Drug dealers killing cops: morally justifiable?

[The Parkus Empire]

No, simple as that.

Murder is only morally justifiable in the case of self-defense. A drug dealer is not defending his life when he enters into a gun battle with the police, he is attempting to protect his freedom. Thus his action can be seen as selfish and therefore morally reprehensible.

And what about the action of a cop shooting him if he tries to run away?

[Moral Libertarians]

At the risk of you starting a special interest group to ban coffee, I'll post.

Massive Dose of Caffeine Kills British Man

The article states he died from ingesting "two spoonfuls of pure caffeine powder" - hardly something you can buy in your average Starbucks.

Every smoker I've met who honestly wanted to quit, more than he wanted to smoke a cigarette, has managed to quit. If I get cancer, it will nobody's fault but my own, and blaming tobacco companies for my addiction would be irresponsible, misdirected anger. Tobacco companies don't want you do die from tobacco, and drug dealers don't want you to die from drugs. Both wold probably pay a significant sum of money if it would make their products risk free.

Actually, putting on my cynical head, the tobacco company would pay enough so that the number of deaths and cost of associated lawsuits would be reduced to a tolerable level. no company wants to pay more in costs than absolutely necessary.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then perhaps I should amend what I wrote: most people who smoke or take drugs would find it hard to kick the habit. I congratulate people like yourself with the strength of mind to buck this trend.
However, with regards to the coffee, it may as addictive as illegal drugs, but I can't say I see many news stories about people dying of caffeine overdoses.

At the risk of you starting a special interest group to ban coffee, I'll post.

Massive Dose of Caffeine Kills British Man

I've known three people who had to be hospitalized for caffeine issues, such as OD'ing, and two people who went in for alcohol poisoning.

[Moral Libertarians]

And what about the action of a cop shooting him if he tries to run away?

The cop would only be doing his duty by attempting to enforce the law.

[Tergnitz]

No, simple as that.

Murder is only morally justifiable in the case of self-defense. A drug dealer is not defending his life when he enters into a gun battle with the police, he is attempting to protect his freedom. Thus his action can be seen as selfish and therefore morally reprehensible.

And what about the action of a cop shooting him if he tries to run away?

Why would a police officer do such a thing?

Furthermore, the answer to your question depends on if there had been a gun battle between the two parties or not. If there was, the officer has enough grounds to believe that the dealer is simply looking for another weapon or reinforcements and is then justified to shoot to wound him.

[The Parkus Empire]

Actually, putting on my cynical head, the tobacco company would pay enough so that the number of deaths and cost of associated lawsuits would be reduced to a tolerable level. no company wants to pay more in costs than absolutely necessary.

The people who die from lung cancer related to smoking tend to be the absolute most dedicated consumers in the tobacco world, whose health problems cut that consumption radically short.

Plus think about how many people would take up smoking if it were as harmful as bubblegum. Laws against TV ads for cigarettes would be repealed. Anti-smoking regulations in states would plummet, which would cause consumption to sky rocket (due to frequent ability to consume). We'd return to 1940's-60's levels.

[Sibirsky]

At the risk of you starting a special interest group to ban coffee, I'll post.

Massive Dose of Caffeine Kills British Man

The article states he died from ingesting "two spoonfuls of pure caffeine powder" - hardly something you can buy in your average Starbucks.

And? Wouldn't safe doses of drugs be far easier to determine if drugs were legal?

[Hellsgrind]

Killing people isn't justifiable, period.

[Terra Agora]

Actually, putting on my cynical head, the tobacco company would pay enough so that the number of deaths and cost of associated lawsuits would be reduced to a tolerable level. no company wants to pay more in costs than absolutely necessary.

The people who die from lung cancer related to smoking tend to be the absolute most dedicated consumers in the tobacco world, whose health problems cut that consumption radically short.

Plus think about how many people would take up smoking if it were as harmful as bubblegum. Laws against TV ads for cigarettes would be repealed. Anti-smoking regulations in states would plummet, which would cause consumption to sky rocket (due to frequent ability to consume). We'd return to 1940's-60's levels.

Except with drugs the exact opposite happened....

[Moral Libertarians]

And? Wouldn't safe doses of drugs be far easier to determine if drugs were legal

Most probably, which is why since joining NSG I'm leaning (very tentatively) towards legalisation.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why would a police officer do such a thing?

Because they aren't supposed to let felons escape.

Furthermore, the answer to your question depends on if there had been a gun battle between the two parties or not. If there was, the officer has enough grounds to believe that the dealer is simply looking for another weapon or reinforcements and is then justified to shoot to wound him.

I'm not talking about a gun battle. I'm just talking about running away.

[The Parkus Empire]

The people who die from lung cancer related to smoking tend to be the absolute most dedicated consumers in the tobacco world, whose health problems cut that consumption radically short.

Plus think about how many people would take up smoking if it were as harmful as bubblegum. Laws against TV ads for cigarettes would be repealed. Anti-smoking regulations in states would plummet, which would cause consumption to sky rocket (due to frequent ability to consume). We'd return to 1940's-60's levels.

Except with drugs the exact opposite happened....

Pot fiends! Probably because of tobacco and other lobbyists.

[Terra Agora]

Except with drugs the exact opposite happened....

Pot fiends! Probably because of tobacco and other lobbyists.

When you legalize drugs consumption goes down.

Anti smoking regulations doesn't keep people from smoking. The reason people dont smoke is because its fucking terrible for your health and people know that now.

