This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
A comment on transgender issues
. I'm glad that the Guardian is setting up an Australian paper.
Post by
Dragalthor
Shock horror, it isn't just US troops doing
this
Post by
Skreeran
I can't tell how sarcastic you're being (because we're on the internet), but I'm curious why you would expect (if you weren't being sarcastic) that US troops would act one way and British troops another.
Post by
Dragalthor
Sorry Skree, I should point out that I am British and I used to work with the military and I don't think that there are a great deal of differences between troops of any country.
I think that the reason for the slightly overly sarcastic opening to the post was based partly in reference to any 'news' articles like this are normally about US troops and the fact that when the debate was raging after an article about US troops I was accused by a couple of users of being anti-American because of my views on this.
I think that things like these shouldn't be hard to eradicate from any modern army, it just takes very strong leadership and serious consequences for those that do step over the line.
Post by
Skreeran
I think that things like these shouldn't be hard to eradicate from any modern army, it just takes very strong leadership and serious consequences for those that do step over the line.It's harder than you think, for numerous reasons.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I can't imagine the rationale that would lead to this verdict.
Or this law, I guess. Basically, it's a law that says you can kill people for your property, rather than take them to small claims court. That's not open to abuse.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
It IS Texas.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Soooooo, they just outlawed the right to say no to sex? What's next? Legally enforced rape?
It was legal because she wouldn't return the money. They were saying he was allowed to use legal force to get the cash, not the sex. Still not right, but lets discuss the case on it's actual points of law.
There are three really troubling things to take from this, that apply to a much broader scope than just escort services:
1) It doesn't appear that the person you are taking your property back from needs to present a danger to you in order for you to use deadly force. So if some jerk teenager grabs your garden gnome and runs, it's legal to shoot them in the back. If someone does a dine and dash, you can kill them in the parking lot. Banks could hire hit squads to repossess cars and homes, and it would be legal.
2) It doesn't have to be theft- apparently a contract dispute is able to be settled with deadly force. She was an escort. He said he thought her contract included sex. It might not have- many escort services don't because prostitution is illegal. Under this premise, if you ever have a contract dispute with a contractor or a mechanic about how much you should pay them, they can kill you to get their money rather than taking you to court and proving that the contract was what they said it was.
3) The legality of the situation has no bearing on whether they can do it. Which drug dealers could kill rival drug dealers to get their drugs back, putting many people at risk with violence in the streets, and it would be legal.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
Soooooo, they just outlawed the right to say no to sex? What's next? Legally enforced rape?
It was legal because she wouldn't return the money. They were saying he was allowed to use legal force to get the cash, not the sex. Still not right, but lets discuss the case on it's actual points of law.That's so dumb though...
Ugh. I hate my state.
Since prostitution is illegal in Texas, did he at least get charged with that?
God that's just so dumb. You could be a serial killer who hands money to people and then shoots them.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Skree- see my above edit. So much wrong with that law. I understand that the premise was to protect people who stop a home invasion, but if it can be stretched to cover you not knowing your escort wasn't a prostitute and killing her, it's not written in any kind of reasonable way.
Post by
Skreeran
God DAMN that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I have to get out of this state.
Post by
Nathanyal
UK fast food chains have some dirty ice.
Superheroes undergo life threatening ordeals to help children with cancer.
Post by
Magician22773
I can't imagine the rationale that would lead to this verdict.
Or this law, I guess. Basically, it's a law that says you can kill people for your property, rather than take them to small claims court. That's not open to abuse.
And here is one of the major flaws with "law" that I can't stand. By definition, it is the "law", so its not open to interpretation, and worse yet, its not open to applying common sense.
Sadly, under the law, the jury ruled in the only way they could. I doubt that any one of them was happy about it, but they did what a jury is supposed to do, listen to the facts, and render a verdict based only on those facts, and the law.
The law itself is not flawed. You should have, under some circumstances, a right to protect your property, even if that is with deadly force.
