ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amber Guyger , Dallas incidents , murder cases , police incidents , police misconduct charges , shooting incidents , Texas cases

Closed Thread
Old 5th September 2019, 09:32 AM   #641
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:35 AM   #642
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Ah you wanted an answer to a hypothetical that has nothing to do with this incident.
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.

Quote:
To your hypothetical my answer would be no.
Thank you.

So then you don't think people should have a right to defend their own homes? Why not?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:40 AM   #643
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,305
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
There is no correction. She shot twice, hit once
Anyone who doesn't already know the fact would think "hit twice" when they read what you wrote.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 11:13 AM   #644
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Anyone who doesn't already know the fact would think "hit twice" when they read what you wrote.
So us on the doll where the unsplit hair touched you.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 11:40 AM   #645
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
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.

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.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 11:42 AM   #646
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
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?
Nope I do believe people have the right to defend themselves where ever they happen to be.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 11:53 AM   #647
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope I do believe people have the right to defend themselves where ever they happen to be.
That is, again, not the question I asked.

Do you believe that people have a right to defend their homes?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:15 PM   #648
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,861
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That is, again, not the question I asked.

Do you believe that people have a right to defend their homes?
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope I do believe people have the right to defend themselves where ever they happen to be.
I believe he answered your question.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:16 PM   #649
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I believe he answered your question.
Defending yourself and defending your home are not the same thing. I even bolded the damned words to make sure the distinction was visible.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:20 PM   #650
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,861
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Defending yourself and defending your home are not the same thing. I even bolded the damned words to make sure the distinction was visible.
I believe that's why he used the specific damned words he did.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:23 PM   #651
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I believe that's why he used the specific damned words he did.
- 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.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 12:42 PM   #652
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,864
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 01:22 PM   #653
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,080
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Defending yourself and defending your home are not the same thing. I even bolded the damned words to make sure the distinction was visible.
"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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 02:17 PM   #654
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,308
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
"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.
Especially since Guyver was literally blocking any possible attempt to leave.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 03:26 PM   #655
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
"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.
That is an interesting theory.
Must one wait to first be punched before determining how to properly respond?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 03:51 PM   #656
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,877
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Especially since Guyver was literally blocking any possible attempt to leave.
I'm sorry, I've tried to ignore it, but I just can't any more.

It's Guyger.

Not Guyver.

Guyger.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 03:52 PM   #657
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,080
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
That is an interesting theory.
Must one wait to first be punched before determining how to properly respond?
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.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:27 PM   #658
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,308
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
I'm sorry, I've tried to ignore it, but I just can't any more.

It's Guyger.

Not Guyver.

Guyger.
Sorry. Shan't happen again.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 12:35 AM   #659
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
- 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.
I'm afraid I'm not able to help you further.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:01 AM   #660
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
"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.
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.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm afraid I'm not able to help you further.
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.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:49 AM   #661
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
...snip...


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.
I thought I was as clear as possible but I'll try again.

I can't help you with your current difficulty in understanding our exchange.

What that means is that it is not in my gift to help your ability to understand a discussion, you will need to seek help eleswhere if you are still struggling to understand.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:08 AM   #662
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I thought I was as clear as possible but I'll try again.

I can't help you with your current difficulty in understanding our exchange.
Of course you can, by answering my question directly. I'm not asking you whether someone can act in self-defense. I was asking you whether you think, in any scenario, people can act to defend property.

It's a simple yes or not. You're spending a lot of time and effort rather than just responding with a single word. I don't know why.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:15 AM   #663
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Of course you can, by answering my question directly. I'm not asking you whether someone can act in self-defense. I was asking you whether you think, in any scenario, people can act to defend property.



It's a simple yes or not. You're spending a lot of time and effort rather than just responding with a single word. I don't know why.
So sorry you cant understand.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:21 AM   #664
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So sorry you cant understand.
Thank you for your concern. I'm touched.

You could help out with a bit of an effort, however. I think the issue of defense of property is interesting.

Don't you think it likely that the jury will be convinced by the "mistake of fact" argument?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 6th September 2019 at 04:51 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:54 AM   #665
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Thank you for your concern. I'm touched.



You could help out with a bit of an effort, however. I think the issue of defense of property is interesting.



