Neighborhood watch shooting in FL

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:09 pm

They didn't break into his house.

edit: i've taken this thread away from its original intent too often today.

in summary: i don't believe guns should be abolished. i did when I was younger and more naive, but then I realized the futility of it. I do, however, believe people should only use them for self defense when shooting at another human being...and you definitely shouldn't put yourself into that situation when you don't have to. Responsible gun use is not that much to ask, imho.

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:15 pm

Damn that's one crazy transcript.
Bulgery is bad but I don't think it's death penality bad, especially when they didn't hurt anyone (physicly of course).

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:31 pm

LordMortis wrote:
hepcat wrote:So you effectively endorse the death penalty for everything but misdemeanors?
If that's the way you choose to read it then, I suppose the answer must be "yes."

And I suppose you endorse that anything you get away with not being punished by the justice system is acceptable behavior.

I think what hep is saying is that if you allow a self-defense argument that allows the use of lethal force to thwart criminal activity even when the shooter is not in danger, then you're effectively allowing private citizens to impose the death penalty (and without any due process).

So I guess the question is - if the line isn't drawn at "am I in danger" for lethal force, then where is the line drawn? For which crimes is it ok for Horn to run out of his house and shoot the perpetrators? Burglary is evidently on the "ok to kill" line. What about vandalism?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:32 pm

addendum: My disagreement with LM is simply a disagreement between friends. I actually am very fond of the big lug and would be heartbroken if he thought I was seriously upset with him, thereby preventing any further visits to Chicago for Octocon gatherings.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:33 pm

hepcat wrote:addendum: My disagreement with LM is simply a disagreement between friends. I actually am very fond of the big lug and would be heartbroken if he thought I was seriously upset with him, thereby preventing any further visits to Chicago for Octocon gatherings.

All the same, I'd keep him in front of you if you get into any arguments at Octocon.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:34 pm

El Guapo wrote:
hepcat wrote:addendum: My disagreement with LM is simply a disagreement between friends. I actually am very fond of the big lug and would be heartbroken if he thought I was seriously upset with him, thereby preventing any further visits to Chicago for Octocon gatherings.
All the same, I'd keep him in front of you if you get into any arguments at Octocon.

...and avoid running from him.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:35 pm

...or taking his stuff.

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:40 pm

or his neighbours stuff...

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:45 pm

LM, sounds like we need to put together an OO neighborhood watch.

edit: and make sure you bring a drop gun.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:48 pm

It'd be like the Avengers...but without any powers, any secret government backing or any desire to leave the house when there's something good on tv. Plus, you could get a hulk if you irradiate Smoove with gamma rays from a homemade gamma bomb made out of an old microwave oven and a green cheesecloth placed over the internal lamp...

...well...a hulk that may or may not be female and probably won't actually fight for you so much as try to get you to play heroscape every weekend.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:50 pm

hepcat wrote:It'd be like the Avengers...but without any powers, any secret government backing or any desire to leave the house when there's something good on tv. Plus, you could get a hulk if you irradiate Smoove with gamma rays from a homemade gamma bomb made out of an old microwave oven and a green cheesecloth placed over the internal lamp.

I can neither confirm nor deny any such plan exists.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:51 pm

El Guapo wrote:I think what hep is saying is that if you allow a self-defense argument that allows the use of lethal force to thwart criminal activity even when the shooter is not in danger, then you're effectively allowing private citizens to impose the death penalty (and without any due process).

So I guess the question is - if the line isn't drawn at "am I in danger" for lethal force, then where is the line drawn? For which crimes is it ok for Horn to run out of his house and shoot the perpetrators? Burglary is evidently on the "ok to kill" line. What about vandalism?

I'm ambivalent about the idea of stopping a crime in progress or detaining a criminal with lethal force, effectively allowing private citizens the right to impose the death penalty (for what I consider serious criminal charges and B&E and burglary are very serious IMO).

hepcat wrote:addendum: My disagreement with LM is simply a disagreement between friends. I actually am very fond of the big lug and would be heartbroken if he thought I was seriously upset with him, thereby preventing any further visits to Chicago for Octocon gatherings.

I don't even own a gun (any more and the guns I used to own were antiques I bought at one of those storage unit auctions and they made their way out the door when I became single.) and would too terrified that I'd cut myself to pull a knife on anyone. I'm also clumsy enough that if I tried to swing a heavy blunt object at you, I'd either pull something or hit myself. I've lifted a violent hand to exactly one person in my life, though I've gone all tunnel vision once or twice more in fight or flight mode. Violence ain't my bag and that's probably why I feel more secure around good natured people who are well armed. The trick is they need to be good people. I also know too many well armed people with egos... which in turn makes me feel more secure around good natured people who are well armed.

Some armed people make me feel safe. Some terrify the living shit out of me. I try to stay away from the later, when I have the choice.

...and avoid running from him.

Jag wrote:...or taking his stuff.

At octocon that's not a problem. At home, depending on who I am with, that's probably a wise policy. (However, I know you have nothing to fear from remus west, chaosraven, or redrun... Can't vouch for kennetikid, don't know him well enough to give an opinion on one side of the fence or another.)