[The Parkus Empire]

Pot fiends! Probably because of tobacco and other lobbyists.

When you legalize drugs consumption goes down.

Anti smoking regulations doesn't keep people from smoking. The reason people dont smoke is because its fucking terrible for your health and people know that now.

All good points. I meant it keeps people from smoking in a lot of public places and businesses.

[Terra Agora]

When you legalize drugs consumption goes down.

Anti smoking regulations doesn't keep people from smoking. The reason people dont smoke is because its fucking terrible for your health and people know that now.

All good points. I meant it keeps people from smoking in a lot of public places and businesses.

If anything I believe if drugs were legalized (specifically weed) tobacco smoking will go down.

[The Rich Port]

Citizens are bystanders. Most gang shootings result in gang members being dead, not innocent by standers.

Their product has no legal protection, unlike, say Wal-Marts product.
Their product is very expensive, artificially inflated in price by the state/
This provides both the means, and the motive for protecting that product.

That's a very poor not-fact, especially in today's climate.

Gangsters today target anyone who gets in their way, bystanders included.

Seeing as how the police are now the bad guys, taking away the gangster's property or what not, it's a way to get back at them by showing that they can't do their jobs properly... That job being protecting civilians from violence.

One could easily file that as... Psychological warfare.

[The Parkus Empire]

All good points. I meant it keeps people from smoking in a lot of public places and businesses.

If anything I believe if drugs were legalized (specifically weed) tobacco smoking will go down.

Legalizing weed would definitely make tobacco use go down, which is why I guessed that tobacco lobbyists had something to do with its continued criminalization.

[Moral Libertarians]

Legalizing weed would definitely make tobacco use go down, which is why I guessed that tobacco lobbyists had something to do with its continued criminalization.

I know I've already criticised them, but surely they wouldn't go to those lengths ... wait, they probably would, never mind.

[Lackland]

Selling drugs is victimless and violates no one's property or rights.

That might be true if most of the drug dealers, at least those higher up on the food chain, didn't engage in activities completely unrelated to the selling of drugs. Unfortunately that is case, most of the high end drug dealers engage in extortion, murder, theft, harassment, and sometimes may be members of a gang. In that sense selling drugs is not victimless, and it certainly violates ones property and rights. In many instances where high end dealers were arrested, police have founded millions in either cash or drugs, and munitions ( sometimes even automatic weapons ).

Very few people would feel safe knowing there neighborhood plays host to a congregation of drug dealers, and as a result that often depresses property value in a given location. If one purchased property prior to devaluation that means taking a loss if one wants to move out, those with the means to do so often take the loss ( unfortunately for a majority of people that isn't quite the norm ). That certainly violates ones rights and property ( I certainly wouldn't want the value of any of my property to drop because some thugs want to do their business near that location ).

While some here might be lax in terms of drug use, I suspect it's more related to only one recreational drug ( most likely Marijuana ). Which in itself does offer some health benefits, and does have a use in health care. Of course that doesn't diminish the facts stated above. Legalizing that particular substance might decrease some drug crimes, but I see no reason for any so called hard narcotics to be legalized. They should be kept locked up in secure facilities like pharmacies, available only by prescription ( when needed ).

[Vitius]

I don't see how it could.

If you're implying that the drug-dealing business is alright, than you're wrong. Of course, that does not show my opinion-it technically is wrong by the law. If you're breaking the law of the land, and a police officer comes to arrest you, you can't resist or run.

[The Parkus Empire]

Legalizing weed would definitely make tobacco use go down, which is why I guessed that tobacco lobbyists had something to do with its continued criminalization.

I know I've already criticised them, but surely they wouldn't go to those lengths ... wait, they probably would, never mind.

They frequently do. Someone being "shot while fleeing arrest" isn't at all unusual.

[Sibirsky]

Citizens are bystanders. Most gang shootings result in gang members being dead, not innocent by standers.

Their product has no legal protection, unlike, say Wal-Marts product.
Their product is very expensive, artificially inflated in price by the state/
This provides both the means, and the motive for protecting that product.

That's a very poor not-fact, especially in today's climate.

Gangsters today target anyone who gets in their way, bystanders included.

Seeing as how the police are now the bad guys, taking away the gangster's property or what not, it's a way to get back at them by showing that they can't do their jobs properly... That job being protecting civilians from violence.

One could easily file that as... Psychological warfare.

They don't target innocent bystanders specifically. If someone gets in the way, sure, they can be quite cruel in how deal with the situation. This does not change the facts of the situation.

[The Rich Port]

They don't target innocent bystanders specifically. If someone gets in the way, sure, they can be quite cruel in how deal with the situation. This does not change the facts of the situation.

... Are you saying gangsters wouldn't be above terrorism?

[Terra Agora]

If anything I believe if drugs were legalized (specifically weed) tobacco smoking will go down.

Legalizing weed would definitely make tobacco use go down, which is why I guessed that tobacco lobbyists had something to do with its continued criminalization.

They probably are.
Sort of like the main reason we are still fighting the "War on Terror" is the MIC.

[United Dependencies]

No, simple as that.

Murder is only morally justifiable in the case of self-defense. A drug dealer is not defending his life when he enters into a gun battle with the police, he is attempting to protect his freedom. Thus his action can be seen as selfish and therefore morally reprehensible.

And what about the action of a cop shooting him if he tries to run away?

Considering that's not what they're supposed to do, the officer would be in the wrong.