 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
That of course is entirely your opinion. |
Certainly so, but if someone enters my home and begins to rob me, why should I not have the right to stop him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
I wasn't aware there was any.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
So...if it were illegal for you to kill an intruder in your house, what would you do? |
If that's what needed to be done, yes.
Tub,
quote:
But how do you know it is illegal? Shoot first and ask questions later? Um, sorry officer I didn't realize that you DID have a warrant. |
Before entering, a cop must present a valid warrant from a court that has jurisdiction (can't search an Iowa home with a California warrant, for example).
If he refuses to do so, then he obviously doesn't have one, as there is no valid or legal reason not to present it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
If that's what needed to be done, yes.
Tub,
Before entering, a cop must present a valid warrant from a court that has jurisdiction (can't search an Iowa home with a California warrant, for example).
If he refuses to do so, then he obviously doesn't have one, as there is no valid or legal reason not to present it. |
Ah, no we come to it, If, when answering your door, you are holding a gun, you have put that officer's life in danger. Therefore, he has the right to draw his gun and shoot you, correct?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
Boris,
quote:
I asked what you would do, this doesn't answer that. But if you mean kill the intruder, how would you judge need? Keep in mind, in this hypothetical situation, it is illegal to kill him no matter what. |
I would feel justified killing him, but would prefer to just wound him - killing doesn't excite me.
Tub,
quote:
If, when answering your door, you are holding a gun, you have put that officer's life in danger. Therefore, he has the right to draw his gun and shoot you, correct? |
Who said I'd be holding a gun? It could be in, say, a shoulder holster. I could also hold it behind my back. Also, if I answer the door of my house, located on my own property, holding a gun in a non-threatening manner, I fail to see how a cop has a right to shoot me. Maybe I have no peephole, and am paranoid - so what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
|
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Who said I'd be holding a gun? It could be in, say, a shoulder holster. I could also hold it behind my back. Also, if I answer the door of my house, located on my own property, holding a gun in a non-threatening manner, I fail to see how a cop has a right to shoot me. Maybe I have no peephole, and am paranoid - so what? |
What I am getting at is the fact that, if the cop knows you have a gun, that gives him something like probable cause, it gives him a reason to search your house, based on the fact that you answered the door with a gun in your hand.
Even if you were justified, you would still go to jail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
What I am getting at is the fact that, if the cop knows you have a gun, that gives him something like probable cause, it gives him a reason to search your house, based on the fact that you answered the door with a gun in your hand. |
Owning a gun is not probable cause to search without a warrant.
Boris,
quote:
If you feel justified in doing something against the law, what is it that makes that just? What makes something illegal just or something legal unjust? |
Natural rights, of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
Now, if a cop saw, say, a joint in plain sight he'd have probable cause under current law (actually called the plain sight doctrine).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
My natural right to own property trumps any human law saying I can't, so in that sense yes.
*Anticipating your next argument*
Before you make the analogy, by the way, my argument is not that Hitler justly took property and lives away from Jews, but rather that the Nuremburg Trials were immoral because: they were blatantly hypocritical, an example of might makes right, and they tried many people who were simply following orders.
An example is that if you steal my property, our common government has a duty to intervene, but an international body neither of us have elected or consented to has no right to intervene.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
quote:
Well, if a burglar breaks in in the middle of the night you are entitled to assume danger to yourself. |
Sure, but do you think you're always entitled to assume lethal danger; i.e. you need to kill him to protect yourself?
quote:
Likewise, if a cop abuses his power, attempts to search or rob you illegally, you frankly have no idea how far he is going to go, and I think force is certainly justified, although unless he assaults you I'd go for a non-lethal gunshot wound or preferably just beat his ass, take his weapon, and throw him out. |
Why go for a lethal instead of a non-lethal gun shot wound? What do you accomplish by killing him instead of incapacitating him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Sure, but do you think you're always entitled to assume lethal danger; i.e. you need to kill him to protect yourself? |
If someone is in your house against your will, assuming danger is entirely reasonable IMO.
quote:
Why go for a lethal instead of a non-lethal gun shot wound? What do you accomplish by killing him instead of incapacitating him? |
Going for a non-lethal shot would be my ideal preference - I don't get excited about killing and frankly would have psychological problems doing it. However, I think that if someone enters your house against your will, even if it's a cop, you are entitled to assume a danger to your life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
If the danger can be mitigated by non-lethal force, why are you entitled to lethal force? |
How do you know non-lethal force will suffice?
quote:
Do you think you're entitled to kill an IRS person if he comes after you? |
Sure, if he's coming after me illegally, same as if a cop is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
My natural right to own property trumps any human law saying I can't, so in that sense yes.
