Teenage Girl Shot And Killed In Texas Because Of Stand Your Ground Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718910]Lack of literacy. I responded to roughly the same point twice. I implied no consequences for philosophy. [b]The law, on the other hand, does not bow to your world view.[/b] It bows to objective, reconciliatory justice. [/QUOTE] Ironic. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36718931]No it isn't. It's a fuckin' misdemeanor.[/QUOTE] That's what castle doctrine is! You can defend yourself and your property in your home!

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;36718936]Please tell us why it is okay to value one species over another but it's [I]not[/I] okay to value members within a species over each other.[/QUOTE] How many times do I have to explain what a red herring is? I was proving a point to captain metaphysics. I give cero shits about that discussion. He was distracting from the topic at hand with an unanswerable question and I indulged him because he wouldn't shut the fuck up about it. You win metaphysics. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36718948]That's what castle doctrine is! You can defend yourself and your property in your home![/QUOTE] Not from fucking misdemeanors. Nobody deserves to die over a misdemeanor. Shit, everybody but Texas realizes that. Even states with Stand Your Ground legislation don't permit that kind of shit. They stipulate that you need to actually be in danger before murdering a motherfucker. More danger than "I need to replace my locks" danger.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718958] Not from fucking misdemeanors. Nobody deserves to die over a misdemeanor.[/QUOTE] Who gives a fuck what arbitrary name you give the assault of property? It is an act of aggression and therefore means of defense can be implemented on the part of the victim in order to avoid further damage to oneself or ones property!

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718958]How many times do I have to explain what a red herring is? I was proving a point to captain metaphysics. I give cero shits about that discussion. He was distracting from the topic at hand with an unanswerable question and I indulged him because he wouldn't shut the fuck up about it. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Not from fucking misdemeanors. Nobody deserves to die over a misdemeanor.[/QUOTE] It's funny, I was about to say "Who wants to bet Lankist will call the 'valuing species over species but not value members within that species' a red herring" and fuck he ninja'd me.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718972]Who gives a fuck what arbitrary name you give the assault of property? It is an act of aggression and therefore means of defense can be implemented on the part of the victim![/QUOTE] Uhh, it isn't fucking arbitrary, it's the goddamn law. Pretty much everybody but fucking Texas realizes misdemeanors don't qualify for self defense. Nor do they think property damage justifies lethal force.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718958]Nobody deserves to die over a misdemeanor. Shit, everybody but Texas realizes that. Even states with Stand Your Ground legislation don't permit that kind of shit. They stipulate that you need to actually be in danger before murdering a motherfucker. More danger than "I need to replace my locks" danger.[/QUOTE] So I should wait until I get popped in the head before I confront him?

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36718983]So I should wait until I get popped in the head before I confront him?[/QUOTE] Or raped, like my great grandmother? (yes, I will harp on that.)

Any argument that is better than Lankist's = red herring, strawmen. Any time he ignores you = your comment is asinine and not worth his time. Kill a guy to protect wife = lolnope you are an awful person. Defend any kind of act of self protection that may result in death = oh wow you sociopath, nihilist, bad person, infant eater Such is life in Lankist's odd, strange mind.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36718983]So I should wait until I get popped in the head before I confront him?[/QUOTE] You need to actually know that's a likelihood before you kill a motherfucker. Most states treat self defense cases with extreme scrutiny. Lot of motherfuckers get brought up on charges. Those "burglar sues victim" cases, despite sensationalism, are over the fact that someone permanently injured a motherfucker over a stereo or something. It's not justified under anything but fucking Texas law. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;36718994]Any argument that is better than Lankist's = red herring, strawmen. Any time he ignores you = your comment is asinine and not worth his time. Kill a guy to protect wife = lolnope you are an awful person. Defend any kind of act of self protection that may result in death = oh wow you sociopath, nihilist, bad person, infant eater Such is life in Lankist's odd, strange mind.[/QUOTE] "what is the meaning of life" is not a rebuttal, einstein.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718979]Uhh, it isn't fucking arbitrary, it's the goddamn law. Pretty much everybody but fucking Texas realizes misdemeanors don't qualify for self defense. Nor do they think property damage justifies lethal force.[/QUOTE] And laws can't be arbitrary? Devoid of philosophical legitimacy? Look, can I or can I not defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?

merged [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36719006]And laws can't be arbitrary? Devoid of philosophical legitimacy? Look, can I or can I not defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?[/QUOTE] No, they aren't arbitrary at all. They're debated, examined and questioned to the ends of the Earth. And pretty much everywhere in the entire country the conclusion has been "you don't have the right to kill someone defending material possessions" That's what you have insurance for.

