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.
Reply
Old 19th November 2021, 06:07 PM   #1
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
deadly force self defense is strange to me

There is something I have been pondering for a while. The standard for using deadly force in self defence is that that it must be against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

But that seems to indicate that one could not use deadly force in a situation that guarantees major (but not serious) bodily injury and has a some non-zero probability of causing death or serious bodily injury. That seems to indicate a firearm wielder might have to accept catching a beatdown while armed?

How do you interpret it? For example, what percentage chance do you think amounts to imminent threat? How does a reasonable person resolve this data driven question without data?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 06:15 PM   #2
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,357
This won't answer your question, but I refer you to a case -- Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), I think -- where a farmer got annoyed at the kids breaking into his barn. He set up a shotgun, pointed at the door, and arranged it so anyone opening the door would pull the trigger. Someone did.

It went to court, and the court said this was excessive force, and I see that the case is a frequent cite in similar situations.

What I would like to know is how does this landmark case differ from the Rittenhouse one? No one disputes that Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself from attacks, but wasn't shooting someone dead an excessive reaction to the provocation?

Last edited by Sherman Bay; 19th November 2021 at 06:18 PM.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 06:55 PM   #3
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,565
Quote:
....but wasn't shooting someone dead an excessive reaction to the provocation?
The jury didn't think so.
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 07:01 PM   #4
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
 
Athyrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nutsack, FL
Posts: 2,277
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
This won't answer your question, but I refer you to a case -- Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), I think -- where a farmer got annoyed at the kids breaking into his barn. He set up a shotgun, pointed at the door, and arranged it so anyone opening the door would pull the trigger. Someone did.

It went to court, and the court said this was excessive force, and I see that the case is a frequent cite in similar situations.

What I would like to know is how does this landmark case differ from the Rittenhouse one? No one disputes that Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself from attacks, but wasn't shooting someone dead an excessive reaction to the provocation?

The farmer could not claim he was being attacked like Rittenhouse claimed because he was not there when the gun was fired. There was no immediate threat to his safety.
__________________
Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber
Athyrio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 07:25 PM   #5
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,357
But there was a threat to his property. Which is ironic, considering Rittenhouse claimed to only be there to protect property.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 07:40 PM   #6
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,116
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
This won't answer your question, but I refer you to a case -- Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), I think -- where a farmer got annoyed at the kids breaking into his barn. He set up a shotgun, pointed at the door, and arranged it so anyone opening the door would pull the trigger. Someone did.

It went to court, and the court said this was excessive force, and I see that the case is a frequent cite in similar situations.

What I would like to know is how does this landmark case differ from the Rittenhouse one? No one disputes that Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself from attacks, but wasn't shooting someone dead an excessive reaction to the provocation?
It's called a"set gun". Illegal in many states. It's basically a land mine. An illegal "weapon of random destruction". Not so much excessive force (it was) but illegal because there was no brain behind it.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 07:44 PM   #7
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,357
I would argue that there was no brain behind the Kenosha shooting, either.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 07:54 PM   #8
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
 
Athyrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nutsack, FL
Posts: 2,277
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
But there was a threat to his property. Which is ironic, considering Rittenhouse claimed to only be there to protect property.

I think you may be overlooking a difference here. At the time of the shootings, Rittenhouse’s claim is to be defending himself, not property.
__________________
Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber
Athyrio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 07:57 PM   #9
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,335
Problem may be it has to be interpreted after the fact.

Are you prepared to do calculations in your head as an angry mob is aggressively moving towards you?

I fear this may happen more frequently as armed protest continues to grow in popularity.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 08:26 PM   #10
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,357
One person does not a mob make. If there actually was an angry "mob" advancing, the AR-15 should have been on full auto.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 08:30 PM   #11
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
One person does not a mob make. If there actually was an angry "mob" advancing, the AR-15 should have been on full auto.
Yes, it should. But full auto is illegal.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 09:31 PM   #12
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
This country needs more vigilantism. And more guns. Rittenhouse can work as self-appointed security when it comes to disabled parking spots at Florida convenience stores. The US will be the safest, most polite nation in the world.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 09:34 PM   #13
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 16,622
The standard is actually more unclear than simply grievous injury or death: it is merely the subjective fear of it. It literally does not even have to exist. The standard is really quite unabashedly "whatever you cook up in your head to be scared of". As long as it is not transparently self-serving (reasonable person standard).
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2021, 10:34 PM   #14
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,113
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is something I have been pondering for a while. The standard for using deadly force in self defence is that that it must be against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

But that seems to indicate that one could not use deadly force in a situation that guarantees major (but not serious) bodily injury and has a some non-zero probability of causing death or serious bodily injury. That seems to indicate a firearm wielder might have to accept catching a beatdown while armed?

