Cypress Lake High School: "Just Trust Us, suspending kid who stops shooting good idea

[Crezth]

---spoken like a true pro-lifer

The law is like this because it values a person's life more than someone's property. And it should. The fact that you don't understand this shows how warped your morality is - the fact that you think it's OK to try to end someone's life because they tried to take something from you.

GhostWriter says the reason murder is immoral is because it's violating someone's property rights over their own, er life.

 

[Kozmos]

Why do people think military grade hardware would protect them in the age of cluster bombs and guided missiles? No militia is ever going to field army equipment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You've never met a secessioncommando, have you Kozmos?

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Pete- It has nothing to do with should or shouldn't. It has to do with rights of the innocent to defend themselves against thieves. Feel free to think you shouldn't all you want, heck, I'd tend to agree with you, but it doesn't matter. The law should always, always side with the innocent civilian who is being aggressed against over the thief.

 

[Crezth]

@Pete- It has nothing to do with should or shouldn't. It has to do with rights of the innocent to defend themselves against thieves. Feel free to think you shouldn't all you want, heck, I'd tend to agree with you, but it doesn't matter. The law should always, always side with the innocent civilian who is being aggressed against over the thief.

So much so, in fact, that the concept "proportional response" should be dispensed with and anything and everything the innocent person does to the guilty person is 200% permissible. Constitutional condemnations of "cruel and unusual punishment" be damned.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So much so, in fact, that the concept "proportional response" should be dispensed with and anything and everything the innocent person does to the guilty person is 200% permissible. Constitutional condemnations of "cruel and unusual punishment" be damned.

Consitutional demands that 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers' be damned as well. Funny, but isn't that the whole argument used against hypothetical drone strikes?

But I see, we're playing the 'rearrange your beliefs from moment to moment as you see fit and as best meets your goal of exponentially growing postcount' game.

I'm all up for that game.

 

[peter grimes]

So much so, in fact, that the concept "proportional response" should be dispensed with and anything and everything the innocent person does to the guilty person is 200% permissible. Constitutional condemnations of "cruel and unusual punishment" be damned.

"I don't really care what the constitution says"
-some guy.

 

[Crezth]

but strict constructionism is a good start

 

[hobbsyoyo]

but strict constructionism is a good start

Don't troll the founding fathers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So much so, in fact, that the concept "proportional response" should be dispensed with and anything and everything the innocent person does to the guilty person is 200% permissible. Constitutional condemnations of "cruel and unusual punishment" be damned.

I'm all for proportional response. You have to use the minimum force necessary to end the infringement of your rights by the criminal. You couldn't kill the criminal if you were able to retrieve your property with a lesser degree of force. That would rightfully be illegal.

But if the only choice is to either let them steal or to kill them, "Criminals rights" be darned.

 

[dutchfire]

"I don't really care what the constitution says"
-some guy.

"I don't really care what some guy says"
-the constitution

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm all for proportional response.

No, you're not because:

But if the only choice is to either let them steal or to kill them, "Criminals rights" be darned.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'm all for proportional response. You have to use the minimum force necessary to end the infringement of your rights by the criminal. You couldn't kill the criminal if you were able to retrieve your property with a lesser degree of force. That would rightfully be illegal.

But if the only choice is to either let them steal or to kill them, "Criminals rights" be darned.

But here's the thing though. That man is not a criminal. He is an alleged criminal. He doesn't become a criminal until found guilty in a court of law.

 

[bhsup]

Actually, I'd say you become a criminal the moment you perform the criminal act. You're just verified by trial.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Actually, I'd say you become a criminal the moment you perform the criminal act. You're just verified by trial.

That's not how the law sees it.

 

[Crezth]

I'm all for proportional response. You have to use the minimum force necessary to end the infringement of your rights by the criminal. You couldn't kill the criminal if you were able to retrieve your property with a lesser degree of force. That would rightfully be illegal.

But if the only choice is to either let them steal or to kill them, "Criminals rights" be darned.

You really don't like this 5th amendment thing, do you?

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's not how the law sees it.

Of course it doesn't, the trial is needed to prove the person's guilt. But they're still guilty the moment they commit the crime. This is a logical no duh. Denying reality because the law says so is beyond stupid.

You really don't like this 5th amendment thing, do you?

Has nothing to do with defense of person or property.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Of course it doesn't, the trial is needed to prove the person's guilt. But they're still guilty the moment they commit the crime. This is a logical no duh. Denying reality because the law says so is beyond stupid.

But you don't know that he is guilty absolutely. This needs to be proven in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt before the man can be confirmed as a criminal. Eyewitness testimony, while useful, is not the end all be all. Eyes and ears can be deceived.

Moreover it is enshrined in our constitution that every citizen has the right to a fair trial conducted by a jury of their peers. When you decide to take the law into your own hands you are depriving that man of one of the most fundamental rights our great nation possesses. That is how our legal system works. If you don't like it you can move to somewhere else with a legal system that jives better with your moral outlook. Try Mexico.

 

[Crezth]

^

Has nothing to do with defense of person or property.

Nope, it has everything to do with it. The 5th Amendment is there to protect the innocent, and it is crucial that the process of divorcing a guilty person from his innocent status is as meticulous as possible. Because you may believe in your heart that someone who "stole" something from you is a criminal and should be punished, immediately, and without trial, but you'd be committing a grave error. People, and their judgement, are fundamentally flawed, and if you think you have a right to murder someone because you think they've committed a crime, then you are showing a complete and naive disrespect for the rule of law and for the rights of man. This is why "stand your ground" laws, and even self-defense laws are an abrogation of your human rights. They bypass the rights of the innocent for nothing but blind vengeance, and it is utterly irresponsible.

 

[Flying Pig]

You've said that criminals have no rights, so they can be killed in flagrante if this is required to stop the crime from taking place - where do you draw the line with this? Does it apply to thieves of all descriptions - pickpockets and kids who steal sweets from shops as well as bank robbers? Does it apply to people who drop litter? What about jaywalkers? Or people who illegally download music from the internet?

This all reminds me a little of Hot Fuzz, for anybody who has seen that.