Don't you think it likely that the jury will be convinced by the "mistake of fact" argument?
No. As I've said all along, the mistake of fact only gets her to the door it doesn't get to her shooting someone because she did not make a mistake on that.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:00 AM   #666
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No. As I've said all along, the mistake of fact only gets her to the door it doesn't get to her shooting someone because she did not make a mistake on that.
But the point of the mistake of fact is that if it's seen as reasonable, she is assumed to act AS IF it was her actual home, and in some places you can defend said home with deadly force. In this case I find the idea suspect, since she was in the door and could retreat at any time, but allowing for her to have the reasonable belief that she is home, legally, allows her some defense options, depending on the state.

The distinction I'm trying to make right now is defense of property vs defense of self, specifically because I don't think she has a self-defense case for the reasons I gave above.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:22 AM   #667
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,588
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But the point of the mistake of fact is that if it's seen as reasonable, she is assumed to act AS IF it was her actual home, and in some places you can defend said home with deadly force. In this case I find the idea suspect, since she was in the door and could retreat at any time, but allowing for her to have the reasonable belief that she is home, legally, allows her some defense options, depending on the state.



The distinction I'm trying to make right now is defense of property vs defense of self, specifically because I don't think she has a self-defense case for the reasons I gave above.
As I would have thought I've made clear for quite sometime I don't accept that reasoning.

As I've said I would support her not being prosecuted for breaking and entry or trespass if she genuinely was stupid enough to not realise she wasn't entering her apartment. That's a mistake of fact defence.

However the rest of actions were not mistakes nor accidental nor of course instinctive nor instantaneous so there is no mistake of fact defence for those acts. She quite deliberately tried and succeeded at killing someone.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:33 AM   #668
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
As I would have thought I've made clear for quite sometime I don't accept that reasoning.
Which part? The part where a reasonable belief leads to a justifiable action? I got that, but I want to know why.

For example, if I feel like someone is attacking me and my life is in danger, and that belief is judged entirely reasonable in context, am I not justified in defending myself with deadly force? If not, then what's the point of calling the belief reasonable to begin with?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:44 AM   #669
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But the point of the mistake of fact is that if it's seen as reasonable, she is assumed to act AS IF it was her actual home, and in some places you can defend said home with deadly force. In this case I find the idea suspect, since she was in the door and could retreat at any time, but allowing for her to have the reasonable belief that she is home, legally, allows her some defense options, depending on the state.

The distinction I'm trying to make right now is defense of property vs defense of self, specifically because I don't think she has a self-defense case for the reasons I gave above.
From what I understand, the impetus for the "castle doctrine", and "stand your ground" laws was a belief by lawmakers (and presumably the electorate that supports them) that in certain instances (like being inside ones domicile) there is no duty to retreat.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:51 AM   #670
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Which part? The part where a reasonable belief leads to a justifiable action? I got that, but I want to know why.

For example, if I feel like someone is attacking me and my life is in danger, and that belief is judged entirely reasonable in context, am I not justified in defending myself with deadly force? If not, then what's the point of calling the belief reasonable to begin with?
This thread has been tempestuous already.
And we have not even got to the "victim blaming" portion yet.

How reasonable do you expect it will be argued that someone inside their own apartment (Mr. Jean, in this instance) would move to confront someone who barged in unexpectedly?

How reasonable will it be seen to view such movement to confront as a threat?

And forget about what it will be like when the victims' (possibly altered) state of mind is added as a likely qualifier.

It seems to me the only path to a conviction for murder is the prosecutions' ability to convince the entire jury that Guygers mistaking the apartments was somehow "unreasonable".
I see that as a difficult path, especially since I (and a few other posters from this limited sample of humanity) see it a a reasonable error.

On the plus side, Guygers defense in the criminal matter makes the civil case pretty much a slam-dunk for the Jean family. They will likely even get a settlement from the manufacturer of the door lock.
It won't bring their loved one back to them- but neither will anything else.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 6th September 2019 at 06:06 AM.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:12 AM   #671
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
And we have not even got to the "victim blaming" portion yet.
Because victim blaming is where the thread ******* started.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:21 AM   #672
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
How reasonable do you expect it will be argued that someone inside their own apartment (Mr. Jean, in this instance) would move to confront someone who barged in unexpectedly?

How reasonable will it be seen to view such movement to confront as a threat?
Wait.

So let me make sure I get this straight.

