Well, lets live without laws... survival of the fittest.
I hear ya. Naw, that isn't what I am saying. I probably misunderstood you the first time.
Of course, it's your right to defend yourself and others. I was arguing the inequality of a violent reaction (such as shooting someone who is only using their fists), for example.
ok. so if someone is only using fist you can't shoot them?
I would think it's a bit excessive.
You don't need to pull a gun on a person if you're fist fighting with him. That's not the minimum needed to stop him. You can fight back, or retreat. You don't need to pull a gun.
EDIT: All things being equal. Hence, you are both trained fighters, both elderly, both women.
Stop being stupid, please, and grow up.
I would think it's a bit excessive.
You don't need to pull a gun on a person if you're fist fighting with him. That's not the minimum needed to stop him. You can fight back, or retreat. You don't need to pull a gun.
EDIT: All things being equal. Hence, you are both trained fighters, both elderly, both women.
Stop being stupid, please, and grow up.
Then it's a good thing that criminals only prey on their equals. No large man would ever attack a small woman...
Seems to me you're the one who needs to grow up and try reality for a change.
Then it's a good thing that criminals only prey on their equals. No large man would ever attack a small woman...
Seems to me you're the one who needs to grow up and try reality for a change.
BoberFett I think you're bashing a little too hard
BoberFett I think you're bashing a little too hard. I'm in the camp that agrees he went overboard but also understands it. At the end of the day it's not his right or position to make the judgement to end the guys life once the crime has been thwarted, assuming that's what happened, but I understand because I could see myself doing the same thing in his position and hoping I'm sided with if charged.
On one hand I think vigilantism is warranted (rape anyone in my family and if I know who you are you probably won't live to survive it) but it's also a crime (I must hope that I won't be charged but can't get mad if I am).
Anyway, I'm rambling.
It is truly unbelievable to me how many little kids we have nowadays who think someone needs to fight with an attacker or attempt to run before shooting them.
You should never ever "fist fight" with someone attempting to hurt you. I don't even know how to begin to reason with those of you who.
We get into an argument, you punch me, and instead of me leaving, or attempting to fight back, I pull out a gun.
If I have the presence of mind to pull out a gun, I have that same presence to leave the situation, or throw a punch in self-defense. Now, if you're getting your butt whipped, that may be different.
I hear ya. Hopefully they will never procreate and make more. Judging by their previous post in other threads I dont they have real sex at all.There we go, I knew we could hook one or two
"Liberals": So Open Minded Their Brains Have Fallen Out Completely
Yes, he had time to stop and think about the man who was molesting a four year old. Maybe he should have reasoned with the guy instead?
You're both poster children for why such a large number of people hate modern "liberals" and why the Republican party even still exists. It's because people with half a brain realize that voting for Democrats would mean people like you get to run things. And that's worse than any kind of economic armageddon the Republicans have in mind.
This is not kindergarten... If you get into a physical altercation with someone you'd better be prepared for them to kill you - via fists, gun, feet, whatever.
It has absolutely nothing to do with presence of mind.. You act like you can just hit 'pause' on life and walk away from a situation.
Very understandable how the father reacted, how would you feel if you came home to find some guy sexually assaulting your 4 year old daughter? Yeah maybe he did "lose it" for a few moments, it happens to best of us in extreme situations. Perhaps one could argue that the father suffered a kind of temporary "insanity". If the law demands that a loving father who would do literally anything for his daughter, keep his cool in that situation, then I think the law is asking a little too much of us as human beings. I don't personally feel the father is a bad person what-so-ever for what he did and I think the law should make allowances for normal people who aren't wired like robots and don't have the mental capacity to keep their cool when they see their 4 year daughter, completely unexpectedly, being sexually assaulted, by some weirdo, in their own home.It wasn't his right to pass a death sentence on that victim. He should have called the police and waited for them to handle it.
-snip-
You don't need to pull a gun on a person if you're fist fighting with him. That's not the minimum needed to stop him. You can fight back, or retreat. You don't need to pull a gun.
I see this a lot lately.
I'm referring to this concept of 'minimum force' to stop the danger.
I think if people stopped to think about it a while most would realize that's a wholly unrealistic standard. It's much more complicated than even the 'reasonable person' standard. E.g., what if the father just knocked the rapist out? But what if the father turned his back to attend to his daughter and the rapists got up and stabbed him the back and then went on to rape the little girl again? There are so 'what if's' that it's just not do-able for the average person and far too hard to judge as a prosecutor or jury.
That standard is too high and places ALL the risks of error in judgement on the innocent person's shoulders, whether it be conviction because they overestimated the force necessary or being killed because they underestimated it. That's an unfair, and in fact immoral, burden to place to them.
Fern
I see this a lot lately.
I'm referring to this concept of 'minimum force' to stop the danger.
I think if people stopped to think about it a while most would realize that's a wholly unrealistic standard. It's much more complicated than even the 'reasonable person' standard. E.g., what if the father just knocked the rapist out? But what if the father turned his back to attend to his daughter and the rapists got up and stabbed him the back and then went on to rape the little girl again? There are so 'what if's' that it's just not do-able for the average person and far too hard to judge as a prosecutor or jury.
That standard is too high and places ALL the risks of error in judgement on the innocent person's shoulders, whether it be conviction because they overestimated the force necessary or being killed because they underestimated it. That's an unfair, and in fact immoral, burden to place to them.
Fern
It's so bizarre how the mentality of so many people nowadays tends to revolve around protecting criminals. They made an active choice to commit a felony and endanger your life... That is a specific decision that is made, not some 'random' event where you need to walk away and let the police handle it.
That standard is too high and places ALL the risks of error in judgement on the innocent person's shoulders, whether it be conviction because they overestimated the force necessary or being killed because they underestimated it. That's an unfair, and in fact immoral, burden to place to them.
Fern