ChudTheBuilder, 1A, Stand Your Ground

[Rap]

I am familiar with it.

I stand by my statement that it is utter bullshit, every single place it pops up anywhere in our legal code.

Just because it is common, doesn't make it reasonable to do (see what I did there).

The law should not depend on completely subjective opinions of hypothetical fictional "reasonable people".

Laws should be based on 100% objective criteria. Anything less is absolutely arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Good luck with the "it's utter bullshit" angle.

 

[tirwin1]

I refer you to the reasonable person standard, which is essential to legal judgment in the United States. You should look it up.

As spat has pointed out the phrase is ridiculously vague. If a 25 year old, 6 foot 6 inch guy, 250 pounds is coming at you with a knife is that an imminent threat worthy of violence? A reasonable person probably says yes. What about a 66 year old, 5'2" 100 pound woman with a knife? Probably not. What about all the possible variations between those two? At what point does a person's gender, height and weight cross the magical line where a "reasonable person" would say deadly force is justified? A district attorney can have a field day with that much of a discrepancy. Which is precisely spat's point. Should it be up to a DA to decide? The law should be clear. Someone comes at you with a knife or any weapon, regardless of sex, age, height or weight this gives you the right to respond with deadly force. Clarity is essential for any law.

 

[Rap]

As spat has pointed out the phrase is ridiculously vague. If a 25 year old, 6 foot 6 inch guy, 250 pounds is coming at you with a knife is that an imminent threat worthy of violence? A reasonable person probably says yes. What about a 66 year old, 5'2" 100 pound woman with a knife? Probably not. What about all the possible variations between those two? At what point does a person's gender, height and weight cross the magical line where a "reasonable person" would say deadly force is justified? A district attorney can have a field day with that much of a discrepancy. Which is precisely spat's point. Should it be up to a DA to decide? The law should be clear. Someone comes at you with a knife or any weapon, regardless of sex, age, height or weight this gives you the right to respond with deadly force. Clarity is essential for any law.

You put a knife down next to your 1 year old, who picks it up. The toddler toddles toward you holding the knife. So you start blasting. Is that a justified shoot? Why, yes, under your "essential clarity" doctrine, it's a good shoot.

 

[GOPerfect]

That's a reach.....

 

[Rap]

That's a reach.....

Under the law, words have meanings.

 

[tirwin1]

You put a knife down next to your 1 year old, who picks it up. The toddler toddles toward you holding the knife. So you start blasting. Is that a justified shoot? Why, yes, under your "essential clarity" doctrine, it's a good shoot.

Your unserious response only proves my point. Interesting reaction since you claimed to start this thread looking for serious responses.

 

[Rap]

An extreme example serves to make the point immediately, clear enough for any reasonable person to get the point.

 

[tirwin1]

An extreme example serves to make the point immediately, clear enough for any reasonable person to get the point.

No, it only shows you don't have the intellectual integrity to answer the question so you avoid it with a juvenile response. Do you think you are being clever? I think it was a cowardly response.

 

[spat]

Good luck with the "it's utter bullshit" angle.

Slavery was bullshit for millenia. It was also common and legally considered "reasonable".

We eventually fixed that.

 

[Rap]

Slavery was bullshit for millenia. It was also common and legally considered "reasonable".

We eventually fixed that.

We did, yes. And Jim Crow too! It sure is good that we "fixed" that.

 

[spat]

Some questions for the forum:

• Considering the political environment, what are your thoughts on Chud with regard to 2A and responsible gun ownership?
• Thought experiment: suppose you encounter a man walking down your street. You are outside in your front yard, with your family. The man stands in the street in front of your house yelling at you about how he enjoyed fucking your wife. He dares you to do something about it. He's calling you a bitch for not stepping up and fighting him. Next, he starts talking directly to your wife and teenage daughter, telling them what he has in store for them the next time. Should you just eat this abuse, because of the man's 1A right to freedom of expression?

Some dude is running his mouth ?

It's appropriate to respond verbally, or ignore him.

Unless he starts making actual immediate and credible threats violence of any sort is not justified, no matter what he says.

Only punk ass bitches think "he disrespected me so I need to teach him a lesson".

 

[spat]

You put a knife down next to your 1 year old, who picks it up. The toddler toddles toward you holding the knife. So you start blasting. Is that a justified shoot? Why, yes, under your "essential clarity" doctrine, it's a good shoot.

No, it's not.