How do you interpret it? For example, what percentage chance do you think amounts to imminent threat? How does a reasonable person resolve this data driven question without data?
You can't really use a percentage chance, judging after the fact requires you to use the available evidence to determine whether or not something is self-defence.

In all the jurisdictions that I can think of, there is a "reasonable belief" standard. Where I live there's also a reasonable proportionality standard as well, so you might believe that you need to defend yourself but what you end up doing goes much further than doing enough to defend yourself.

An example would be A is accosted by B and a fight breaks out. Neither of them are armed. During this fight A is able to knock out B. If he stops here and then gets charged later on he'd be able to claim self defence as he was in a position where he needed to defend himself and then stopped when the threat had ended. On the other hand if A kept beating B even when he was lying unconscious on the street he would be found guilty of an offence because his actions were not reasonably proportionate.

In the case of the firearm wielder in your example, the presence of a weapon would change the dynamics entirely. Weapons are inherently double edged in that sense, so a person would reasonably have to factor in things like the opponent getting their hands on the weapon and using it against them. Proportionality here ends up being based around when and how the weapon was used. So if you pull out your gun to defend yourself from some guy trying to attack you and then they put their hands up to surrender and start backing away, you can't then shoot them and claim self-defence.

The other factor is provocation. I'm assuming in the above examples that the person acting in self-defence was attacked by the other person, partly because that's not a defence here, and the act specifically states you can't claim self-defence at all if you start it. Some places do have exceptions where a provoker can regain the right to self-defence based on their actions, usually they have to try and disengage from the situation but find themselves unable to, most likely because they're being chased.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 12:06 AM   #15
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Bringing a gun leads to almost exclusive lethal self defence. If you don't use the gun your opponent might take your gun and use it on you so even if they're unarmed they become an imminent lethal threat because of your gun.

Probably best not to bring the gun in the first place.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 12:08 AM   #16
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,446
unless killing is what you want.
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 05:33 AM   #17
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 43,394
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
unless killing is what you want.
Or not dying.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 05:39 AM   #18
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
You can't really use a percentage chance, judging after the fact requires you to use the available evidence to determine whether or not something is self-defence.

In all the jurisdictions that I can think of, there is a "reasonable belief" standard.
But you wouldnt have a reasonable belief without data
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 06:00 AM   #19
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,116
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
Bringing a gun leads to almost exclusive lethal self defence. ......
Wrong. 80% of the people who get shot suffer no permanent disability. Injuries are so common the military doctors do internships in Chicago & Miami to get practice treating gun & shrapnel wounds.

You made the claim, cite please.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 07:38 AM   #20
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 13,031
Self-defense law is indeed arcane and tends to vary somewhat from state to state.

Generally, as noted, you may use deadly force to defend against deadly force… Which includes force “likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.”

Serious bodily harm includes things like broken bones, internal injuries, etc. So a “beat down” would likely qualify, especially if there is a considerable difference in size, weight, etc. of the attacker…. Or numbers. An attack by several persons would almost always be so considered.

And a great deal depends on the intended victim’s state of mind. This is why you see so much “I was in fear of my life” rhetoric in court…. That’s the standard.

In the Rittenhouse case, for the most part it comes down to the actual moment…. All the speculation about why he was there and where did he get the gun and so forth are irrelevant to the self-defense claim.
But may well be brought up in a civil “wrongful death” suit.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 07:41 AM   #21
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
Bringing a gun leads to almost exclusive lethal self defence. If you don't use the gun your opponent might take your gun and use it on you so even if they're unarmed they become an imminent lethal threat because of your gun.

Probably best not to bring the gun in the first place.
Not even close..

It can be shown that hundreds if not thousands of guns have been brought to gatherings of one nature or another where lethal did not happen.
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 07:43 AM   #22
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Self-defense law is indeed arcane and tends to vary somewhat from state to state.

Generally, as noted, you may use deadly force to defend against deadly force… Which includes force “likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.”

Serious bodily harm includes things like broken bones, internal injuries, etc. So a “beat down” would likely qualify, especially if there is a considerable difference in size, weight, etc. of the attacker…. Or numbers. An attack by several persons would almost always be so considered.

And a great deal depends on the intended victim’s state of mind. This is why you see so much “I was in fear of my life” rhetoric in court…. That’s the standard.

