• Detroit PD has 24 minute response time; vigilantism becoming popular, people see 911 as useless, hea
    171 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;34589646][I][U][i][U][B][I]Gotham City.[/I][/B][/U][/I][/U][/I][/QUOTE] The funny thing is that Dark Knight Rises was originally suppose to be filmed here too.
It's so insane to see the contrast between Detroit, and Canadian city Windsor which lies less than a kilometre away in terms of crime and violence. Windsor area population: ~300,000 with 0-2 annual average murders Detroit area population: ~3,000,000 with hundreds of annual murders
[QUOTE=Pandamobile;34590780]It's so insane to see the contrast between Detroit, and Canadian city Windsor which lies less than a kilometre away in terms of crime and violence. Windsor area population: ~300,000 with 0-2 annual average murders Detroit area population: ~3,000,000 with hundreds of annual murders[/QUOTE] Man, before I lived closer we would drive to Windsor for vacation and shopping. Absolutely amazing city, one of my favorite places. You can even see the contrast standing on the banks of the river.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;34590269]Ray-The-Sun is one of those people who don't seem to realize that in the case of home intrusion if the intruder has a gun and no moral qualms against using it on someone then you could become a victim of murder within moments.[/QUOTE] No. I follow the British self-defence laws, and using deadly force regardless of circumstance is a criminal offence. [editline];[/editline] And in fact, in regards to the "intruder with a gun" scenario cited, that happened. R v. Lindsay. Three masked intruders armed with guns, one died as a result of multiple sword slashes from the defendant. Defendant got several years.
Thread music. [video=youtube;D7rjLQuW2nQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7rjLQuW2nQ[/video]
This is just asking for a lot of unreasonable killings, both from criminals who get "lucky" and from vigilantes with an eye for an eye mentality. Lotta people gonna die mang.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34591826]No. I follow the British self-defence laws, and using deadly force regardless of circumstance is a criminal offence. [editline];[/editline] And in fact, in regards to the "intruder with a gun" scenario cited, that happened. R v. Lindsay. Three masked intruders armed with guns, one died as a result of multiple sword slashes from the defendant. Defendant got several years.[/QUOTE] Any self-defense law that put's the criminal's safety over the victim's is a [I]really[/I] shitty law. You're basically saying that people have no right to defend themselves, even from death.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34592011]You're basically saying that people have no right to defend themselves, even from death.[/QUOTE] Nope. You [I]are[/I] allowed to commit spur-of-the-moment, instinctual attacks if you strongly believe that you were in [I]imminent[/I] peril and don't use excessive force.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/T8gUO.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592062]Nope. You [I]are[/I] allowed to commit spur-of-the-moment, instinctual attacks if you strongly believe that you were in [I]imminent[/I] peril and don't use excessive force.[/QUOTE] 3 armed men don't count as imminent paril? I guess you're only allowed to fight back after you've been shot then, right? Or do we give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was an accidental discharge?
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592062]Nope. You [I]are[/I] allowed to commit spur-of-the-moment, instinctual attacks if you strongly believe that you were in [I]imminent[/I] peril and don't use excessive force.[/QUOTE] I can't help but feel that would mean people who were genuinely in such positions would be screwed by the assailant arguing in court that the defendant was not in imminent danger, having only felt as if they were. After all, I may [I]feel[/I] that a cat is about to bite me, but that doesn't give me complete grounds to bat it away.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592062]Nope. You [I]are[/I] allowed to commit spur-of-the-moment, instinctual attacks if you strongly believe that you were in [I]imminent[/I] peril and don't use excessive force.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to use excessive force if your life is in danger.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;34588501]And yet here you are. Arguing its the same thing?[/QUOTE] That's because a homicide still happens. The perpetrator is merely liberated from the crime under accounts of either self defense with justified use of force or the defense of someone else. [QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592062]Nope. You [I]are[/I] allowed to commit spur-of-the-moment, instinctual attacks if you strongly believe that you were in [I]imminent[/I] peril and don't use excessive force.[/QUOTE] Not entirely. Planning itself does not exclude the use of justified force. Imagine you are being held by criminals over a period of time and believe that your life is in danger (or health or well being. For instance imagine they want to sell you off a as a sex slave somewhere). In this case you would commit justified homicide even if you planned for a longer period of time. Obviously if you ended up killing someone who no longer posed a threat you wouldn't get under justified use of force but in most cases you would be pretty fine. Hell even the use of excessive force is sometimes questionable. For instance imagine you are attack, retaliate, go into fury mode and keep hitting the attacker even once he is on the ground. Unless you over did the damage you would be fine. Remember a case, where a woman was assaulted by a man with an intent to rape her, but she hit him with her purse which impacted against his head and he went down. Even when he was immobile she kept hitting him and verbally assaulting him. When the police finally arrived they actually had to calm her down. The court liberated her as well stating that even if excessive force was used she was still in mental distress. On the other hand, shooting a thief in the back while he is getting away from would be a use of excessive force and would definitely not get liberated. The only exception is the castle doctrine which is one of the most bullshit pieces of legislature ever.
