Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RandFan]

I would argue that some lives are less valuable than property.

Why do modern liberal democracies have prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and autocratic regimes don't? Do you think it is entirely coincidental and the one thing that autocratic regimes get right?

 

[RandFan]

Except that that's not a guaranteed option

In the case of the hypothetical it is.

Without psychic powers, it's impossible to know for sure what the thief's mindset is, so it is only good sense to be prepared for any and all eventualities.

I've no idea who is arguing against being prepared for any and all eventualities.

 

[luchog]

Hypothetical questions are all we have at the moment, why do you balk at that one?

I'm not balking at it, I answered in the only reasonable way. You can just as easily ask whether I would prefer to have an elephant invading my house, with just as much relevance to the real world. In the real world, I do not have the choice to decide whether I will be home when someone attempts to burglarize me; so any preference i might express is nothing but pointless wishful thinking.

Unless they have some direct application to real-world situations, hypotheticals are just an exercise in mental masturbation.

 

[luchog]

In the case of the hypothetical it is.

See my comment to 3point14 about hypotheticals.

 

[Xulld]

In the case of the hypothetical it is.

Let me translate this . . . . ."in my imagination it does"

I've no idea who is arguing against being prepared for any and all eventualities.

You are, if you do not know what is going on then you are not prepared. A person in your home without permissions can be doing all kinds of things which you have no control over if you do not even know what is going on, that is not called prepared.

Preparations require action, you do not take preparations then do nothing.


All kinds of wacky situations occur where someone breaking into your house may need help, and never had an ill intention.

Poeple just do stupid things, and sometimes its because they are in distress.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-stuck-lovers-chimney-tried-break-home.html
If I was home and heard this, I would check it out, YOU, you would have left her to die, or waited on the police, if they didn't check it out she would die. Checking it out saves lives. Saying only the police should check things out means anytime a police officer isn't around someone could die for a lack of courage, concern, or rational consideration and that is ok.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07slay.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all This particular story is quite chilling, and many such situations happen every day. Its possible neighbors could respond save this mans family.

I am sorry, I cannot imagine sitting around hearing screaming and not check it out. That goes for the Treyvon Martin case, it goes for my friend who was brutally murdered, and it goes for any situation where I believe something is happening that may be dangerous. Call me the hero type, but for a lack of personal safety you will not find me running away when someone may need help.

These stories I posted are not necessarily situations anyone could have stopped, but when someone says you should hide and not check something suspicious out, no less to save having to shoot a dangerous person, I find that to be morally reprehensible.

 

[RandFan]

See my comment to 3point14 about hypotheticals.

It does have an application to the real world. The purpose of the hypothetical is draw a distinction. To determine at what point property is not worth a human life. Reductio ad absurdum.

• If I'm in my home and happen upon a thief who is unarmed and I am armed. I show him my weapon and he flees. Should I shoot him?
• If I'm at home, alone, and I hear an intruder break the glass in the front room and I'm near the back door would it be reasonable for me to flee?

We can go over thousands of scenarios but answering the hypothetical (an important philosophical tool) tells us how you value life. It's not impossible to answer. I think your refusal to answer the hypothetical is telling to be honest.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why do modern liberal democracies have prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and autocratic regimes don't? Do you think it is entirely coincidental and the one thing that autocratic regimes get right?

Not relevant, since I'm neither a democracy nor an autocratic regime.

 

[RandFan]

Not relevant, since I'm neither a democracy nor an autocratic regime.

Wait, we were talking about laws and you said you would be fine with the laws of Iran and Saudi Arabia as it applies to cruel and unusual punishment. Is that still the case?

 

[luchog]

It does have an application to the real world. The purpose of the hypothetical is draw a distinction. To determine at what point property is not worth a human life. Reductio ad absurdum.

You do understand that reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, right? It's called "absurd" because it doesn't have much application to real life. Creating false dichotomies has no purpose other than evasion, propaganda, or psychological diagnosis.

• If I'm in my home and happen upon a thief who is unarmed and I am armed. I show him my weapon and he flees. Should I shoot him?
• If I'm at home, alone, and I hear an intruder break the glass in the front room and I'm near the back door would it be reasonable for me to flee?

Already answered, repeatedly.

We can go over thousands of scenarios but answering the hypothetical (an important philosophical tool) tells us how you value life. It's not impossible to answer. I think your refusal to answer the hypothetical is telling to be honest.

It's not impossible to answer, it's just pointless. You can project whatever qualities on that you wish to, none of them will have any more validity than claiming you can psychically know what I'm thinking. This sort of abstract philosophizing has no real value for this discussion that I can see, aside from pushing some sort of personal agenda or attempting to subtly demonize opponents. I've already addressed real-world conditions, so as I have no interest in engaging in this kind of mental masturbation, this will be my last post in this particular sub-thread.

 

[RandFan]

You do understand that reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, right? It's called "absurd" because it doesn't have much application to real life. Creating false dichotomies has no purpose other than evasion, propaganda, or psychological diagnosis.

You do understand that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, right? It's not a false dichotomy because it doesn't exclude the middle. Some options are binary.

Reductio ad absurdum is only a fallacy when used to exclude the middle.

It's not impossible to answer, it's just pointless.