In the Rittenhouse case, for the most part it comes down to the actual moment…. All the speculation about why he was there and where did he get the gun and so forth are irrelevant to the self-defense claim.
But may well be brought up in a civil “wrongful death” suit.
Do we know if beatdowns cause serious bodily harm?

I grabbed this definition

Quote:
Serious bodily harm is defined as bodily harm that imposes a substantial risk of death or causes extreme physical pain, prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ, protracted unconsciousness, permanent disfigurement, or significant internal damage (such as internal bleeding or broken bones).
I would concede a beatdown probably involve great physical pain, temporary loss of function of body parts, moderate unconsciousness, temporary disfigurement, and moderate internal damage.

But do we cross over to serious bodily harm being likely?



Then that leads to a different follow up....why does anyone think it is okay to use deadly force to prevent broken bones?

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 20th November 2021 at 07:45 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 08:23 AM   #23
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 16,622
I think this is what BobTheCoward is getting at:

You're in a small group of people with no police handy. Some random whacko walks up to people, harassing them for money and begins slapping them in the face and punching the guys, but moving on to others right away.

You have no reason to think you will suffer great injury. But you are not some street scrapper, either. So what do you do? Take the hits and hope he goes away, or resist and risk escalating the situation? If you pull out a gun, have you now responded disproportionately and turned the situation deadly?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 08:32 AM   #24
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think this is what BobTheCoward is getting at:

You're in a small group of people with no police handy. Some random whacko walks up to people, harassing them for money and begins slapping them in the face and punching the guys, but moving on to others right away.

You have no reason to think you will suffer great injury. But you are not some street scrapper, either. So what do you do? Take the hits and hope he goes away, or resist and risk escalating the situation? If you pull out a gun, have you now responded disproportionately and turned the situation deadly?
I would say even more extreme than that...having a gun and getting beat yourself to the point of temporary disfigurement and moderately long unconsciousness. By definition, that is not serious bodily harm.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 08:48 AM   #25
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 16,622
Tbh, I think that's why the standard is universally "reasonable belief". Basically weasel wording to allow you to defend yourself in situations that can't be defined with enough precision.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:02 AM   #26
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,116
But all it takes is a knock-down, head hits pavement, brain damage, death. So ANY physical altercation is "deadly".
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:08 AM   #27
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post

Then that leads to a different follow up....why does anyone think it is okay to use deadly force to prevent broken bones?
You would need for someone to make that claim, then ask them why they think it is okay..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:44 AM   #28
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
But all it takes is a knock-down, head hits pavement, brain damage, death. So ANY physical altercation is "deadly".
Yes, but not every remote possibility constitutes an immediate threat. There is some non zero probability of that happening that wouldn't justify deadly force
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:45 AM   #29
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
You would need for someone to make that claim, then ask them why they think it is okay..
In a sense, the many legislators that have voted for the laws have made that claim
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:46 AM   #30
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
An interesting dilemma, for sure. I think if you come out packing you have, in some sense, raised the stakes already, and the idea of fear for your life has a pretty high standard, I think. You have, in effect, declared your willingness to make a judgment quickly, under duress, with the assumption that you can always prevail through killing.

On the other side, though, the issue of fear for one's life is subjective, and it's a guess that inherently has no control group. If you guess wrong and get killed, there's no replay for you, and if you guess wrong and kill someone largely harmless, there's no replay for them.

I agree that "fear for one's life" is a weasel term, but its weasel-ness depends largely on how honestly it is invoked. It's a flawed standard, but one for which I can't think of a better alternative.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:54 AM   #31
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In a sense, the many legislators that have voted for the laws have made that claim
Then ask them..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 10:57 AM   #32
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,565
If i thought a particular event would be a threat to my life, I would stay home.
I wouldn't go to it with a gun, with the idea that I just might have to kill someone..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 12:16 PM   #33
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,116
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
If i thought a particular event would be a threat to my life, I would stay home.
I wouldn't go to it with a gun, with the idea that I just might have to kill someone..
Yeah. Mostly you don't need a gun, you need tennis shoes. Or a moving van. But sometimes those are not options.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 03:13 PM   #34
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,969
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Tbh, I think that's why the standard is universally "reasonable belief". Basically weasel wording to allow you to defend yourself in situations that can't be defined with enough precision.
It's a good question, and short of a perfect solution, something the bad guys need to consider when deciding whether or not to be a bad guy. I mean it's pretty much in their own hands.

"Hmmm these people I'm about to rob may not understand proportionate response, what should I do?"

Someone has to make the decision to rob or attack another person. They need to consider the pros and cons. They made their decision knowing that things could go bad. They made their bed...now lie in it.
__________________
I'm taking a leave of absence in case anyone notices.