Does the toddler with a knife present a credible threat ? No. They lack the physical ability to cause significant harm to anyone that isn't nearly dead already.

Is it even possible for a toddler to "attack" ? No, I don't believe they possess the ability to even formulate the intent to attack.

Even if the toddler stabbed someone who was sleeping and killed them, it's still not a crime, because toddlers lack the necessary mental capacity to form the intent required to make it criminal.

Toddlers in general *can't* commit crimes.


Now, if the toddler *does* present a credible threat ? Maybe they have a live hand grenade with a loose pin. If shooting them will stop the threat, then it could be justified.

 

[Rap]

No, it's not.

Does the toddler with a knife present a credible threat ? No. They lack the physical ability to cause significant harm to anyone that isn't nearly dead already.

Is it even possible for a toddler to "attack" ? No, I don't believe they possess the ability to even formulate the intent to attack.

Even if the toddler stabbed someone who was sleeping and killed them, it's still not a crime, because toddlers lack the necessary mental capacity to form the intent required to make it criminal.

Toddlers in general *can't* commit crimes.


Now, if the toddler *does* present a credible threat ? Maybe they have a live hand grenade with a loose pin. If shooting them will stop the threat, then it could be justified.

"The law should be clear. Someone comes at you with a knife or any weapon, regardless of sex, age, height or weight this gives you the right to respond with deadly force. Clarity is essential for any law."
It sounds like you are looking to refine the above doctrine using reason.

 

[spat]

"The law should be clear. Someone comes at you with a knife or any weapon, regardless of sex, age, height or weight this gives you the right to respond with deadly force. Clarity is essential for any law."
It sounds like you are looking to refine the above doctrine using reason.

No, i'm just pointing out that "come at you" is not the same thing as "approach while carrying".

You can't prosecute the toddler for the same reason you can't prosecute a chef in the kitchen who just happens to be walking toward you while
carrying the knife from the cutting board to the sink.

"Come at you" implies an actual threat.

And obviously the one paragraph isn't intended to be a complete law. But the complete law should absolutely and unequivocally encompass all of that, and should not require a person or jury to make a judgemental call about what they consider "reasonable'.

Would you be OK with the law as it is currently understood if *I* was the absolute arbiter of what is "reasonable" for everyone ?

If you wouldn't trust *me* to do that, why would you trust random people ?

 

[Grimscale]

The words must be the type that a reasonable person in that specific situation would find so offensive they are immediately prompted to retaliate with physical violence.

If this word has such power that it can make a black person immediately turn to violence why do they use it on themselves???
This one fact completely undermines the argument that "he called me a bad word".

do you consider Chud's race-baiting

See above.
Either the use of the word is "race-baiting" or not. The color of the person using it should not matter.

 

[Grimscale]

You put a knife down next to your 1 year old, who picks it up. The toddler toddles toward you holding the knife. So you start blasting. Is that a justified shoot? Why, yes, under your "essential clarity" doctrine, it's a good shoot.

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum. Take an idea to an absolute ridiculous extreme in an attempt to "prove a point".
Not much different than arguments for banning guns by claiming "so you'd let people have nukes".

 

[dsdmmat]

I always taught my kids you don’t get a vote in the enemies response unless you kill all of them. If you start something with someone, they are the one who gets the vote on the response.


My dad always said never start a fight with anyone you don’t I tend on killing, because you may have to. Same thing as above just more blunt.

 

[Rap]

Sounds like reductio ad absurdum. Take an idea to an absolute ridiculous extreme in an attempt to "prove a point".
Not much different than arguments for banning guns by claiming "so you'd let people have nukes".

A true premise cannot logically lead to a falsehood. The mechanism for exposing the flaw is immaterial.
Making the argument that clarity under the law is essential (so that reasoning is not necessary) and then providing an example of such a law that when taken *literally as written* demonstrates that reasoning is called for, is a failure in logic.

What's the solution? Correct the flaw. Communicate precisely. And make sense.

 

[Rap]

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. You’re becoming emotional about this. I’m stating a fact about what happened and what will happen in regards to this case. I don’t particularly care about “Chud” or the guy who got shot. They are both assholes.

And whether or not you are aware of racial politics in America is irrelevant as well. I find that hard to believe though, as we come up on Floyd’s sixth “anniversary” where national media covered multiple cities burned and looted primarily by blacks all in the name of a career criminal who OD’d on drugs. So while you think it’s not on topic, it is. It’s a part of a bigger, overarching trend in the US, got it?