One thing that confuses me is that there was 5 or 6 people in the house at the time, what kind of idiot tries to rob a house with a load of people in it.

Why do you keep focusing on things that people said several pages ago? You've already said that the "meaning of life" question was stupid several times (and no, it's not because people keep forcing you to repeat it or something).

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719007]merged [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] No, they aren't arbitrary at all. They're debated, examined and questioned to the ends of the Earth. And pretty much everywhere in the entire country the conclusion has been "you don't have the right to kill someone defending material possessions" That's what you have insurance for.[/QUOTE] They can be. And often they are. Did you know there's an old law on the books in Texas that says Sodomy is illegal? Tell me that's not arbitrary as fuck. [b]And[/b] you didn't answer my question. Can I or can I not defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719006]And laws can't be arbitrary? Devoid of philosophical legitimacy? Look, can I or can I not defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?[/QUOTE] Nope, you must be 100% sure that he is going to harm you and then if you kill him in 'self defense' (more like unjustified murder! Right guys?) you are a terrible person you damn dirty sociopath.

[QUOTE=_jesterk;36719021]Why do you keep focusing on things that people said several pages ago? You've already said that the "meaning of life" question was stupid several times (and no, it's not because people keep forcing you to repeat it or something).[/QUOTE] The only reason I even acknowledged that question was because Captain Metaphysics had been asking it for five fucking hours in lieu of any real argument. The resulting argument is a demonstration of how stupid the question was and how irrelevant it is to the topic of law and rights. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;36719025]Nope, you must be 100% sure that he is going to harm you and then if you kill him in 'self defense' (more like unjustified murder! Right guys?) you are a terrible person you damn dirty sociopath.[/QUOTE] You are damn well accountable for your actions when they result in a fatality. Even Texas, with their crazy fucking laws, will investigate the unholy shit out of you if somebody ends up dead at your feet.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719001]You need to actually know that's a likelihood before you kill a motherfucker. Most states treat self defense cases with extreme scrutiny. Lot of motherfuckers get brought up on charges. Those "burglar sues victim" cases, despite sensationalism, are over the fact that someone permanently injured a motherfucker over a stereo or something. It's not justified under anything but fucking Texas law.[/QUOTE] imo if the guy breaks down the door to my house and comes in, I'm going to go ahead and assume he's after me. If he wanted to ask me something, or do something that isn't life threatening, then I'd like to believe he'd have the decency to knock first. Even if he just wants to steal my stuff, there's too much shit that could happen when we first see each other to try and deduce whether or not he's there to kill me as well.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719032] You are damn well accountable for your actions when they result in a fatality.[/QUOTE] I know, that poor, poor, innocent little rapist :(. All he wanted to do was rape and kill, why must people attempt to defend themselves?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719024]They can be. And often they are. Did you know there's an old law on the books in Texas that says Sodomy is illegal? Tell me that's not arbitrary as fuck.[/quote] Do you know what a "moot" law is? It's a law which is on the books as legacy, but which has been invalidated either by higher (federal) legislation, court rulings or otherwise anything which struck the law down. We don't remove any laws from the books. The US Code still has an entire title dedicated to Indians. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's law. [quote][b]And[/b] you didn't answer my question. Can I or can I not defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?[/QUOTE] Depends on the state. Sane states demand you retreat before engaging. If you are cornered, you need to be in real danger. Once the altercation is over, the evidence must indicate that you were, indeed, under direct assault (breaking doors and being present does not qualify.) e.g. the assailant must be brandishing a weapon, must have fallen from a hostile posture, you must be visibly injured, etc. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36719040]imo if the guy breaks down the door to my house and comes in, I'm going to go ahead and assume he's after me..[/QUOTE] You do that. But don't bitch when you go to prison for killing an unarmed man. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;36719041]I know, that poor, poor, innocent little rapist :(. All he wanted to do was rape and kill, why must people attempt to defend themselves?[/QUOTE] You're arguing law right now, and the law is against you. This isn't metaphysical right-and-wrong. This is circumstances which constitute justifiable self-defense. The shit you're defending is not among them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719055]Do you know what a "moot" law is? It's a law which is on the books as legacy, but which has been invalidated either by higher (federal) legislation, court rulings or otherwise anything which struck the law down. We don't remove any laws from the books.[/QUOTE] And were these laws not once considered legitimate? Why do you assume the laws we have now are? Laws are fads. [QUOTE=Lankist;36719055]Depends on the state. Sane states demand you retreat before engaging. If you are cornered, you need to be in real danger. Once the altercation is over, the evidence must indicate that you were, indeed, under direct assault (breaking doors and being present does not qualify.) e.g. the assailant must be brandishing a weapon, must have fallen from a hostile posture, you must be visibly injured, etc.[/QUOTE] I'm not asking what the state says I can or can't do. Tell me, from an ethical/philosophical/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-it standpoint, do i have the right to defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719076]And were these laws not once considered legitimate? Why do you assume the laws we have now are?[/quote] Law is a process of evolution. Things such as sodomy laws were hold-overs from pseudo-theocratic governance. There are few such holdovers left. Almost everything law in effect right now, whether it's legit or not, has a rational, justifiable and objective purpose for being there. [quote]I'm not asking what the state says I can or can't do. Tell me, from an ethical/philosophical/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-it standpoint, do i have the right to defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?[/QUOTE] I give no shits about the ethics. You can take matters into your own hands if you want, but don't whine when you end up in prison for making the wrong call. For every one of these OH NO RAPIST stories you people have I can find another of an uppity gun-nut accidentally shooting their child because they thought they were an intruder.