So if some jerk teenager grabs your garden gnome and runs, it's legal to shoot them in the back. If someone does a dine and dash, you can kill them in the parking lot.
Under this law, yes. The problem is, where do you draw the line, if you believe as I do, that in some cases, deadly force is OK, even if it is only property at stake? Lets look at an equal, yet opposite scenario.
Some kids come into my garage and start stealing my tools. I probably have $10,000 or more in tools in there. If I confront them, and they make it clear that they intend me no harm, they are not armed, but their intention is they are going to steal every tool I have. And lest just say they have
brass balls
. I point a gun at them and order them to stop. Knowing that where I live is so far out in the county that they have at least 15 minutes or more before any cop is going to arrive, they just continue loading up my tools, ignoring the gun. Do I, having worked my ass off to buy those tools, have to just sit there and watch while they load them up? After all, they are no threat to me, and have made that clear.
In many states, I would have to do just that....sit and watch. In Texas....not so much. But heres the thing. In New York, where I have no right to shoot, that scenario is a possibility. In Texas, I doubt anyone would have the balls, because they know the law too. They know, threat or not, that I can pull the trigger.
So that brings us back to where is the line? Obviously a garden gnome isn't worth a life, but what is? I would not want to be the lawmaker that had to decide that "OK, anything over $5000 is worth killing for".
Post by
Squishalot
The problem is, where do you draw the line, if you believe as I do, that in some cases, deadly force is OK, even if it is only property at stake?
Do I, having worked my ass off to buy those tools, have to just sit there and watch while they load them up? After all,
they are no threat to me
, and have made that clear.
Bolded part is the key, IMO. I don't think that deadly force is OK if you're not at threat. I don't think it would be morally right to take a life for the sake of a property loss. Why can't you shoot them in the leg or the arm or otherwise prevent them from taking your property? Defending your property is not illegal in most jurisdictions - if someone tries to mug you and you floor them with a right hook, you're not going to be charged with assault.
That form of self defence (i.e. including property) has to be measured and in line with the threat. If someone tries to steal your tools and they're unarmed, knock them out, tackle them down and tie them up, respond with reasonable force to prevent them from continuing. I don't think it's reasonable force to kill them in that instance, especially seeing as you have acknowledged their intention not to hurt you.
Post by
Magician22773
The problem is, where do you draw the line, if you believe as I do, that in some cases, deadly force is OK, even if it is only property at stake?
Do I, having worked my ass off to buy those tools, have to just sit there and watch while they load them up? After all,
they are no threat to me
, and have made that clear.
Bolded part is the key, IMO. I don't think that deadly force is OK if you're not at threat. I don't think it would be morally right to take a life for the sake of a property loss. Why can't you shoot them in the leg or the arm or otherwise prevent them from taking your property? Defending your property is not illegal in most jurisdictions - if someone tries to mug you and you floor them with a right hook, you're not going to be charged with assault.
That form of self defence (i.e. including property) has to be measured and in line with the threat. If someone tries to steal your tools and they're unarmed, knock them out, tackle them down and tie them up, respond with reasonable force to prevent them from continuing. I don't think it's reasonable force to kill them in that instance, especially seeing as you have acknowledged their intention not to hurt you.
For purposes of this discussion, lets assume I am not me. Yes, I and many others are perfectly capable of stopping most unarmed thieves without a gun, but many people are not. Replace "me" in that scenario with an elderly person.
And defending yourself in a mugging is not the same thing. I can't think of how a mugging could be done with the mugger not posing a threat.
As far as "being in line with the threat", at one point, those tools in my garage were my livelihood. I used those tools to earn a living and feed my family. Without them, I would not have been able to do that. That same idea can be applied to a lot of property. For many people, stealing their car is not just taking a hunk of metal, it is taking their only way to work. For many, losing that could be the difference between having food or not.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- lets at least see if we can agree the following points, before delving into the grayer area:
1) If we're talking a contract or payment for services dispute- one where someone paid for something and doesn't feel it was fulfilled- then THAT should not be treated like a theft in terms of people being allowed to use deadly force or any force. If there was an exchange of money or services, and one party feels the contract was not fulfilled, and uses force, that should not be treated the same as someone committing a B&E, and should be handled by the courts as homicide.
