Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

In fact, no one has said that.

He said,

Not sure if we should care all that much when they lose at "You bet your life!".

What was the reason Horn killed two people who were not a danger to him? He didn't care that two people would lose their life. I believe that people can be primed to disregard human life to the point of killing other people unnecessarily.

I reject your claims that I'm simply arguing from an emotional position. I went out of my way to acknowledge that people can agree with SYG and STILL CARE.

Emotional Appeal

So, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something.

I'm trying to motivate people to care about people. That's all.

 

[RandFan]

He didn't say that. At no point did he say "If they have surrendered, been disarmed and rendered harmless, they should get a bullet in the back of the head".

BTW: I would have coped to a straw man if the thread hadn't progressed to the point of arguing whether or not it likely that Horn had summarily killed two people. That was the context with which the post was made.

 

[Xulld]

BTW: I would have coped to a straw man if the thread hadn't progressed to the point of arguing whether or not it likely that Horn had summarily killed two people. That was the context with which the post was made.

So you ACTUALLY believe its execution when a burglar is running at you and you shoot them, or are you arguing against the eye witness account?

I'm trying to motivate people to care about people. That's all.

Ahhh, by using fallacy and ambiguous argument.

He didn't say that.

He seems to do that often. He ignored me after doing the same thing and me calling him out on it.

I personally think Joe Horn was in the wrong for his actions, I just do not think he was guilty of Manslaughter based on the TOTC.

 

[Cylinder]

I believe that people can be primed to disregard human life to the point of killing other people unnecessarily.

Now, I am confused. At what point do you beleive a person has the right to interfere in a property crime? Who bears the burden of the outcome - the criminal or the person intervening with the crime.

I agree that Mr. Horn was in a totally irresponsible state-of-mind when he chose to intervene.

The detective on the scene - no fan of Mr. Horn's actions - chose not to arrest him. The grand jury, presented only with unrebutted evidence against Mr. Horn, chose not to indict.

Was just another example of a bunch of white guys (I don't know the ethnicity of the detective who witnessed the incident, BTW) and a white grand jury (see above) doing a wink-n-nod in Horn's favor?

Do I have a right to intervene in a property crime?

 

[Giz]

He said,

What was the reason Horn killed two people who were not a danger to him? He didn't care that two people would lose their life. I believe that people can be primed to disregard human life to the point of killing other people unnecessarily.

I reject your claims that I'm simply arguing from an emotional position. I went out of my way to acknowledge that people can agree with SYG and STILL CARE.

I'm trying to motivate people to care about people. That's all.

There is a huge difference between coming across a - potentially dangerous - stranger in your home and shooting them and performing an execution.

And when someone says "Not sure if we should care all that much when they lose at "You bet your life!". " that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be upsetting, or still less that it would be relished, but merely that the intruder has created the situation and will have to be responsible for the consequences that follow (as the old saying goes: "you've made your bed, now you have to lie in it").

 

[RandFan]

Now, I am confused. At what point do you beleive a person has the right to interfere in a property crime? Who bears the burden of the outcome - the criminal or the person intervening with the crime.

I agree that Mr. Horn was in a totally irresponsible state-of-mind when he chose to intervene.

...

Do I have a right to intervene in a property crime?

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think the law gave him that right and made it easier for Horn to summarily kill someone (assuming that he did) and get away with it. Horn makes clear that the law was part of his thinking. Should you have that right? It's a complex question with lots of variables. I don't know how to easily weigh everything. I understand people wanting to be secure in their positions. I'm leaning against the law.

The detective on the scene - no fan of Mr. Horn's actions - chose not to arrest him. The grand jury, presented only with unrebutted evidence against Mr. Horn, chose not to indict.

Non sequitur. I've made no claims of racism, conspiracy, bias, corruption, incompetence, etc.

 

[RandFan]

There is a huge difference between coming across a - potentially dangerous - stranger in your home and shooting them and performing an execution.

And when someone says "Not sure if we should care all that much when they lose at "You bet your life!". " that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be upsetting, or still less that it would be relished, but merely that the intruder has created the situation and will have to be responsible for the consequences that follow (as the old saying goes: "you've made your bed, now you have to lie in it").

