Oh yes, of course that's what you meant...
Advertisement
by Free South Califas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:54 am
by Cannot think of a name » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:40 am
Mercucio wrote:Thou art like one of those fellows that, when he enters the confines of a tavern, claps me his sword upon the table and says “God send me no need of thee!” and, by the operation of the second cup, draws it on the drawer when indeed there is no need.
by Quapaw Republic » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:52 am
by Free South Califas » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:58 am
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:44 am
Galloism wrote:Neo Arcad wrote:
lolno
Obviously, I wouldn't spin it like that. He was attempting to attack me, he must not have seen my gun or something, and I just had to think fast and stop him, so I put one through his skull. Who's going to present contrary eyewitness accounts? Deadington McSkullfucked? I don't think so. I'd get off with self-defense easily.
And have to live with the knowledge of what you did.
The investigation, trial (if it occurs), and press is the easy part.
The hard part is where you drink just to sleep because you can't sleep without it.
New Rogernomics wrote:No, unless they are members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Cannot think of a name wrote:I don't go around trying to find scenarios where I would be 'willing' to kill someone.
Must be something wrong with me.
Cannot think of a name wrote:Azakhia wrote:
I don't go looking for them either. Just that I refuse to be a victim, since in the US we are not entitled to police protection.
I'm reminded of what this cat said once-Mercucio wrote:Thou art like one of those fellows that, when he enters the confines of a tavern, claps me his sword upon the table and says “God send me no need of thee!” and, by the operation of the second cup, draws it on the drawer when indeed there is no need.
Quapaw Republic wrote:Im a bit cruel but, if its a he, Id feed a hot lead burger to the face. If its a she, I'd tase her and capture her, then torture her. Im cruel huh. After Im done, Ill call the cops, although, by that time the robber would be dead already. So, warning to robbers out there, dont come to my house if you want to live longer.
by United States of PA » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:02 am
Cromarty wrote:The law in most civilised places disagrees with you. Force has to be reasonable. The moment it goes beyond that, then it's murder.
by Franklin Delano Bluth » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:05 am
United States of PA wrote:Cromarty wrote:The law in most civilised places disagrees with you. Force has to be reasonable. The moment it goes beyond that, then it's murder.
Castle Doctrine (The very basis of this thread) specifically states that if someone is in your house (some places may be extended to your whole property as well) you have the right to respond, fatally if needed.
by Franklin Delano Bluth » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:06 am
Spiritwolf wrote:Free South Califas wrote:
There is an implied subservience here. Who decides when lethal force is necessary? That is a homeowner or tenant's right within reason, and should be viewed with leniency when s/he is protecting the lives of others (which by the way is not necessarily happening when someone comes to your place to steal your stuff, even if they have a knife, though of course their brandishing a weapon makes the line blurry). But on the battlefield, sometimes an American must value respect for freedom and self-determination above the goals of the politicians who volunteered them into some dank hellhole. Many Marines in the Vietnam Era served their country by refusing to shoot the poor suckers with the other uniform on. Think about the dilemma of a black soldier, probably lacking civil rights in their home state, drafted by a country which has no room for them in its economy, where their countrymen hate him and throw rocks through his window if he dares get too close to the Included Ones. If you were that man, would you fire because the politicians that hold you down, told someone to give you an order? Many of these men had unspoken agreements with their co-draftees on the other side: if they saw each other, they would avert their eyes and keep looking for the enemy in another direction. Two people live another day, maybe with the hope of coming home to put food on the table, maybe hoping to come home and change their society for the better. I think our country is much stronger for these men having survived, and come home to participate in our democracy, and I despise the implication that servicemembers who respect life above hierarchical command are "worthless".
At the very least, you should acknowledge that this is my country too and I get to determine who is and isn't worthless to me.
This is the beauty of combat operations in the FMF........ they handle their own problems their way. Simply put, if you were in my Unit and i observed you "refusing to shoot the poor suckers with the other uniform on" i would make it my business to find an opportunity to waste your fucking ass. Then you could "avert your eyes" from six feet under all day long. My Marines are not gonna die in a firefight due to your inaction/moral objections.
by United States of PA » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:17 am
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:United States of PA wrote:
Castle Doctrine (The very basis of this thread) specifically states that if someone is in your house (some places may be extended to your whole property as well) you have the right to respond, fatally if needed.
Which is an immoral and barbaric principle. Violence is absolutely never justified.
by Cill Charthaigh » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:20 am
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:21 am
United States of PA wrote:...I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair.
...
Violence is a necessary evil in this world...
by Franklin Delano Bluth » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:22 am
I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair.
by Socialist Republic of Andrew » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:24 am
by Insignificance » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:24 am
by Socialist Republic of Andrew » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:25 am
by Insignificance » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:30 am
Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:Insignificance wrote:
It's not self defense if the intruder doesn't attack you. It's murder.
Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:32 am
Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:Insignificance wrote:
It's not self defense if the intruder doesn't attack you. It's murder.
Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:38 am
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:United States of PA wrote:
And i sir, call complete bullshit to that. Violence is justified given the right circumstances,
There is no such thing.
I used to think as you do, but then I got out in the real world and realized that a naive and fantasy-land viewpoint such as yours is not tenable.I personally believe that anyone that believes that any and all violence at any point in time is immoral needs to grow a serious pair.
One does not destroy hate via acts of hatred towards the haters.
by Insignificance » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:39 am
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:There is no such thing.
I used to think as you do, but then I got out in the real world and realized that a naive and fantasy-land viewpoint such as yours is not tenable.
One does not destroy hate via acts of hatred towards the haters.
Let me get this straight - if a guy comes in your house at night, for the express purpose of killing you, you should let him, rather than commit violence?
by Socialist Republic of Andrew » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:40 am
by Great Nepal » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:00 am
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Which is an immoral and barbaric principle.
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Violence is absolutely never justified.
by Midweilaisa » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:01 am
Insignificance wrote:Socialist republic of Andrew wrote:Im not sure but i think if a man breaks into your house you are allowed to kill and or harm him to protect yourself, family, and property or at least in the US i think it is.
The word "defense" means exactly that. If all he is doing is stealing your TV and you kill him, are you saying you killed him because you were defending your TV? As I said in my previous post that for the life of me I cannot find, you can replace a TV. A human life, no matter what that human chooses to do with it, cannot be replaced. Once it's gone, it's gone.
EDIT: I amn't trying to justify people breaking in to your house to steal your stuff either. I am just pointing out the fact that items such as TVs and stereos can be replaced.
by French Union » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:02 am
by Great Nepal » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:04 am
Insignificance wrote:The word "defense" means exactly that. If all he is doing is stealing your TV and you kill him, are you saying you killed him because you were defending your TV? As I said in my previous post that for the life of me I cannot find, you can replace a TV. A human life, no matter what that human chooses to do with it, cannot be replaced. Once it's gone, it's gone.
EDIT: I amn't trying to justify people breaking in to your house to steal your stuff either. I am just pointing out the fact that items such as TVs and stereos can be replaced.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Grinning Dragon, New haven america, Shrillland, Singaporen Empire, Stellar Colonies, The Black Forrest, The Huskar Social Union
Advertisement