I guess as a final point, I don’t believe in “fighting words”. I think you should be able to control yourself, especially if you’re going to carry a gun. I’ve had plenty of people say things to incite me and I’ve never attacked them. Now, if they touch me, it’s a different story. Everyone knows this guy is an asshole. Why engage with him? Is it a win for the guy who got shot because he became too emotional? Idk seems pretty stupid. Again, none of this matters because he’s going to be crucified whether what he did was legal or not (see the above, racial politics in America).

Your opinion is noted.

 

[tirwin1]

A true premise cannot logically lead to a falsehood. The mechanism for exposing the flaw is immaterial.
Making the argument that clarity under the law is essential (so that reasoning is not necessary) and then providing an example of such a law that when taken *literally as written* demonstrates that reasoning is called for, is a failure in logic.

What's the solution? Correct the flaw. Communicate precisely. And make sense.

That's a nice word salad right there. Also known as:

 

[Rap]

That's a nice word salad right there. Also known as:

Just say you don't understand. That would track. Spell out where you are lost and I'll circle back.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

I think three things are true of this thread.

1. Someone is waiting to hit the log out button, never to return to this forum because they are sick of incoherent babbling.

2. Someone is waiting to hit the report button because a mean word is no doubt going to be used.

3. Someone is waiting to hit the ban button because now that the site is working again, everyone is long overdue for another timeout.

 

[GOPerfect]

I think three things are true of this thread.

1. Someone is waiting to hit the log out button, never to return to this forum because they are sick of incoherent babbling.

2. Someone is waiting to hit the report button because a mean word is no doubt going to be used.

3. Someone is waiting to hit the ban button because now that the site is working again, everyone is long overdue for another timeout.

I am leaning towards number one. Just waiting for things to grow elsewhere.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

I am leaning towards number one. Just waiting for things to grow elsewhere.

There might be a pill for that.

 

[Celt]

Personally, if someone is mouthing off i think you should be able to smack the shit out of them. Modest violence can be a great teaching tool. But of course thats not the law, and I follow the law, but it doesnt mean I agree with it.

 

[Tintalieau]

Personally, if someone is mouthing off i think you should be able to smack the shit out of them. Modest violence can be a great teaching tool. But of course thats not the law, and I follow the law, but it doesnt mean I agree with it.

Definition of Stress: The mind overriding the bodies natural reaction to slap the shit out of someone that desperately deserves it

 

[OwnTheRide]

The law should not depend on completely subjective opinions of hypothetical fictional "reasonable people".

Laws should be based on 100% objective criteria. Anything less is absolutely arbitrary and unconstitutional.

I don't think that's really achievable. Humans aren't black and white, they're all the shades of gray.

For example, I could say the words "I'm going to kick your ass" in five different tones, with five different meanings. The meaning of the words depends on how a reasonable person would interpret the words, combined with the tone, context, and other indications such as body language.

Sure, the law could say that it's a threat unless it was intoned in such a way to be a joke. But how does one determine that? By applying the reasonable person standard.

 

[tirwin1]

I don't think that's really achievable. Humans aren't black and white, they're all the shades of gray.

For example, I could say the words "I'm going to kick your ass" in five different tones, with five different meanings. The meaning of the words depends on how a reasonable person would interpret the words, combined with the tone, context, and other indications such as body language.

Sure, the law could say that it's a threat unless it was intoned in such a way to be a joke. But how does one determine that? By applying the reasonable person standard.

The problem is getting 12 people to agree on what is reasonable is practically impossible. So a clear standard is better than the whim of 12 people.

 

[spat]

I don't think that's really achievable. Humans aren't black and white, they're all the shades of gray.

For example, I could say the words "I'm going to kick your ass" in five different tones, with five different meanings. The meaning of the words depends on how a reasonable person would interpret the words, combined with the tone, context, and other indications such as body language.

Sure, the law could say that it's a threat unless it was intoned in such a way to be a joke. But how does one determine that? By applying the reasonable person standard.

If you can just apply a reasonable person standard, then what do we even need the rest of the laws for ?

"Did he do what a reasonable person would ? Then he's fine. If not guilty. It's real simple".

The whole point of laws is to clearly define what society considers acceptable. Injecting a "reasonable person" into it is circular logic. You're saying "society finds it acceptable if a reasonable person would do it.". That's just the definition of what society considers acceptable.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

The same member(s) come out of the woodwork when there is a topic that's race based. Interesting.