Stop feeding the trolls PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 04:37 PM   #35
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
It's a good question, and short of a perfect solution, something the bad guys need to consider when deciding whether or not to be a bad guy. I mean it's pretty much in their own hands.

"Hmmm these people I'm about to rob may not understand proportionate response, what should I do?"

Someone has to make the decision to rob or attack another person. They need to consider the pros and cons. They made their decision knowing that things could go bad. They made their bed...now lie in it.
I think that's a good half of it, with Skeptical Greg's take another half. Somewhere between being a victim and a volunteer avenger comes what ought to be a midpoint, where it's understood that fear for one's life is real, and that it's in the mind only of the victim, and also that the situation is one so drastic that avoidance is always a better choice.

We had a case near here some years ago, in which a couple of very stupid teenagers decided to rob a storage space where a man was known to keep a quantity of beer for his business. They made noise, he confronted them with a gun, and instead of giving up as he demanded, one reached into his clothing, so the man shot and killed him. It turned out neither kid was armed. He felt awful about it, but maintained his "fear for life" defense, and won in court. It's way too bad, but the kids were fatally stupid. They were given the chance, and did not take it.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 09:45 PM   #36
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
A gun went off at the Atlanta airport. Everybody fell to the ground crawling and cowering, I thought they were Europeans for a second. Then I noticed how fat everybody was. This is the kinda thing one can expect in gun-free zones: Bad guys with guns. If everybody were allowed to have a gun, then more proud Americans would have stood tall. The Kyle Rittenhouses and George Zimmermans of the world make us all safer.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 11:46 PM   #37
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,112
My advice when determining if someone has their concealed carry permit is not just the fatness, which don’t get me wrong is a huge part of it, but also the funny beards and sun glasses. You find a guy with those three things and rest assured you’re safe from all threats, foreign and domestic but especially foreign looking domestic
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2021, 11:47 PM   #38
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 11,028
What's to stop me feeling my life is threatened, specifically personally, in the USA as a tourist? So I would need to pack heat and be prepared to use it whenever, say, some bank guard with gun on his hip wanted to move me to another queue without warning me first. Who knows what the old dodderer would have done to me with that piece! He could have been a secret Marxist or a BLM or even Antifa in disguise! Best to act first and claim Rittenhouse self-defense.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 12:06 AM   #39
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
What's to stop me feeling my life is threatened, specifically personally, in the USA as a tourist? So I would need to pack heat and be prepared to use it whenever, say, some bank guard with gun on his hip wanted to move me to another queue without warning me first. Who knows what the old dodderer would have done to me with that piece! He could have been a secret Marxist or a BLM or even Antifa in disguise! Best to act first and claim Rittenhouse self-defense.

And you would find very little - if any - support for your self defense claim from the majority of posters who tried to painstakingly point out the actual facts and explain the law of self defense in the Rittenhouse case.
Absurd scenarios are absurd.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 12:29 AM   #40
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I think that's a good half of it, with Skeptical Greg's take another half. Somewhere between being a victim and a volunteer avenger comes what ought to be a midpoint, where it's understood that fear for one's life is real, and that it's in the mind only of the victim, and also that the situation is one so drastic that avoidance is always a better choice.

We had a case near here some years ago, in which a couple of very stupid teenagers decided to rob a storage space where a man was known to keep a quantity of beer for his business. They made noise, he confronted them with a gun, and instead of giving up as he demanded, one reached into his clothing, so the man shot and killed him. It turned out neither kid was armed. He felt awful about it, but maintained his "fear for life" defense, and won in court. It's way too bad, but the kids were fatally stupid. They were given the chance, and did not take it.


A case like this happened in BC, Canada, about 40 years ago. A group of young idiots were screaming racist abuse and throwing rocks at the house an East Indian woman was in with her two children.

Claiming fear for her life and the lives of her children - she took her husband's hunting rifle and shot one of the teenagers dead. He happened to be the son of the RCMP Officer In Charge of the local detachment.

She was charged, a court case was held before a judge, and she was acquitted of all charges.

The Judge agreed that she had reasonable grounds to fear for the lives of herself and her children. In his ruling he explained the intent of the youths may have been to scare and offend and not physically injure - but the fact that the rocks could have caused serious injury and even possibly death was what had to be considered.

In other words - what the intent of the aggressor is cannot be known by the person defending themselves and the worst case scenario must be considered as a possible - if not likely - outcome.

Canada's self defense laws are certainly in line with those in the US and I wouldn't want it any other way.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 21st November 2021 at 12:33 AM.
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 05:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.