Sorry, given the context of the discussion at that point the post makes no sense beyond justifying the killing based on the fact that, "hey, these were bad people." If LTC8K6 wants to clarify his position I will then reconsider that. Until then I firmly stand behind my post and would respond in precisely the same way again. I don't think his response served any purpose to advance the discussion given how the thread had advanced.

 

[luchog]

If I was a burglar I damn sure would advance toward a guy with a shotgun. Certainly nothing to be skeptical of there. Who wouldn't?

Sorry, but why are you continually assisting that burglars are inherently rational people who consistently consider the consequences of their actions? This is profoundly... for lack of a better term, ignorant of reality. The very fact that they're burglarizing someone, especially in a state like Texas, is prima facie evidence that they are most likely not thinking rationally.

Add into that equation that a large number of burglars, if not the majority, are doing so in order to support a drug habit, and likely to be under the influence at the time. This also tends to contribute to irrational behaviour. This is especially true if the drug is methamphetamine, which causes severe disruption to judgement, as well as delusion, and in extreme cases, full-blown psychosis. I doubt anyone here is unfamiliar with the fully-deserved reputation of PCP; which is inexplicably becoming popular again in some parts of the US (mainly the Midwest and Left coast). There are plenty of cases of people under the influence of various substances violently attacking armed police officers on the street in broad daylight when stopped for questioning. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about one attacking an ordinary citizen at night when confronted during a criminal act.

And I know someone here is going to try and use the "under the influence" as a mitigating factor for their behaviour. I would fully oppose such an attitude. They are making the decision to use a dangerous substance whose effects are well known, and they will suffer the consequences of their choices.

There is also the issue that a burglar may be mentally ill; a condition also not known for promoting rational behaviour. Unfortunately, with the state of the nation's healthcare system, a lot of mentally ill people are untreated. Few are violent, but they do exist. There are programs in place to deal with the violent mentally ill, but a lot of them slip through the cracks for what should be obvious reasons. Western culture's stigmatizing of mental illness also ensures that a lot of them do not get properly diagnosed and treated before they become a danger to themselves or others. (And this is not just an American problem, much of Europe is just as bad. The mentally ill form the overwhelming majority of the homeless regardless of where you look.)

Or the person may just be arrogant and self-deluded enough (especially if he's a member of a criminal gang) to decide that he can charge someone holding a weapon and disarm him before he has chance to fire; or that the person holding the weapon lacks the nerve to fire. I know plenty of people who fully believe the former, and insist so in vary strident tones when challenged on their belief (some have expressed such beliefs here, in similar past threads). And experience can often inform the latter attitude, because it's true that many people will fail to shoot, or will hesitate long enough to allow someone to get close enough to disarm them.

So, despite your argument from incredulity (another logical fallacy, BTW); there are plenty of situations where a criminal will charge someone holding a weapon.

 

[luchog]

I'm trying to motivate people to care about people. That's all.

Fallacies doe not do that. Most of us do care. It's just that we care more about our own safety and security, and the safety and security of our neighbors, than we do about the safety and security of someone who is deliberately risking his own life by threatening the safety and security of innocent people.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, but why are you continually assisting that burglars are inherently rational people who consistently consider the consequences of their actions? This is profoundly... for lack of a better term, ignorant of reality. The very fact that they're burglarizing someone, especially in a state like Texas, is prima facie evidence that they are most likely not thinking rationally.

Add into that equation that a large number of burglars, if not the majority, are doing so in order to support a drug habit, and likely to be under the influence at the time. This also tends to contribute to irrational behaviour. This is especially true if the drug is methamphetamine, which causes severe disruption to judgement, as well as delusion, and in extreme cases, full-blown psychosis. I doubt anyone here is unfamiliar with the fully-deserved reputation of PCP; which is inexplicably becoming popular again in some parts of the US (mainly the Midwest and Left coast). There are plenty of cases of people under the influence of various substances violently attacking armed police officers on the street in broad daylight when stopped for questioning. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about one attacking an ordinary citizen at night when confronted during a criminal act.

And I know someone here is going to try and use the "under the influence" as a mitigating factor for their behaviour. I would fully oppose such an attitude. They are making the decision to use a dangerous substance whose effects are well known, and they will suffer the consequences of their choices.

There is also the issue that a burglar may be mentally ill; a condition also not known for promoting rational behaviour. Unfortunately, with the state of the nation's healthcare system, a lot of mentally ill people are untreated. Few are violent, but they do exist. There are programs in place to deal with the violent mentally ill, but a lot of them slip through the cracks for what should be obvious reasons. Western culture's stigmatizing of mental illness also ensures that a lot of them do not get properly diagnosed and treated before they become a danger to themselves or others. (And this is not just an American problem, much of Europe is just as bad. The mentally ill form the overwhelming majority of the homeless regardless of where you look.)

Thank you for the response. I think you make some good points. But I do have to take some exception. First off, humans are possessed of the "fight or flight" response. And the results are not arbitrary. In such a situation the brain is remarkable in it's ability to quickly assess risk and come to a conclusion without conscious deliberation. Most people who are faced with likely death if they fight will flee.

So, with that, let's grant you your premises. I think one person unlikely to be so irrational as to fight in the face of certain death. Two makes the proposition untenable, IMO.

 

[RandFan]

Fallacies doe not do that.

I'm sorry but I don't know what that means. The word "fallacy" is a noun that labels an error in logic. I'm not trying to be pedantic I just am unable to parse your sentence. I tried to substitute "meaning" for "do" but that doesn't make any sense in context. Could you explain your meaning?

Most of us do care. It's just that we care more about our own safety and security, and the safety and security of our neighbors; than we do about the safety and security of someone who is deliberately risking his own life by threatening the safety and security of innocent people.

That's not the subject of this part of the discussion. In fact, there is pretty much a consensus as to your point so it's not relevant. We've gone over this and that's not what we are talking about. The discussion has now advanced to the point of focusing on Horn's actions. Did he leave his home to save his life? Or did he leave his home to do what he told the dispatcher he was going to do, kill the thieves?

 

[luchog]

Thank you for the response. I think you make some good points. But I do have to take some exception. First off, humans are possessed of the "fight or flight" response. And the results are not arbitrary. In such a situation the brain is remarkable in it's ability to quickly assess risk and come to a conclusion without conscious deliberation. Most people who are faced with likely death if they fight will flee.

So, with that, let's grant you your premises. I think one person unlikely to be so irrational as to fight in the face of certain death. Two makes the proposition untenable, IMO.

Again, you are assuming rational people with normal responses. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by many similar situations, this is not always true. As I previously stated, there are plenty of recorded incidents in on the books of people who have, in fact, charged and attacked an armed person, including police officers. Drugs and mental illness affect reflexive responses just as strongly as they do conscious mental processes. Particularly drugs like crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and PCP, conditions such as Bipolar Disorder and some forms of Schizophrenia, and abuse of anabolic steroids; all of which are well-documented as increasing aggression and suppressing fear responses. Even something as simple as an adrenaline rush is known to cause similar lapses of rational and snap judgement.

It's pretty safe to assume that someone engaged in burglary, especially home-invasion burglary, is very likely going to have abnormal judgement and situational responses.

 

[RandFan]

Again, you are assuming rational people with normal responses.

Again, no..

Fight or flight isn't a conscious process. We evolved the ability precisely because of the difficulty of weighing our options in difficult situations. It does not require rational thought. The brain only need do some calculations.

Second, that one person is so addled that he is incapable of even the fight or flight response is extremely rare. Two makes the proposition untenable.
​

As has been repeatedly demonstrated by many similar situations, this is not always true.

I've already conceded your point. Arguing it again won't make me agree with you any more.

As I previously stated, there are plenty of recorded incidents in on the books of people who have, in fact, charged and attacked an armed person, including police officers. Drugs and mental illness affect reflexive responses just as strongly as they do conscious mental processes. Particularly drugs like crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and PCP, conditions such as Bipolar Disorder and some forms of Schizophrenia, and abuse of anabolic steroids; all of which are well-documented as increasing aggression and suppressing fear responses. Even something as simple as an adrenaline rush is known to cause similar lapses of rational and snap judgement.

There are instances. They are relatively rare. Rarer still are two people who would act in such a manner.

It's pretty safe to assume that someone engaged in burglary, especially home-invasion burglary, is very likely going to have abnormal judgement and situational responses.

Fight or flight does not require normal judgement.

Let me put it like this, if a piece of debris flying through the air is headed toward your eye, your reflexes will close your eye lid before you can consciously think about closing your lid. It will work even you have abnormal judgement. Same with fight or flight.

 

[Xulld]

Pretty good read here.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

 

[Giz]

Fight or flight does not require normal judgement.

