[hwacker]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

One law abiding citizen with a concealed pistol could have put an end to this.

Or made it far far worse. Suppose that law abiding citizen shot and killed an innocent bystander.

What then? Would they be charged with murder/manslaughter?

Should they be charged?

Always the shitty outlook eh DX ?

[ridenrain]

Where's Bernard Goetz when you need him the most.
I agree that criminals=victims. This is the end result of a justive industry and a people that have lost their moral compass to some sort of progressive rubbish.

[BluesBud]

Street Gangs and Biker Organizations should be considered internal terrorism. As such they should be pursued with the same vigor as any external terror groups.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

One law abiding citizen with a concealed pistol could have put an end to this.

Or made it far far worse. Suppose that law abiding citizen shot and killed an innocent bystander.

What then? Would they be charged with murder/manslaughter?

Should they be charged?

So it's better that we do nothing when confronted by criminals as opposed to TRYING to stop them and maybe failing? I'd rather try and fail miserably than stand around holding my dick while a bunch of kids terrorize and rob people.

Derby, surrendering to criminals just because you're afraid someone might get hurt if you fight back is patently absurd. If you're afraid of failure in such a situation then do read on...

Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."


"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

I'll die trying before I'd surrender to scum. And, yes, if someone gets hurt because I fought back, then that's the price of war. Can't say as I haven't been there and done that in this lifetime already.

[DerbyX]

$1:

So it's better that we do nothing when confronted by criminals as opposed to TRYING to stop them and maybe failing? I'd rather try and fail miserably than stand around holding my dick while a bunch of kids terrorize and rob people.

Perhaps the people felt their valubales weren't worth the risk.

I agree with fighting back but a bunch of petty vandals don't deserve the death penalty and neither does the 24 year old divorced mother of 2 who just lost her life because some rambo wannabe shot at a 17 year old punk and missed.

$1:

Derby, surrendering to criminals just because you're afraid someone might get hurt if you fight back is patently absurd. If you're afraid of failure in such a situation then do read on...

Saying that a certain level of innocent casualties is the price we must pay is wrong. No 2 ways about it.

$1:

I'll die trying before I'd surrender to scum. And, yes, if someone gets hurt because I fought back, then that's the price of war. Can't say as I haven't been there and done that in this lifetime already.

You don't have the right to assume that for everybody around you. Everybody can replace the petty amount of stuff they carry around daily.

They can't replace a life and I'd rather the vandals get away scoot free then to have an innocent person get gunned down because your pride overruled your sense.

You still didn't the question about what punishment somebody should face if they executed an innocent person over something as petty as punk robbers.

[BartSimpson]

Derby, in every war there are two choices:

1. Do nothing and innocent people will definitely get hurt.

2. Do something and innocent people might get hurt.

I will always choose option #2 and endeavour to not hurt innocent people. I will always encourage people to choose option #2 and endeavour to not hurt innocent people.

But if we do nothing, the question of innocent people getting hurt is a certainty, as the incident on the Toronto subway clearly illustrates.

If you really care about innocent people then you'll endorse the notion of protecting them and not leaving them to be victimized by thugs and brigands.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You don't have the right to assume that for everybody around you.

You're right. I do not have a right to assume it is my responsibility to protect defenseless people.

Because it is an obligation.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Derby, in every war there are two choices:

1. Do nothing and innocent people will definitely get hurt.

2. Do something and innocent people might get hurt.

I will always choose option #2 and endeavour to not hurt innocent people. I will always encourage people to choose option #2 and endeavour to not hurt innocent people.

But if we do nothing, the question of innocent people getting hurt is a certainty, as the incident on the Toronto subway clearly illustrates.

If you really care about innocent people then you'll endorse the notion of protecting them and not leaving them to be victimized by thugs and brigands.

This isn't war and quite frankly the analogy is incorrect. I could bring up Iraq to easily defeat that but thats another battle.

The is a reason why almost all convience stores have a no resist policy to the point of actually fireing people who do fight back.

Goods can be replaced. Lives cannot.

Would you shoot at a criminal hiding behind your wife? How about a child? Would you fire a fully auto weapon into a crowd in order to be sure of a criminal kill?

Do nothing and people will live.

Do something and innocent people may die.

If you are on your own then you are free to defend yourself. When other people are involved its a different story.

You do not have the right to say "I will accept killing an innocent person if it means a chance to kill a petty robber".

Thats no different then saying as long as they can help more then 2 peopkle the gov't should be allowed to kill people to extract all viable organs. They will be still be ahead in the game.

Sorry, but you are wrong. You have the right to defend yourself from threats to your life and intervene to save the life of others.

You do not have the right to decide to attempt to gun down a gang of teenage bandits and kill innocent people in the process.

You still didn't answer my question.

What charge should a person face if they tried to gun down a bandit but missed and executed an innocent bystander?

We might as well go back to mob rules and necktie parties without any benefit of law or order.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You don't have the right to assume that for everybody around you.

You're right. I do not have a right to assume it is my responsibility to protect defenseless people.

Because it is an obligation.

No it isn't. Its not an obligation by any law or any possible stretch of the imagination.

You simply don't have the right to assume people would rather be killed then allow thieves to make off with some jewlery and cash.

Put it this way.

On any typical day do you or your wife carry anything worth dying for? If it was a choice of losing your valuables but being 100% unharmed or attempting to save your valuables but face a 25% chance of losing your life (or her life) which would you take?

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You don't have the right to assume that for everybody around you.

You're right. I do not have a right to assume it is my responsibility to protect defenseless people.

Because it is an obligation.

No it isn't. Its not an obligation by any law or any possible stretch of the imagination.

You simply don't have the right to assume people would rather be killed then allow thieves to make off with some jewlery and cash.

Put it this way.

On any typical day do you or your wife carry anything worth dying for? If it was a choice of losing your valuables but being 100% unharmed or attempting to save your valuables but face a 25% chance of losing your life (or her life) which would you take?

Do I have anything worth dying for? That question is better asked of anyone thinking of robbing myself or my wife. Would I, if necessary, kill someone to prevent them from stealing so much as bellybutton lint from me? Absolutely.

And the fact that you cannot understand that protecting the defenseless is an obligation of the strong speaks to the cultural gulf between us.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You don't have the right to assume that for everybody around you.

You're right. I do not have a right to assume it is my responsibility to protect defenseless people.

Because it is an obligation.

No it isn't. Its not an obligation by any law or any possible stretch of the imagination.

You simply don't have the right to assume people would rather be killed then allow thieves to make off with some jewlery and cash.

Put it this way.

On any typical day do you or your wife carry anything worth dying for? If it was a choice of losing your valuables but being 100% unharmed or attempting to save your valuables but face a 25% chance of losing your life (or her life) which would you take?

Do I have anything worth dying for? That question is better asked of anyone thinking of robbing myself or my wife. Would I, if necessary, kill someone to prevent them from stealing so much as bellybutton lint from me? Absolutely.

And the fact that you cannot understand that protecting the defenseless is an obligation of the strong speaks to the cultural gulf between us.

Because I'm not a ruthless killer? Because you think I would cower under a seat?

I'm not talking about your right to defend yourself, I'm talking about your non-right to assume other people would sacrifice their life so easily for a bunch of trinkets.

You talk about your inalienable right to defend your least amount of property with deadly force.

You must therefore agree that every single Iraqi has the right, nay the obligation to defend their land and all thats in it from the criminals (by their POV) who are threatening them.

You would kill an American who kicked in your door and forced his way in.

You must therefore agree that every single Iraqi has the same right to kill Americans who kick in their door and force their way in.

You aren't going to tell me their is a difference are you?

If you feel this will escalate to an over heated debate over something you feel pasionate about please tell me and I''ll end it. I've had enough of that tonight.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You don't have the right to assume that for everybody around you.

You're right. I do not have a right to assume it is my responsibility to protect defenseless people.

Because it is an obligation.

No it isn't. Its not an obligation by any law or any possible stretch of the imagination.

You simply don't have the right to assume people would rather be killed then allow thieves to make off with some jewlery and cash.

Put it this way.

On any typical day do you or your wife carry anything worth dying for? If it was a choice of losing your valuables but being 100% unharmed or attempting to save your valuables but face a 25% chance of losing your life (or her life) which would you take?

Do I have anything worth dying for? That question is better asked of anyone thinking of robbing myself or my wife. Would I, if necessary, kill someone to prevent them from stealing so much as bellybutton lint from me? Absolutely.

And the fact that you cannot understand that protecting the defenseless is an obligation of the strong speaks to the cultural gulf between us.

Because I'm not a ruthless killer? Because you think I would cower under a seat?

I'm not talking about your right to defend yourself, I'm talking about your non-right to assume other people would sacrifice their life so easily for a bunch of trinkets.

You talk about your inalienable right to defend your least amount of property with deadly force.

You must therefore agree that every single Iraqi has the right, nay the obligation to defend their land and all thats in it from the criminals (by their POV) who are threatening them.

You would kill an American who kicked in your door and forced his way in.

Yes, I would. And I have voiced my opinion that we have to behave with the Iraqis the same as if we were at home. In the occasions where I had command and had to do searches we knocked on doors and in almost every case the people were cooperative and utterly dumbfounded that we were asking their permission to enter and search. Consequently, we had no trouble rooting out the bad guys. In Fallujah and etc. you can't do that because EVERYONE was a bad guy.

$1:

You must therefore agree that every single Iraqi has the same right to kill Americans who kick in their door and force their way in.

To a degree, yes. My own SOP was to knock first. The times we did 'dynamic entries' were few. I would not want someone to do that to me so I could not stomach doing it to them.

$1:

You aren't going to tell me their is a difference are you?

Did I?

$1:

If you feel this will escalate to an over heated debate over something you feel pasionate about please tell me and I''ll end it. I've had enough of that tonight.

I doubt it will become overheated.

Let me ask, would you disagree with my point of view here were I RCMP or, perhaps, Victoria ERT and saying that I felt I had an obligation to protect people?

[Wada]

I do not carry a gun and never have but I have to agree with Bart. I tend to intervine, and quite willingly but I'm more careful than I used to be. Certain interventions like combatant husbands and wives I now tend to shy away from unless their is overwhelming violence then it becomes a different matter. A wild woman can be devastating if she catches you by surprise.

Punks, bullies and racists really get me all fired up and it's completely instinctive as I've been this way since I was just wee.

[BartSimpson]

Wada Wada:

Punks, bullies and racists really get me all fired up and it's completely instinctive as I've been this way since I was just wee.

A man after my own heart. God bless you.

Nothing pisses me off more than a bully. And what are punks and racists if not bullies?

[CommanderSock]

Meh, Toronto is fine. You should see London or New York, or Detroit, or any other large city anywhere. The western side of Canada has a higher gun crime rate than Toronto anyways. More guns would just equals more deaths. Rather see some prick get robbed than a shootout any-day thank you.