BS. Asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

 

[seayakin]

First, let me say that I'm generally agree with the castle principle. However, it is also apparent if you are not properly trained that you could be doing more to endanger yourself and your family by confronting someone involved in a home invasion. I have had zero training in handling guns and self defense. I also have never been in a situation that remotely required the use of violence. For me it would be safer to get me and my family safely away from the dangerous situation rather than confronting a burgler. I don't have an answer but I do have concern about all the potentially poorly trained individuals who have a gun who might think they can shoot their way out of a situation.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wait, we were talking about laws and you said you would be fine with the laws of Iran and Saudi Arabia as it applies to cruel and unusual punishment. Is that still the case?

 

[Xulld]

First, let me say that I'm generally agree with the castle principle. However, it is also apparent if you are not properly trained that you could be doing more to endanger yourself and your family by confronting someone involved in a home invasion. I have had zero training in handling guns and self defense. I also have never been in a situation that remotely required the use of violence. For me it would be safer to get me and my family safely away from the dangerous situation rather than confronting a burgler. I don't have an answer but I do have concern about all the potentially poorly trained individuals who have a gun who might think they can shoot their way out of a situation.

I respect this position. It accounts for the totality of the situation. Trying to narrow a situation to a small set of universal choices is not well founded.

If you cannot handle a gun, either get the training, or dont try. If you do not know how to respond to a potentially violent scenario, you should take time to think about it.

I asked a bunch of poeple here at the office, if they heard a bump in the night and thought it was someone breaking into there house, would they run and hide, leave the house, or check it out. Everyone said they would check it out.

You cant know how to respond to a situation that only lives in your imagination, you need facts.

If once you have found your facts, and by some feat of stealth you are able to determine a situation like this is going down without alerting the culprits, and have no reasonable capability to deal with it, then it is clearly the most reasonable thing to flee.

However, if you alert them, if they know your there, and they decide to take hostile action, then you are responsible for protecting yourself and your family.

I have a friend who has a real bad temper, he has chosen to not go armed. I think that is a wise choice. No training, issues controlling your behavior, dont go armed.

Personally I would work to get the training, and work to control my temper, not go through life without the capability to defend what I love, but for me its easy, I have already lost someone I loved.

 

[RandFan]

Your responses are rather confusing. I don't know if you mean to be or you think you are being clear. You are not.

Look, I don't care if you agree with me. I do care if you this is some joke. Let me know and I can just avoid engaging with you.

 

[Xulld]

Your responses are rather confusing. I don't know if you mean to be or you think you are being clear. You are not.

Look, I don't care if you agree with me. I do care if you this is some joke. Let me know and I can just avoid engaging with you.

Is that why you ignore me?

 

[RobDegraves]

I wonder what the minimum threshold is that someone would kill for.

Let's say a thief comes in to your house but no one is home other than you. Thus, no need to protect your family or anyone else. In fact let's keep it simple. Or even better, the thief is not in your house, he's in a field but about to take something of yours.

What would you kill an intruder for?

Just showing up?
Your tv?
A sandwich?
To prove you can shoot better than a felon?
To feel manly?

Just curious.

 

[Xulld]

I wonder what the minimum threshold is that someone would kill for.

Let's say a thief comes in to your house but no one is home other than you. Thus, no need to protect your family or anyone else. In fact let's keep it simple. Or even better, the thief is not in your house, he's in a field but about to take something of yours.

What would you kill an intruder for?

Just showing up?
Your tv?
A sandwich?
To prove you can shoot better than a felon?
To feel manly?

Just curious.

Sure I will play ball here.

I will use your general setting, and add some flavor.
ex. we are out camping in that hypothetical field, and a guy I dont know walks up, picks up my cooler, and starts to walk away.

I yell, "hey dude, put that down." (as I say this I get up from where I was sitting)

All right your turn what does the dude do? (I am assuming because my cooler is a 32 quart cooler that both of his hands are engaged in carrying the cooler.)

So currently I do not feel my life is threatened.



------
I could see this getting really silly, but hey I am game.

 

[crimresearch]

I wonder what the minimum threshold is that someone would kill for.

Let's say a thief comes in to your house but no one is home other than you. Thus, no need to protect your family or anyone else. In fact let's keep it simple. Or even better, the thief is not in your house, he's in a field but about to take something of yours.

What would you kill an intruder for?

Just showing up?
Your tv?
A sandwich?
To prove you can shoot better than a felon?
To feel manly?

Just curious.

If you are so 'curious', why didn't you bother to read all the other times this red herring has been debunked?

Killing to retain property, is not self defense.

 

[RobDegraves]

I yell, "hey dude, put that down." (as I say this I get up from where I was sitting)

All right your turn what does the dude do? (I am assuming because my cooler is a 32 quart cooler that both of his hands are engaged in carrying the cooler.)

So currently I do not feel my life is threatened.

The dude says... you mean my cooler don't you?

If you are so 'curious', why didn't you bother to read all the other times this red herring has been debunked?

Killing to retain property, is not self defense.

OK.. so killing to retain property is not self defense. Therefore, if an intruder breaks into your home, but no one is there and he has no weapon.. is it self defense? Can you kill him legally.

More importantly .. would you?

 

[Xulld]

The dude says... you mean my cooler don't you?

I reply, "nope that is my cooler, you cant just walk on up and take a mans cooler, if you wanted a beer you just had to ask."

At this point I am going to walk on over and attempt to place my hand on the handle of my cooler to prevent him from walking off with it. If during my approach he reaches for a weapon I will draw.

Role-playing is FUN!