Indeed. But if aggression is increased or inhibition/fears are depressed then the fight/flight response may vary from the norm. Adrenalin and/or drugs that would have that effect are pretty common in home invasions.

 

[RandFan]

Indeed. But if aggression is increased or inhibition/fears are depressed then the fight/flight response may vary from the norm. Adrenalin and/or drugs that would have that effect are pretty common in home invasions.

Mind sciences is an interest of mine and my understanding of fight or flight is that though it is imprecise it is fairly efficient. Most people who are faced with a charging bear won't start charging the bear. Not that it would never happen. It's just so unlikely and to suppose that two people would be faced with a charging bear and suddenly they both charge the bear moves it to the very, very unlikely column.

 

[crimresearch]

Mind sciences is an interest of mine and my understanding of fight or flight is that though it is imprecise it is fairly efficient. Most people who are faced with a charging bear won't start charging the bear. Not that it would never happen. It's just so unlikely and to suppose that two people would be faced with a charging bear and suddenly they both charge the bear moves it to the very, very unlikely column.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the Horn situaton.
They weren't startled like deer into running over to his yard in a blind adrenalin rush.

 

[Giz]

Mind sciences is an interest of mine and my understanding of fight or flight is that though it is imprecise it is fairly efficient. Most people who are faced with a charging bear won't start charging the bear. Not that it would never happen. It's just so unlikely and to suppose that two people would be faced with a charging bear and suddenly they both charge the bear moves it to the very, very unlikely column.

Comparing, say, Joe Horn with a shotgun to a charging bear is probably a poor choice. A charging bear would probably trigger a "rational" (or frozen with terror) response in almost anyone. A little old man with a shotgun… perhaps they don't see the shotgun or think it is a cane, perhaps they think he wont use it (they probably see him as 'prey' anyway and are predisposed to contempt)… perhaps the rational/foresight based fear of what the gun could do doesn't transfer as well to a muddled mind as the primeval fear of the bloody claws and fangs of an unruly ursine?

 

[RandFan]

Comparing, say, Joe Horn with a shotgun to a charging bear is probably a poor choice. A charging bear would probably trigger a "rational" (or frozen with terror) response in almost anyone. A little old man with a shotgun… perhaps they don't see the shotgun or think it is a cane, perhaps they think he wont use it (they probably see him as 'prey' anyway and are predisposed to contempt)… perhaps the rational/foresight based fear of what the gun could do doesn't transfer as well to a muddled mind as the primeval fear of the bloody claws and fangs of an unruly ursine?

Wait, hold on, flight or fight works or not? Yes or no?

I love how you are now moving goal posts. My purpose of the bear was getting you to see just how powerful the fight or flight response works REGARDLESS of adrenalin or drugs or mental impairment.

Now you want to interject all kinds of facts not in evidence. Is it possible that the light from the street lamps was shinning on the shotgun just right to make it look like cane? Dude?

I'll humor you. Yes, all those things are possible but note how hard you had to work to justify your position.

Now let me ask you this question, and tell me truthfully, what would your heart do looking down the barrel of a shotgun being held by someone who may very well want to kill you? Sincerely now? Given a choice I might take the bear. Ever hear the sound of a pump shotgun chambering a round?

 

[Giz]

Wait, hold on, flight or fight works or not? Yes or no?

I love how you are now moving goal posts. My purpose of the bear was getting you to see just how powerful the fight or flight response works REGARDLESS of adrenalin or drugs or mental impairment.

Now you want to interject all kinds of facts not in evidence. Is it possible that the light from the street lamps was shinning on the shotgun just right to make it look like cane? Dude?

I'll humor you. Yes, all those things are possible but note how hard you had to work to justify your position.

Sigh... you do realize that all along, in all your posts, that you have been assuming facts too... right?

Heck - even the fact that we (super dooper skeptics) are arguing this shows how inbuilt/preconceived perceptions can influence judgment.

Now let me ask you this question, and tell me truthfully, what would your heart do looking down the barrel of a shotgun? Sincerely now? Given a choice I might take the bear. Ever hear the sound of a pump shotgun chambering a round?

Honestly, I think a bear would get a more visceral response from me... a shotgun would get a more intellectual fear. (Hey! If the two of us are ever attacked by a shotgun wielding old man and an aggressive bear then we will be able to split them amicably! )