident.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with this incident. IF we allow that her "mistake of fact" was reasonable, then the question of whether people are allowed to defend their homes becomes relevant. Of course as I also noted earlier there are caveats to that as well.

To your hypothetical my answer would be no.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

So then you don't think people should have a right to defend their own homes? Why not?
 
William Parcher said:
This was posted a couple days ago in post #607...



So maybe they let in pro-police but not extreme pro-police. Or maybe it's all a scam meant to give the impression of impartiality and lack of bias.
Click to expand...


I can't see the future on who will wind up on this jury, but I consider myself rather heavily biased pro-law enforcement. I have an acknowledged bias, enough to where I've never served on a jury. The woman in this case needs to be locked up, full stop, and any loophole in the law which could see her walk on a correctly-adjudicated technicality needs closing ASAP. Pro- or anti- something doesn't have to mean mindlessly picking the same side, specific circumstances be damned.
 
Belz... said:
It has everything to do with this incident. IF we allow that her "mistake of fact" was reasonable, then the question of whether people are allowed to defend their homes becomes relevant. Of course as I also noted earlier there are caveats to that as well.







Thank you.



So then you don't think people should have a right to defend their own homes? Why not?
Click to expand...
Nope I do believe people have the right to defend themselves where ever they happen to be.
 
Belz... said:
Defending yourself and defending your home are not the same thing. I even bolded the damned words to make sure the distinction was visible.
Click to expand...

I believe that's why he used the specific damned words he did.
 
Babbylonian said:
I believe that's why he used the specific damned words he did.
Click to expand...

- So then you don't think people should have a right to defend their own homes? Why not?
- Nope I do believe people have the right to defend themselves where ever they happen to be.

The first word seems to mean that they don't have a right to defend their homes, but the rest rather implies that he's answering a different question altogether, and with a "yes" instead.

Did he mean "no, but I do believe..."? Does he think you don't have a right to defend your home, but that you have a right to defend your life? It's not clear from his answer, and if he could just being evasive for one post he could clear that up.
 
Joe Random said:
I can't see the future on who will wind up on this jury, but I consider myself rather heavily biased pro-law enforcement. I have an acknowledged bias, enough to where I've never served on a jury. The woman in this case needs to be locked up, full stop, and any loophole in the law which could see her walk on a correctly-adjudicated technicality needs closing ASAP. Pro- or anti- something doesn't have to mean mindlessly picking the same side, specific circumstances be damned.
Click to expand...

That kind of logic leads you to think that the jury messed up after the police killed a guy for pulling up his pants after 5 minutes of playing simon says. That is clearly proper police work and like executing a black man who thinks he can legally carry a gun is well with in the bounds of proper police work.
 
Belz... said:
Defending yourself and defending your home are not the same thing. I even bolded the damned words to make sure the distinction was visible.
Click to expand...

"Defense," of self, others, home or in any other situation, is premised on a response that is proportional to the threat. You can use force to stop the assault, the trespass or the theft, but you can't use more force than is required. If somebody punches you, you can punch him back until he stops. You can't kick him to death. If somebody breaks into your house and leaves when you shout "get out!," you can't shoot him in the back as he runs away.

The problem here is confusing "self-defense" with "blowing away a stranger on sight." Those are not the same things. That's where the distinction needs to be made.
 
Bob001 said:
"Defense," of self, others, home or in any other situation, is premised on a response that is proportional to the threat. You can use force to stop the assault, the trespass or the theft, but you can't use more force than is required. If somebody punches you, you can punch him back until he stops. You can't kick him to death. If somebody breaks into your house and leaves when you shout "get out!," you can't shoot him in the back as he runs away.

The problem here is confusing "self-defense" with "blowing away a stranger on sight." Those are not the same things. That's where the distinction needs to be made.
Click to expand...
Especially since Guyver was literally blocking any possible attempt to leave.
 
Bob001 said:
"Defense," of self, others, home or in any other situation, is premised on a response that is proportional to the threat. You can use force to stop the assault, the trespass or the theft, but you can't use more force than is required. If somebody punches you, you can punch him back until he stops. You can't kick him to death. If somebody breaks into your house and leaves when you shout "get out!," you can't shoot him in the back as he runs away.

The problem here is confusing "self-defense" with "blowing away a stranger on sight." Those are not the same things. That's where the distinction needs to be made.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting theory.
Must one wait to first be punched before determining how to properly respond?
 
Distracted1 said:
That is an interesting theory.
Must one wait to first be punched before determining how to properly respond?
Click to expand...

Maybe not always, but you have to be pretty sure that you're in immediate danger if you don't want to be locked up yourself. And, say, a guy mouthing off in a bar when you can walk away is not an imminent threat.
 
Belz... said:
- So then you don't think people should have a right to defend their own homes? Why not?

- Nope I do believe people have the right to defend themselves where ever they happen to be.



The first word seems to mean that they don't have a right to defend their homes, but the rest rather implies that he's answering a different question altogether, and with a "yes" instead.



Did he mean "no, but I do believe..."? Does he think you don't have a right to defend your home, but that you have a right to defend your life? It's not clear from his answer, and if he could just being evasive for one post he could clear that up.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I'm not able to help you further.
 
Bob001 said:
"Defense," of self, others, home or in any other situation, is premised on a response that is proportional to the threat. You can use force to stop the assault, the trespass or the theft, but you can't use more force than is required.
Click to expand...

I agree. The issue is that there _are_ laws in some states where you can defend "property", not just life, sometimes with deadly force. We've had a discussion about these a couple of years ago. So the jury in this case might find that the policewoman's "mistake of fact" was in fact reasonable -- something I'd disagree with, but then I don't know what all the facts and arguments are going to be in court -- and therefore the question of whether she should be expected to defend her home, if not her life, is relevant and, in my mind, important.

I think it's fair to ask Darat where he stands exactly on those. However, for some reason he refuses to fully answer.

Darat said:
I'm afraid I'm not able to help you further.
Click to expand...

You could help by clarifying whether you were responding to my question about property, rather than a question about self-defense, which I didn't ask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom