[Politics] "Pregnant Woman Indicted For Baby's Death After Being Shot"

[Shadowstar38]

Don't cause harm to your fellow human beings. You don't know how far they're willing to go to defend themselves and how much the fight will escalate.

That line of thinking heads towards justifying anything you please (see US foreign policy; immigration; climate change).

I don't see the connection but okay.

"Harm" is a very broad term. The US considers a company to have the same rights as a human being.

I hope I don't need to spell out the implications there.

Can we not narrow that down to 2 actual human beings? Why are we bringing governments and Corporate entities into this scenario? There's no feasible analogous situation you can make there.

 

[Baffle]

Can we not narrow that down to 2 actual human beings? Why are we bringing governments and Corporate entities into this scenario? There's no feasible analogous situation you can make there.

Of course there is - if you live a life that contributes disproportionately to climate change (drive a big truck, take lots of international flights, have outside street heaters(!!!), heavily consume fossil fuels), you're willfully engaging in a behaviour you know is harming someone else. It will, ultimately, lead to deaths. Seems a bit much to shoot you for it?

Many Americans see immigration as directly harmful in terms of the economy and their livelihoods (I've spent too much time on Twitter lately, there's some terrible people out there). Again, it seems we shouldn't let them just shoot immigrants despite the harm they are doing?

You need to be very careful about concepts like 'do no harm' if you're letting people be the arbiter of what harm to themselves is.

Edit: I want to add anti-vaxxers to my list, but I'm actually okay with you shooting those.

 

[Baffle]

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

So... are they allowed to shoot me or not? I want to be very clear about whether it's safe to eat these nuts.

 

[Trunkage]

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

So... are they allowed to shoot me or not? I want to be very clear about whether it's safe to eat these nuts.

NO NUT FOR YOU!

 

[Shadowstar38]

Can we not narrow that down to 2 actual human beings? Why are we bringing governments and Corporate entities into this scenario? There's no feasible analogous situation you can make there.

Of course there is - if you live a life that contributes disproportionately to climate change (drive a big truck, take lots of international flights, have outside street heaters(!!!), heavily consume fossil fuels), you're willfully engaging in a behaviour you know is harming someone else. It will, ultimately, lead to deaths. Seems a bit much to shoot you for it?

Many Americans see immigration as directly harmful in terms of the economy and their livelihoods (I've spent too much time on Twitter lately, there's some terrible people out there). Again, it seems we shouldn't let them just shoot immigrants despite the harm they are doing?

You need to be very careful about concepts like 'do no harm' if you're letting people be the arbiter of what harm to themselves is.

Edit: I want to add anti-vaxxers to my list, but I'm actually okay with you shooting those.

"Clear, direct, immediate harm" then.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

And if you want to eat the nuts next to someone you know ha a severe nut allergy, you are knowingly putting them in danger and could possibly be arrested and charged. Depending on the laws of where this happens, you could possibly even be arrested and charged for knowingly endangering a persons life. Just like the law does not always specify every single action that can inflict harm upon others, it may be covered under another law. If they tried to remove themselves from the situation and you pursued them, you would likely be arrested, or at least detained by police. Since you are not physically restraining them and forcing them to stay there, you could follow them to the police station yourself to get arrested.

EDIT: In addition, if they started to have a reaction due to your actions and you failed to assist them you could also be arrested depending on jurisdiction for failing to stop and render aid.

So... are they allowed to shoot me or not? I want to be very clear about whether it's safe to eat these nuts.

Yes, they should mace you, beat you and shoot you with poison frog darts for forcing your nuts onto those around you.

I am not seeing how shooting you would actually help the person since they already could escape since you were not holding them down in the first place or preventing them from leaving. They very well could sue you for any damages you inflicted and have the police detain you for harassing them with your nuts but as long as you are not using force to prevent them from escaping, there is no reason to shoot you. Shooting someone is not the " go to option" to handle a situation, it may be however, ones only available option to escape harm when someone is forcefully physically violently trying to harm and/or kill you. Physically trapping someone, pinning someone down or threatening them or their loved ones lives is forcing them to defend themselves, which is a different situation.

 

[the December King]

This would be entirely on context, of course, but as a blanket statement, I have to disagree.

Rationality has no part in a physical assault, nor should the victim be forced to decide whether their life is in jeopardy when the attacker waives such considerations by launching the assault with intent to harm in the first place. People can be disabled or killed by a punch. By the time the victim can gauge that degree of violence, it might be too late. Not everyone attacking someone is going to be a martial artist capable of fully controlling the situation and minimizing long-lasting harm- if they choose- and even then, there are no guarantees.

Yeah, not all fights. But again, I don't want to find out if the violent attacker who jumped me and broke my nose and ribs was 'content' to leave it at that, when I could stop it before it gets any farther.

Right, but your illustrative example there is not what we're discussing. Of course you wouldn't know how far someone will go if they "jump" you and break your bones; they've already gone extremely far, and the phrase "jump" suggests a goddamn ambush.

Compare that with, say, someone shoving someone else in a corner shop because they thought they looked at them funny. That's far more common. Yes, rationality plays a big part in whether or not you think to yourself, "I'm going to fucking die today", and pull your gun.

I was just referring to the notion that we can gauge all assaults immediately as they happen, and be sure exactly how to respond, but I think I might have missed more of the case in point (I will admit I haven't had the time to read up on the current facts of the case). A shove is likely not a display of immediate lethal force that needs to be countered immediately with a firearm, but again, I was just saying it can get hairy in any altercation.

In the context of this incident? Uh... I think we need to know more. the definition of pinned and hit in this case would be appreciable (as in, was she being crushed/choked in the pin, and how hard was she struck). And as to how strong/dangerous a pregnant woman can be, well again, it would come down to this person in particular.

That we need to know more to make these judgements was precisely my point-- you'll notice the post I was responding to was claiming that the fact a "punch" and a "pin" took place was "more than enough" for lethal force.

I see, I guess I missed this. My bad for jumping in the middle of a discussion. And yeah, given what little we know at this stage, I am not convinced of anything.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but this is the problem I have with the "My life was threatened" excuse.

I'm not saying it's used well in this incident. I know they say he was "mentally ill", but not severely. But it's the point I was trying to make in this thread.

People are going to harm others and use the "I felt like My Life was Threatened" defense more and more. Will it work? Enough to be disturbed over, but not enough that it will become an instant 'get out of jail free' card all over the nation.

But a lot of innocent people will lose their lives while sick people start to get the memo that they will be punished for their crimes no matter what they say.

Police say a man accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old in the throat at an Arizona convenience store told them he felt threatened because the teen had been listening to rap music.

The incident occurred in Peoria, Arizona, near Phoenix, early Thursday.

Witnesses told police that the man, who's been identified as Michael Paul Adams, 27, walked up behind the teen, grabbed him and stabbed him in the neck, according to a probable cause statement obtained by CNN affiliate KPHO/KTVK.

Family members said the teen, Elijah Al-Amin, had gotten off of work about 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday and had spent some time with his girlfriend before stopping at the store.

Police said a witness was trying to help Al-Amin by applying pressure to his neck when they arrived at 1:42 a.m. Police and fire personnel provided medical care and he was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:05 a.m.

The witnesses told police that Al-Amin hadn't done or said anything to provoke the attack. One said Adams didn't say anything to the teen before stabbing him.

Police stopped Adams as he walked away from the store. He had blood on his left forearm, hand and foot, and officers found a pocket knife on him. He was taken into custody without incident.

Adams had been released from prison July 2, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Adams told a detective that he stabbed Al-Amin in the back and cut his throat, according to the statement.

He said Al-Amin didn't do anything threatening but that the youth had been listening to rap music in his car in the parking lot, according to the statement.

"Adams stated rap music makes him feel unsafe, because in the past he has been attacked by people (Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American) who listen to rap music. Adams further stated, people who listen to rap music are a threat to him and the community," the report said.

He told police that he felt threatened by the music, not by Al-Amin. Adams is white, and Al-Amin was black, white and Latino.

"Adams felt he needed to be 'Proactive rather than reactive' and protect himself and the community from the victim," the documents said.

Adams has been charged with first-degree premeditated murder and is being held at the Maricopa County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

(Source [https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/us/arizona-rap-music-killing-trnd/index.html])

 

[Saelune]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but this is the problem I have with the "My life was threatened" excuse.

I'm not saying it's used well in this incident. I know they say he was "mentally ill", but not severely. But it's the point I was trying to make in this thread.

People are going to harm others and use the "I felt like My Life was Threatened" defense more and more. Will it work? Enough to be disturbed over, but not enough that it will become an instant 'get out of jail free' card all over the nation.

But a lot of innocent people will lose their lives while sick people start to get the memo that they will be punished for their crimes no matter what they say.

Police say a man accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old in the throat at an Arizona convenience store told them he felt threatened because the teen had been listening to rap music.

The incident occurred in Peoria, Arizona, near Phoenix, early Thursday.

Witnesses told police that the man, who's been identified as Michael Paul Adams, 27, walked up behind the teen, grabbed him and stabbed him in the neck, according to a probable cause statement obtained by CNN affiliate KPHO/KTVK.

Family members said the teen, Elijah Al-Amin, had gotten off of work about 11:30 p.m. on Wednesday and had spent some time with his girlfriend before stopping at the store.

Police said a witness was trying to help Al-Amin by applying pressure to his neck when they arrived at 1:42 a.m. Police and fire personnel provided medical care and he was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:05 a.m.

The witnesses told police that Al-Amin hadn't done or said anything to provoke the attack. One said Adams didn't say anything to the teen before stabbing him.

Police stopped Adams as he walked away from the store. He had blood on his left forearm, hand and foot, and officers found a pocket knife on him. He was taken into custody without incident.

Adams had been released from prison July 2, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Adams told a detective that he stabbed Al-Amin in the back and cut his throat, according to the statement.

He said Al-Amin didn't do anything threatening but that the youth had been listening to rap music in his car in the parking lot, according to the statement.

"Adams stated rap music makes him feel unsafe, because in the past he has been attacked by people (Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American) who listen to rap music. Adams further stated, people who listen to rap music are a threat to him and the community," the report said.

He told police that he felt threatened by the music, not by Al-Amin. Adams is white, and Al-Amin was black, white and Latino.

"Adams felt he needed to be 'Proactive rather than reactive' and protect himself and the community from the victim," the documents said.

Adams has been charged with first-degree premeditated murder and is being held at the Maricopa County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

(Source [https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/us/arizona-rap-music-killing-trnd/index.html])

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

Without sarcasm, I honestly wonder what would happen to you or any LGBTQ member if they shot a Nazi in one of these stand your ground states.

I want to see if these people enforce their laws when it's unpopular. How cops treat open carry black men [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/white-black-men-legally-openly-11307594], I don't think it would bode well for you.

 

[Saelune]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

Without sarcasm, I honestly wonder what would happen to you or any LGBTQ member if they shot a Nazi in one of these stand your ground states.

I want to see if these people enforce their laws when it's unpopular. How cops treat open carry black men [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/white-black-men-legally-openly-11307594], I don't think it would bode well for you.

Right-wingers are consistently hypocritical.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If a Nazi has you pinned against a car, you should definitely shoot them.

 

[Nielas]

The primary issue with self defense is that it is preventive in nature ie it is meant to stop a bad thing from occurring.
As such without a time machine, it might be hard to show that the threat was real. Therefore we instead consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being. That is a subjective standard and what is reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. In fact what some people consider reasonable might be considered insane to others.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The primary issue with self defense is that it is preventive in nature ie it is meant to stop a bad thing from occurring.
As such without a time machine, it might be hard to show that the threat was real. Therefore we instead consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being. That is a subjective standard and what is reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. In fact what some people consider reasonable might be considered insane to others.

