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

[useless]

Flying Pig: You don't get it, he just doesn't care, the real implications of his proposed ideas and views don't actually matter to him. It's all ideological, to him defence of property literally trumps the 5th amendment.

 

[peter grimes]

If he's running away with your property you should absolutely be allowed to shoot. That you can't shows that the law favors crooks over the innocent. Its absurd.

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.

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

At least you're consistently fringe.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

Sure. And?

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.

Defending your property from being stolen is not depriving anyone of his rights.

^



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.

I'm not saying you have a right to punish anyone for theft without trial, I'm saying you have a right to use force, the minimum necessary, whatever that may be, in order to retrieve property that the thief has stolen from you and is trying to escape with. "Think" has nothing to do with it, and neither does "Punish."

You think people who use self-defense should be punished?

You've said that criminals have no rights,

Not quite. I absolutely agree with stuff like the right to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment (Although I think this depends on the crime, a death penalty for theft would be cruel and unusual while a death penalty for murder, in my opinion, would not). Criminals do have a right to a trial (Although admittedly, they haven't been convicted at this point, which is really the only reason for a trial, we don't really know as a legal system whether the person is guilty or not. If we all magically knew who was and wasn't guilty, there would be no need for a trial. But this is of course absurd)

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?

Not necessarily a crime. Aggression. Some laws are fundamentally wrong because they have no victim (You can't victimize yourself, or even if you could, you'd be a consenting party so it doesn't matter, you can hurt someone with their [non-coerced, but I do wonder how you can coerce yourself] permission). For instance, a pot smoker is a "criminal" but if someone uses force to stop him, THEY, not the pot smoker, are the person who is doing evil in question, and THAT is the person that should be subject to the "Minimum force necessary" rule, not the victimless criminal.

Does it apply to thieves of all descriptions - pickpockets

Yes, if that's actually necessary, although I find it a bit unlikely that this situation would ever actually exist. I can't really imagine a situation where the only way to stop a pickpocket, especially considering the usually public nature of such behavior, is to kill him. Of course, I could imagine lesser force, such as tackling the person, or asking bystanders to help you restrain him, being justified. Obviously it would be necessary to prove in court later on that he was actually the initial aggressor.

and kids who steal sweets from shops

Kids are a bit of a special case since they aren't generally able to consent. Of course, there are varying degrees of this, and we could debate whether the current age of consent is a good one (I certainly think the system that says that certain actions can NEVER be consented too is axiomatically wrong) but if a kid can't consent, he isn't really a criminal either. So your rights wouldn't truly supercede his in that case and so killing him if he isn't a threat to your life would not be acceptable.

Doesit apply to people who drop litter?

What is littering? Who is it a crime against? If its on private property, its a variant of tresspass. Thus, theoretically, if this was the only way to stop the person in question it should be legal to use lethal violence, but its also pretty absurd that such a situation would actually exist in real life. Of course, using lethal violence when a much lower level of violence would "Work" is not the same thing as using lethal violence as the only possible means to defend your negative rights.

What about jaywalkers?

See above.

Or people who illegally download music from the internet?

IP is a moral compromise and doesn't strictly fit under the umbrella of "Theft" per say. Any such enforcement of this kind would also involve other uninitiated aggressions (Such as tresspassing) that would not apply in any real case of theft of real property. Since IP is already a moral compromise, it should be illegal to further stack the deck and use lethal violence to defend it.

 

[Crezth]

I'm not saying you have a right to punish anyone for theft without trial, I'm saying you have a right to use force, the minimum necessary, whatever that may be, in order to retrieve property that the thief has stolen from you and is trying to escape with. "Think" has nothing to do with it, and neither does "Punish."

You have to understand that even well-intentioned retaliation can be illegal and, more importantly, wrong. Just because you've been aggressed against doesn't give you a blank check, "non-aggression principle" notwithstanding. The point is that it isn't up to you and your irrevocably flawed judgement to decide what happens to the person who aggressed against you. We recognize the right to self-defense, but that does not trump the supposed criminal's right to a trial by jury. In fact, exactly one of these two things is guaranteed by the bill of rights: guess which one.

You think people who use self-defense should be punished?

In some cases. It defends on circumstances. If a man litters on another man's property i.e. by dropping a soda can on the front lawn or something, it'd technically be self-defense in the propertarian's mind to shoot the litterer before he could drop the can. But that's clearly unreasonable. At any rate, it's not for me to decide, here; nor is it for you to decide. It's for the courts to decide.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Sure. And?

And your interpretation of whether or not the suspect you are pursuing is a "criminal" could be warped or faulty. Say, for example, he was a daughter's boyfriend sneaking into the house who you thought was a burglar. Say he left before he could actually take anything from your house (but you assumed he had). In both these cases you are taking the law into your own hand and gunning down an innocent man without proper cause. This is why we have legal systems. This is why we assume everybody to be innocent until proven guilty in court.

Defending your property from being stolen is not depriving anyone of his rights.

Except the alleged criminal who has not been confirmed as an actual criminal and who you may be causing unnecessary harm towards.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They don't support legalization of military-grade weaponry.

How else will the US civilians defend themselves from the free market trades of nuclear weapons in NK, Iran and Pakistani ? I want Anthrax to be available

 

[GhostWriter16]

You have to understand that even well-intentioned retaliation can be illegal and, more importantly, wrong. Just because you've been aggressed against doesn't give you a blank check, "non-aggression principle" notwithstanding. The point is that it isn't up to you and your irrevocably flawed judgement to decide what happens to the person who aggressed against you. We recognize the right to self-defense, but that does not trump the supposed criminal's right to a trial by jury. In fact, exactly one of these two things is guaranteed by the bill of rights: guess which one.

The right to trial by jury has nothing to do with self-defense. It has to do with not being punished before trial. PUNISHED. Defense has nothing to do with punishment.

In some cases. It defends on circumstances. If a man litters on another man's property i.e. by dropping a soda can on the front lawn or something, it'd technically be self-defense in the propertarian's mind to shoot the litterer before he could drop the can. But that's clearly unreasonable. At any rate, it's not for me to decide, here; nor is it for you to decide. It's for the courts to decide.

Initially you said self-defense was illegitimate per say, so you're changing your mind now, but I'll let that slide. I simply can't imagine any circumstance where lethal violence would be the absolute least violent thing you could do to stop someone from dropping a soda can on your lawn. If it really came down to it, hold them at gunpoint and call the police. Granted, that's still a bit radical for littering, but its still less radical than actually shooting someone. And its less violent than actually shooting them.

And your interpretation of whether or not the suspect you are pursuing is a "criminal" could be warped or faulty. Say, for example, he was a daughter's boyfriend sneaking into the house who you thought was a burglar. Say he left before he could actually take anything from your house (but you assumed he had). In both these cases you are taking the law into your own hand and gunning down an innocent man without proper cause. This is why we have legal systems. This is why we assume everybody to be innocent until proven guilty in court.



[/QUOTE[

I can't just assume he took something. At the very least I'd have to have seen him take something. And if you kill someone wrongly you're a murderer. That's not something to take lightly. But instead, you'd criminalize the guy who actually used lethal violence in defense of his property while assuming that the thief is innocent even when the person in question saw them steal.

Except the alleged criminal who has not been confirmed as an actual criminal and who you may be causing unnecessary harm towards.

Yeah, in some cases it is clear.

 

[schlaufuchs]

The right to trial by jury has nothing to do with self-defense. It has to do with not being punished before trial. PUNISHED. Defense has nothing to do with punishment.

Yes. Defense means doing what you deem necessary so you don't come to bodily harm. Anything beyond that is no longer defense. That's why you're culpable if an attacker gives you an outlet to escape and you decide to try to remain behind and "defend yourself". (Unless the state has introduced a terrible "stand your ground" legislation)


I can't just assume he took something. At the very least I'd have to have seen him take something. And if you kill someone wrongly you're a murderer. That's not something to take lightly. But instead, you'd criminalize the guy who actually used lethal violence in defense of his property while assuming that the thief is innocent even when the person in question saw them steal.[/QUOTE]

So you call the cops and submit the report of stolen property as evidence. Again, eyes and ears can be deceived. You as a civilian are not qualified to go taking the law into your own hands. Your responsibility to to ensure you don't come to bodily harm. Deciding who is culpable and chasing accused criminals down is a job left to the police. That's what we pay them for.

I would assume the thief is innocent. I would also assume the guy who used lethal violence is innocent. However both of them are going to have to go to court to answer for their actions. If you'd left the "chasing" to the police like any good upstanding citizen you would not be facing heavy legal fees and possible jail time.

Yeah, in some cases it is clear.

It doesn't matter how "clear" you think it is. That man has the right to a fair trial, and will be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in the court. It's for the jury to decide how "clear" it is.

This is the foundation upon which the United States is built. This is preserved in the constitution under the 5th amendment and also under the 14th amendment. If you have a problem with the protections and guarantees our Constitution extends you can go somewhere else.

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

So the value of a human life comes down to perhaps a few hundred dollars, or possibly even less, merely because they are faster than you?

I sure hope you don't ever run into a father who is merely trying to feed his starving family.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The fetus I don't want will coerce, aka steal, tons of money from me if it is allowed to develop. I therefore have the right to protect my property by killing it.

Glad we cleared that up finally. Whoda thunk the conundrum would be unraveled with GhostWriter16 logic?

 

[FriendlyFire]

The fetus I don't want will coerce, aka steal, tons of money from me if it is allowed to develop. I therefore have the right to protect my property by killing it.