*Anticipating your next argument*
Before you make the analogy, by the way, my argument is not that Hitler justly took property and lives away from Jews, but rather that the Nuremburg Trials were immoral because: they were blatantly hypocritical, an example of might makes right, and they tried many people who were simply following orders.
An example is that if you steal my property, our common government has a duty to intervene, but an international body neither of us have elected or consented to has no right to intervene. |
Were you walking down the street with your wife and a rapist jumped out and attacked her, I would hope you would interfere and stop him. That applies even if it were illegal to do so in some hypothetical world. That is because the moral obligation to prevent someone from harming yourself or another is something that transcends any human law. It is a basic law of social interaction.
I believe the same thing applies to nations interacting in the global environment. There are times when the actions of a regime are so egregiously wrong and in violation of natural rights that it is imperative for another nation or group of nations to step in. It is moral and just to do so, and if we do not, who will there be to step in for us if we find ourselves in the same position.
Now, as for Germany...she was responsible to Geneva Convention rules created in 1899 for treatment of prisoners, which the Nazis clearly violated. That alone constituted war crimes under an agreement Germany willingly entered into, and therefore they were legally responsible for the crimes committed against PoWs, yes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Were you walking down the street with your wife and a rapist jumped out and attacked her, I would hope you would interfere and stop him. That applies even if it were illegal to do so in some hypothetical world. That is because the moral obligation to prevent someone from harming yourself or another is something that transcends any human law. It is a basic law of social interaction. |
I certainly agree.
quote:
I believe the same thing applies to nations interacting in the global environment. There are times when the actions of a regime are so egregiously wrong and in violation of natural rights that it is imperative for another nation or group of nations to step in. It is moral and just to do so, and if we do not, who will there be to step in for us if we find ourselves in the same position. |
A nice justification of WW2 - except you forget one thing. In order to right a wrong, the US had to violate the natural rights of millions of Americans, which is totally unjustifiable. It's more immoral to directly violate someone's rights than to fail to act to prevent someone's rights from being violated.
This is different from the social interaction example, because your hypothetical man voluntarily risks himself in intervening.
quote:
Now, as for Germany...she was responsible to Geneva Convention rules created in 1899 for treatment of prisoners, which the Nazis clearly violated. That alone constituted war crimes under an agreement Germany willingly entered into, and therefore they were legally responsible for the crimes committed against PoWs, yes? |
True, but I doubt the Geneva Convention had a provision for trying individuals before an international tribunal (none of which existed in 1899) who violated the Convention.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Depends on the situation, but I can't think of many that require lethal force. |
Maybe, but I'd prefer to leave that call with the people involved, not some detached bureaucrat.
quote:
Why illegally? Why not legally? Don't income taxes go against your ideas about "natural rights?" |
Yes, I thought about this earlier actually - I'll have to think about that one. I'll get back to you on it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
IA nice justification of WW2 - except you forget one thing. In order to right a wrong, the US had to violate the natural rights of millions of Americans, which is totally unjustifiable. It's more immoral to directly violate someone's rights than to fail to act to prevent someone's rights from being violated.
This is different from the social interaction example, because your hypothetical man voluntarily risks himself in intervening. |
America did many things wrong during the war, but I'm not only talking about America, I'm talking about all those who fought against the Nazis. And why does committing a wrong while in the pursuit of something that is truly right invalidate that right? Surely, it merely means the wrong on our end needs to be addressed as well, not fighting the Nazis was made wrong because of that?
quote:
True, but I doubt the Geneva Convention had a provision for trying individuals before an international tribunal (none of which existed in 1899) who violated the Convention. |
What would have been the point of the Convention had it not allowed for the creation of such tribunals, like on an ad hoc basis? How else could they enforce the rules the nations signed on to uphold?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2002 07:14
|