An nebulous altercation, reasonable self defense is warranted.

Rap music makes me scared, no reasonable self defense could ever be warranted.

Time machines are not always needed. Or even practical.

Use my example. If the boy Al-Amin saw Adams walking up, not looking at him, not speaking to him, or not even completely acknowledging his presence, do you think he'd find it reasonable to jump into the Time Machine and see if this guy who's shown no outward interest in him could be a threat so pre-emptive self defense would be warranted?

The problem with "consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being" is that we now have people cropping up doing this mess that Adam does. That "Someone didn't look at me or pay attention to me... he could be plotting to kill me like Al-Amin" is now something that we have to consider.

How do we prevent that?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The primary issue with self defense is that it is preventive in nature ie it is meant to stop a bad thing from occurring.
As such without a time machine, it might be hard to show that the threat was real. Therefore we instead consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being. That is a subjective standard and what is reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. In fact what some people consider reasonable might be considered insane to others.

An nebulous altercation, reasonable self defense is warranted.

Rap music makes me scared, no reasonable self defense could ever be warranted.

Time machines are not always needed. Or even practical.

Use my example. If the boy Al-Amin saw Adams walking up, not looking at him, not speaking to him, or not even completely acknowledging his presence, do you think he'd find it reasonable to jump into the Time Machine and see if this guy who's shown no outward interest in him could be a threat so pre-emptive self defense would be warranted?

The problem with "consider if there was a reasonable threat to our live and/or well being" is that we now have people cropping up doing this mess that Adam does. That "Someone didn't look at me or pay attention to me... he could be plotting to kill me like Al-Amin" is now something that we have to consider.

How do we prevent that?

How do you prevent what? How do you prevent random violence? You can't.

Living around people means that you are always in danger. ALWAYS. No matter who the people are.

Actually, you're significantly more likely to be killed by a friend or a family member than you are by some random stranger.

The fact of the matter is, it's impossible to prevent all violence, and if someone decides they want to kill you they can probably do it because it's impossible to be on guard all the time.

How do you prevent people from using the "I felt threatened defense?" Well you can't really do that either, but just because someone wants to use that defense doesn't mean that it'll succeed.

Lawyers use bullshit excuses to try and get their clients off all the time, this isn't anything new. Remember, OJ was "framed" by the racist LAPD and he totally didn't kill Nicole.

 

[Schadrach]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

 

[CaitSeith]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

Why on earth do people keep using the phrase "defend Nazis". Defending a position and dismantling a bad idea are two separate things.

If someone were to suggest we suspend due process for suspected pedophiles and castrate them publicly, that would surely be cathartic and all but one may object that such things aren't conducive to a civilized and functional society. Is that assertion a "defense" of the issue you're trying to solve or is it just a debate of methodology?

 

[CaitSeith]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

Why on earth do people keep using the phrase "defend Nazis".

Because Saelune is referring to literal self-proclaimed swastika-wielding Nazis. There! Clear as day!

 

[Shadowstar38]

Nazis threaten my life, but I am not allowed to retaliate.

If you are being assaulted by a Nazi, and you shoot them or stab them you can claim self defense as well as anyone else. By threatening your life, you *do* mean actually assaulting you or attempting to do so, not publicly assembling and speaking, right?

Even in a sarcastic joke you have to defend the Nazis, don't you?

Why on earth do people keep using the phrase "defend Nazis".

Because Saelune is referring to literal self-proclaimed swastika-wielding Nazis. There! Clear as day!

Calm down dude.

Are you saying that by virtue of someone being a Nazi, that's justification enough to assault/shoot them? That's the thing I'm getting at here. Because earlier in this thread everyone was trying to debate me about "proportional use of force"