Glad we cleared that up finally. Whoda thunk the conundrum would be unraveled with GhostWriter16 logic?

No under a libertarian government no services whatsoever will be provided to the said fetus. Not even defense as government will be limited as being untrustworthy to just militia with light arms only. Cost to you the tax payer $0.
Anthrax on the other hand will be available on the libertarian free market. Just in case the government gets any ideas about "tyranny" !

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But the fetus will cost me money from the very first check up where I get to see the little heart beating monitor. My deductible is like $200...the tyranny of the fetus must be stopped. The only real question to be settled isn't if, it's how; lest you all forget that the only thing that determines guilt and well, let's call it 'killability', is my own judgement.

Guilty as not yet charged!

 

[GhostWriter16]

I sure hope you don't ever run into a father who is merely trying to feed his starving family.

Assuming I wasn't desperately poor myself I'd give him money so he could feed his starving family. But I ought to be under no legal obligation to do so.

Yes. Defense means doing what you deem necessary so you don't come to bodily harm. Anything beyond that is no longer defense. That's why you're culpable if an attacker gives you an outlet to escape and you decide to try to remain behind and "defend yourself". (Unless the state has introduced a terrible "stand your ground" legislation)

Are you against castle doctine as well?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Are you against castle doctine as well?

Yes. If stupid homeowners want to play cop they should actually, you know, become cops.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Assuming I wasn't desperately poor myself I'd give him money so he could feed his starving family. But I ought to be under no legal obligation to do so.

So Dommy is finally unmasked as one of those "Takers" !

 

[Crezth]

The right to trial by jury has nothing to do with self-defense. It has to do with not being punished before trial. PUNISHED. Defense has nothing to do with punishment.

You've got it completely backwards. When you kill someone in self-defense or as a matter of arbitration vis a vis defending your property, you are overstepping the process of law in pursuit of your own selfish desires. That's why it's called "taking the law into your own hands." You appoint yourself judge, jury, and executioner. Now that's not always bad, I mean it's not inherently wrong at all - but it is by no means an inviolate right. And better men than you or I felt they could overstep the law in the pursuit of justice and ended up becoming worse than those they sought to undo.

Initially you said self-defense was illegitimate per say, so you're changing your mind now, but I'll let that slide. I simply can't imagine any circumstance where lethal violence would be the absolute least violent thing you could do to stop someone from dropping a soda can on your lawn. If it really came down to it, hold them at gunpoint and call the police. Granted, that's still a bit radical for littering, but its still less radical than actually shooting someone. And its less violent than actually shooting them.

How do you put violence on a sliding scale? And who should make those decisions? Let's say you shoot someone for being on your lawn - is that person's comrade now permitted to exercise violence against you, in fear for his own life or because he "knows" you are a criminal murderer and is opting you cut you down before you kill anyone else? Obviously you will say "no," so then who - if anyone - is qualified to decide that our self-defending shooter acted in bad judgement? If your answer is "a jury" then you are just beginning to understand of why this vigilante justice is a bad idea.

 

[King Kalmah]

Yes. If stupid homeowners want to play cop they should actually, you know, become cops.

You never seen Death Wish?

besides I'd rather you know...actually live to see the cops arrive...you wait for the cops the intruder can kill you...

I got attacked one night by a lone thug who wanted the money I had...if I didn't beat the crap out of him until he fled...he would have killed me...then the cops arrive and see all the blood and I'm the criminal...I told those sons of es that I was protercting my life and property and the thug trespassed(I was at work doing my job) to try to rob me and proceeded to beat me to the ground...I got up and grabbed a blunt object and as Porky Pig would say ...well that's all folks......

Santa Cruz...no wonder...you are so spoiled with your gated communities and golf cart guards...you have no clue what it is like to work in a slum/live in the ghetto...

 

[schlaufuchs]

Santa Cruz...no wonder...you are so spoiled with your gated communities and golf cart guards...you have no clue what it is like to work in a slum/live in the ghetto...

Presumably you've never been to Santa Cruz then.

Just an fyi Santa Cruz's violent crime index rates 140% higher than the national average, and property crime is 75% higher. Last year there were 33 reported rapes in a city of 50,000, 83 robberies, 313 cases of aggravated assaults, 527 burglaries.

I think you may have confused it with Monterey or Carmel by the Sea

 

[Truronian]

On hyperlink in the article takes us to...

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/21490672/teen-hero-suspended-for-gun-fight-actions

According to the district here's what they did wrong. They didn't tell deputies the truth about what happened on board that bus late Tuesday afternoon and they refused to cooperate.

Not cooperating with the police earned them the suspension. That wasn't too hard to find out now was it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Assuming I wasn't desperately poor myself I'd give him money so he could feed his starving family. But I ought to be under no legal obligation to do so.

You could always shoot him dead for stealing vegetables from your backyard, then give a donation to his survivors.