And what would be the "right" call?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719086]Law is a process of evolution. Things such as sodomy laws were hold-overs from pseudo-theocratic governance. There are few such holdovers left. Almost everything law in effect right now, whether it's legit or not, has a rational, justifiable and objective purpose for being there. I give no shits about the ethics. You can take matters into your own hands if you want, but don't whine when you end up in prison for making the wrong call.[/QUOTE] Law is based on sets of commonly held morals, which grow from ethics, which grow from philosophy. If you care about law (or at least the legitimacy of law), you must care about philosophy. So I pose my question to you again: Do I have the right to defend myself against the actions of an initial aggressor?

[QUOTE=_jesterk;36719087]I don't think Lankist has many friends. Just saying.[/QUOTE] Oh no, all of my feelings. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36719104]Law is based on sets of commonly held morals[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Not modern, 21st Century law. Is adultery immoral? Is adultery illegal? Is lying immoral? Is lying illegal? Is alcoholism immoral? Is alcoholism illegal?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719105]Oh no, all of my feelings.[/QUOTE] This is the third time you've said that. Your feelings must have more holes in them than your argument does.

This is why we need an exciting cataclysmic event so much. I give you all a week at the most before your moral compass packs in and you start eating babies. My advice to you all is to unlearn what you know (but don't really) and find out a single provable fact - so that you can sit back and accept it as much as you'd accept sitting in a lit fire or winning the lottery.

[QUOTE=_jesterk;36719110]This is the third time you've said that.[/quote] It's cool how five minutes ago you were bitching about me being mean. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SCopE5000;36719114]This is why we need an exciting cataclysmic event so much. I give you all a week at the most before your moral compass packs in and you start eating babies. My advice to you all is to unlearn what you don't know so that you can sit back and accept it as much as you'd accept sitting in a lit fire or winning the lottery.[/QUOTE] Go back to watching Beyond Thunderdome.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719118]It's cool how five minutes ago you were bitching about me being mean. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Go back to watching Beyond Thunderdome.[/QUOTE] all of my feelings

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719105]Oh no, all of my feelings. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] No it isn't. Not modern, 21st Century law. Is adultery immoral? Is adultery illegal? Is lying immoral? Is lying illegal? Is alcoholism immoral? Is alcoholism illegal?[/QUOTE] You don't read much philosophy, do you? A law is only legitimate if it protects liberty (i.e. theft is illegal because it takes away a mans right to his property). So tell me, do I have the right to defend myself from the actions of an initial aggressor?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719138]You don't read much philosophy, do you? A law is only legitimate if it protects liberty (i.e. theft is illegal because it takes away a mans right to his property). So tell me, do I have the right to defend myself from the actions of an initial aggressor?[/QUOTE] Look who's fucking dodging shit now. Answer: Is adultery immoral? Is adultery illegal? Is lying immoral? Is lying illegal? Is alcoholism immoral? Is alcoholism illegal?