Fuck all that shit you guys are arguing about. I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers then carried by 6.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34591826] And in fact, in regards to the "intruder with a gun" scenario cited, that happened. R v. Lindsay. Three masked intruders armed with guns, one died as a result of multiple sword slashes from the defendant. Defendant got several years.[/QUOTE] That is some of the stupidest bullshit I have ever heard
Anyone know how easy it is to get a weapon in Detroit? Because in New York State and New York City especially it's nearly impossible. [editline]7th February 2012[/editline] Legally that is.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592062]Nope. You [I]are[/I] allowed to commit spur-of-the-moment, instinctual attacks if you strongly believe that you were in [I]imminent[/I] peril and don't use excessive force.[/QUOTE]Basically: save your own life, but not [i]too much[/i]. If it's your instinct to clobber a guy in the fucking head with a brick and he dies because you, yourself, don't want to die then you should be able to do that. It's insane to think that, in your country, I could go to jail because I didn't want to be killed and defended myself by fighting back. Oh, and we do have a concept of excessive force. If I beat some guy to a bloody pulp, then stand over his unconscious body and bash his brains in (thus killing him) then that would be excessive. Or if I shoot somebody, he goes down but is still alive, not fighting back and put two more into him "for good measure" then that would be excessive as well. If he went for his piece, then it wouldn't, because he'd still be trying to kill me. See the line there? It's actually a very simple line, the goal is to eliminate the [i]threat[/i] by any means, not the person, but sometimes the threatening person dies. I don't understand how people from other countries cannot grasp such an extremely simple concept and it frustrates me. [editline]and for clarification[/editline] Note, both scenarios are to be assumed that I was not the aggressive party and was attacked entirely unprovoked. Just felt I should add that before somebody fires off a silly response.
[video=youtube;q9R389kyfYE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9R389kyfYE[/video] Except in Detroit, not New York That'd be awesome. Sucks that the people lose trust in the police because they're underfunded but what's the police supposed to do if they don't have enough men or cars?
[QUOTE=Cone;34592155]I can't help but feel that would mean people who were genuinely in such positions would be screwed by the assailant arguing in court that the defendant was not in imminent danger, having only felt as if they were.[/QUOTE] Doesn't work. So long as you can prove you [I]legitimately felt[/I] threatened he has no case. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;34592350]Or if I shoot somebody,[/QUOTE] Then you've shown intent to kill by using a firearm.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592463]Doesn't work. So long as you can prove you [I]legitimately felt[/I] threatened he has no case.[/QUOTE] All that would prove was that I was scared of someone, not that I had a good reason to be. I mean, if I pull a gun and shoot some guy on the street, it obviously isn't fair to that guy to then say that I was genuinely afraid of him. All that would prove was that I'm scared of things I really shouldn't be, and that I need to see someone to help me with that.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592463]Doesn't work. So long as you can prove you [I]legitimately felt[/I] threatened he has no case.[/QUOTE] And just how do you prove something like that anyway? Surely you could tell the court he was going to kill you and you're off scot-free, right? What if he argues that he wasn't going to hurt you, huh? That's your word against his at that point, and seeing how you view self-defense, you'd probably rule in favor of the criminal. [QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592463]Then you've shown intent to kill by using a firearm.[/QUOTE] Threatening someone with a firearm is a-okay, but retaliating against the attacker is a no-no? You do realise that if someone is pointing a gun at you, you have no way to tell if they are actually going to shoot you or not, right? In fact, the only way to tell if they are, is when they actually do it. With a gun, the time between being threatened and being dead is near-instant, it is nearly impossible to fight back once they make the decision to kill. I'm interested in hearing how you'd intent to defend yourself after / while you're being shot, please tell me how that works.
[QUOTE=Mabus;34588344]Why don't we privatize it and put funding towards a half man half machine super cop.[/QUOTE] because corruption
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34592463]Then you've shown intent to kill by using a firearm.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;34592350][editline]and for clarification[/editline] Note, both scenarios are to be assumed that I was not the aggressive party and was attacked entirely unprovoked. Just felt I should add that before somebody fires off a silly response.[/QUOTE]God damn it, read!
Guys, help I'm being mugged! Address to me the most ethical thing to do in this situation! 5 seconds go!
[QUOTE=BigOwl;34593184]Guys, help I'm being mugged! Address to me the most ethical thing to do in this situation! 5 seconds go![/QUOTE] Ask politely if you can punch him in the gut.
[QUOTE=Cone;34593242]Ask politely if you can punch him in the gut.[/QUOTE] Violence isn't the answer, don't stoop to his level, just let him stab you.
[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;34593265]Violence isn't the answer, don't stoop to his level, just let him stab you.[/QUOTE] Phew that was a close one! I almost got in trouble for killing in self defense, bleeding out on the side of the street for the next 24 minutes without a wallet was a much better alternative for me.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;34593288]Phew that was a close one! I almost got in trouble for killing in self defense, bleeding out on the side of the street for the next 24 minutes without a wallet was a much better alternative for me.[/QUOTE] Well killing in self-defense is legal, but protecting yourself with anything other than a soft pillow is just excessive and we would've all judged you.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;34593288]Phew that was a close one! I almost got in trouble for killing in self defense, bleeding out on the side of the street for the next 24 minutes without a wallet was a much better alternative for me.[/QUOTE] Just make sure your blood doesn't make the area any bit slippery, he might come back and accidentally fall and break something.
[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;34593322]Well killing in self-defense is legal, but protecting yourself with anything other than a soft pillow is just excessive and we would've all judged you.[/QUOTE] A soft pillow? A [I]soft pillow!?[/I] Do you not realize that sometimes the stems of feathers poke out of those? My god, getting hit with those is almost as bad as getting confetti thrown at you! Owl, did you throw your wallet? Did you accidentally hit him with it? If so, [I]shame on you[/I].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.