Jean confronting Guyger to protect his apartment IN THE REAL ACTUAL WORLD gave Guyver the right to kill Jean inside the imaginary apartment she thought she was in in her head.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 6th September 2019 at 06:25 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:29 AM   #673
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Wait.

So let me make sure I get this straight.

Jean confronting Guyger to protect his apartment IN THE REAL ACTUAL WORLD gave Guyver the right to kill Jean inside the imaginary apartment she thought she was in in her head.
Assuming that you meant your second sentence to mean "..gave her (not Jean) the right..."
Effectively, yes. Although how the term "rights" play in to this as opposed to more concrete terms like "criminal" and "legal" is another discussion.

Sorry, I see you fixed your wording. Ignore my first sentence.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:30 AM   #674
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Effectively, yes. Although how the term "rights" play in to this as opposed to more concrete terms like "criminal" and "legal" is another discussion.
That's insane. Again that's reducing the criminal justice system down to asking people do they want to be criminals or not.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 6th September 2019 at 06:31 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:33 AM   #675
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,992
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
From what I understand, the impetus for the "castle doctrine", and "stand your ground" laws was a belief by lawmakers (and presumably the electorate that supports them) that in certain instances (like being inside ones domicile) there is no duty to retreat.
I understand that, but I take it to mean: when you're actually in your home and someone comes in, not when you're the one coming in, where it's far easier to retreat.

Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
This thread has been tempestuous already.
And we have not even got to the "victim blaming" portion yet.
Oh, we got to that a while ago.

Quote:
How reasonable do you expect it will be argued that someone inside their own apartment (Mr. Jean, in this instance) would move to confront someone who barged in unexpectedly?
What does that have to do with what I said? It's been said over and over that Jean would've probably been entirely legally justified to shoot her dead when she came in.

Quote:
I see that as a difficult path, especially since I (and a few other posters from this limited sample of humanity) see it a a reasonable error.
I don't. She had many opportunities to realise her mistake before coming in, including, and this is the killer one for me, a big red mat in front of the door.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:36 AM   #676
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's insane. Again that's reducing the criminal justice system down to asking people do they want to be criminals or not.
I see it as considering wether or not someone intends to act criminally or not.
It is a seemingly important principle in the law.

Personally, the failure of Justice I see here is found in the "no duty to retreat" and "proliferation of guns" aspects of this situation, Not the "mistake of fact" aspect of it which I see as a net positive principle.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:36 AM   #677
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's been said over and over that Jean would've probably been entirely legally justified to shoot her dead when she came in.
And not one person would be screaming about "mistake of fact!" and "OMG WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF HE'D BEEN AWAKE FOR A NORMAL LENGTH OF A DAY!" when the big scawwy black guy was arrested and convicted for killing the widdle white cop.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:37 AM   #678
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I understand that, but I take it to mean: when you're actually in your home and someone comes in, not when you're the one coming in, where it's far easier to retreat.



Oh, we got to that a while ago.



What does that have to do with what I said? It's been said over and over that Jean would've probably been entirely legally justified to shoot her dead when she came in.



I don't. She had many opportunities to realise her mistake before coming in, including, and this is the killer one for me, a big red mat in front of the door.
The "red mat" will be the "if the glove does not fit...." component of this.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:39 AM   #679
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,094
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And not one person would be screaming about "mistake of fact!" and "OMG WE NEED TO DETERMINE IF HE'D BEEN AWAKE FOR A NORMAL LENGTH OF A DAY!" when the big scawwy black guy was arrested and convicted for killing the widdle white cop.
Or perhaps determine if he knew it was a cop coming for him, and not some random person (in your hypothetical). Are you saying that should not matter?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:41 AM   #680
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Or perhaps determine if he knew it was a cop coming for him, and not some random person (in your hypothetical). Are you saying that should not matter?
I'm saying you wouldn't be making excuses if the outcome had been reversed even though every single bull **** excuse you've vomited out would apply just the same. If Guyver had been the one dead at the end of the altercation you wouldn't be obsessed with Jean's state of mind. You wouldn't been looking for a reason it was okay. Period.

We've had dozens of threads where your "Mistake of Fact" fetish would have manifested if it was honest. It didn't manifest until this one. There's a reason.

Write fan fiction about the criticism of your original fan fiction on your own time.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 6th September 2019 at 06:45 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.