2)If the person who is losing property or money is losing something that is illegal or losing money they spent to facilitate a crime (prostitution, drugs, buying stolen property, money paid for a contract killing, etc.) then that should not be legally treated the same as someone who is defending property or to trying to recover good or monies that were not part of a crime, and people using deadly force in those circumstances have no right to do so legally.
Both of those scenarios, I think, would have made the above verdict not happen.
In a contract/payment dispute, it's much more likely that there will be more grey area than in a straight theft, and more ability to handle it after the fact with a lawsuit. Also, many contract/payment disputes are based in two parties having reason to believe that they are right in their interpretation of the contract, and it is a dangerous precedent to set to say you can kill someone who feels they have a legal reason to not pay or refund, without the courts making the call. Also, it would keep banks and collection agencies from being able to violently seek payment, keep loan sharks from beating people up with impunity, etc.
In terms of monies paid to facilitate a crime, or in the recovery of illegal or stolen goods, it excludes the innocent citizen from being restricted when trying to protect their property, and doesn't give criminals a pass on being violent in their criminal dealings.
Before addressing the law as it applies in the way it was intended- homeowners protecting their rightful property- would you agree that it should not apply in the above types of scenarios?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
Why does this remind me of that 'Stand your ground' case from a few months back?
Post by
Nathanyal
Why does this remind me of that 'Stand your ground' case from a few months back?
Because you like to make connections where there are none? idk
The only thing they have in common is that someone got shot.
Post by
Magician22773
Ok- lets at least see if we can agree the following points, before delving into the grayer area:
1) If we're talking a contract or payment for services dispute- one where someone paid for something and doesn't feel it was fulfilled- then THAT should not be treated like a theft in terms of people being allowed to use deadly force or any force. If there was an exchange of money or services, and one party feels the contract was not fulfilled, and uses force, that should not be treated the same as someone committing a B&E, and should be handled by the courts as homicide.
2)If the person who is losing property or money is losing something that is illegal or losing money they spent to facilitate a crime (prostitution, drugs, buying stolen property, money paid for a contract killing, etc.) then that should not be legally treated the same as someone who is defending property or to trying to recover good or monies that were not part of a crime, and people using deadly force in those circumstances have no right to do so legally.
Both of those scenarios, I think, would have made the above verdict not happen.
In a contract/payment dispute, it's much more likely that there will be more grey area than in a straight theft, and more ability to handle it after the fact with a lawsuit. Also, many contract/payment disputes are based in two parties having reason to believe that they are right in their interpretation of the contract, and it is a dangerous precedent to set to say you can kill someone who feels they have a legal reason to not pay or refund, without the courts making the call. Also, it would keep banks and collection agencies from being able to violently seek payment, keep loan sharks from beating people up with impunity, etc.
In terms of monies paid to facilitate a crime, or in the recovery of illegal or stolen goods, it excludes the innocent citizen from being restricted when trying to protect their property, and doesn't give criminals a pass on being violent in their criminal dealings.
Before addressing the law as it applies in the way it was intended- homeowners protecting their rightful property- would you agree that it should not apply in the above types of scenarios?
Yes, I agree with both of those entirely.
When it comes to contract disputes, that is a purely civil matter. And you can't shoot your crack dealer because he sold you soap.
This is why I said, in the very beginning, it would be nice if some common sense could be applied to the law, but then it would not be a "law". You can't even put an arbitrary dollar figure on where the line is either. Stealing $10,000 from a wealthy man would have little impact on him, while stealing $250 from a poor man working to feed his family could mean that his children may go hungry.
Post by
Adamsm
Why did they save them from extinction again?
And if the Canadian beavers go postal, we're all doomed up here.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.