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:53 pm

My LM translator just exploded.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:14 pm

The idea that someone running away with a piece of someone's stuff deserves to die is absurd.

/edit - just finished the call.

To dispatcher: "You hear the shotgun clickin' and I'm goin'!"

Opens door.

"Yo, you're dead!"

Opens fire.

This while undercover officers outside were watching the suspects. How is this guy not in jail?

KKBlue · Post by **KKBlue** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:35 pm

Blackhawk wrote:... How is this guy not in jail?

Taking a jab at it... Is it because he's white? Not being flippant honest, just calling it out. Kind of was the topic Bob started with I believe, it being a race issue.

Jag · Post by **Jag** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:18 am

But the guy was a model citizen. He went to school to study criminal justice. He ran the neighborhood watch. Doesn't that make him a good guy?

At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, “one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,” the resident wrote in an email to HuffPost. “It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics" in his neighborhood watch captain role.

The meeting was attended by Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, the detective assigned to the investigation and an unnamed member of the city council, according to the homeowner’s association newsletter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 40358.html" target="_blank

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:32 am

civil rights leaders, including members of the NAACP and the Rev. Al Sharpton, said they are preparing to join the family of Martin, who was black. Zimmerman is white.

At which point it will stop being about Martin and start being about Sharpton.

but I am glad to see national attention turning towards this case. The more you read, the less likely it sounds that Zimmerman acted in self defense. Of course, we can't be sure of anything as none of us were there...but come on. The kid had skittles and an iced tea in his hands. And he died 100 feet away from Zimmerman. The math isn't hard on this one.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:49 am

[Police Chief Lee] added “that there is the right for someone that has a concealed weapons permit to carry that weapon”

Nice 2nd Amendment strawman. It's not about him carrying a concealed weapon. It's about him shooting an unarmed kid on his way home from the store.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:56 am

Blackhawk wrote:The idea that someone running away with a piece of someone's stuff deserves to die is absurd.

It isn't the "stuff" that matters. It is the violation of one's "home space" that makes me ambivilent to the shooting that Hepcat and LM were discussing (not to be confused with the shooting in the OP*). Often times one's "home space" extends to their neighbor's property and vice versa. It is that way in the area where I live... we watch each others' backs.

Once home break in's start happening around your home, your "home space" begins to lose its sense of peace and security. If those break in's result in violence to the occupants then you lose even more of your peace and security. Add to that the fact that once a given home in a neighborhood has been successfully robbed, that neighborhood becomes easy prey, and you often see repeat robberies in the same area.

Sending a couple of burglers to an early grave, even if they are fleeing, sends a message that a neighborhood is no longer easy pickings. If that is what one has to do in order to get their peace and security back, then more power to them.

*as for the incident in the OP... the shooter should be in jail and facing charges.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:01 pm

RLMullen wrote: Sending a couple of burglers to an early grave, even if they are fleeing, sends a message that a neighborhood is no longer easy pickings. If that is what one has to do in order to get their peace and security back, then more power to them.

Due process be damned. Everyone should be allowed to act as judge, juror and executioner for anything greater than jaywalking.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:08 pm

hepcat wrote:
RLMullen wrote: Sending a couple of burglers to an early grave, even if they are fleeing, sends a message that a neighborhood is no longer easy pickings. If that is what one has to do in order to get their peace and security back, then more power to them.
Due process be damned. Everyone should be allowed to act as judge, juror and executioner for anything greater than jaywalking.

Yes. Everything you said. I'd include jaywalking too if you are jaywalking in front of my house.

I'll fight absurdity with absurdity.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:10 pm

Problem being that there's less absurdity in my translation of your beliefs than you think...

When you start endorsing vigilantism to the degree you seem to be, you give idiots like Zimmerman the feeling that they're justified with a "shoot first, ask questions later" style of justice. In Zimmerman's eyes, he probably thought he was defending his territory.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:33 pm

hepcat wrote:Problem being that there's less absurdity in my translation of your beliefs than you think...

When you start endorsing vigilantism to the degree you seem to be, you give idiots like Zimmerman the feeling that they're justified with a "shoot first, ask questions later" style of justice. In Zimmerman's eyes, he probably thought he was defending his territory.

You are being completely absurd. Let's ignore your use of "debate tactics" made famous by folks such as Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity. Debate tactics where you take someone's statement to its most absurd extreme and then proclaim that this extreme meaning is what they are saying.

You are being absurd in creating any sort of equivocation between a young man walking from the store with skittles and ice tea and two people who were breaking into a residence and taking property from said residence. In one case you have a shooter defending his neighbor's property, in the other case you have someone stalking and gunning down a man walking on the street. Can you figure out which is which?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:57 pm

Zimmerman couldn't...at least in his mind.

And absurd is how I feel about telling people it's alright to shoot someone fleeing from you if they're carrying someone else's stuff. Or as a way to "send a message".

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:00 pm

hepcat wrote:
RLMullen wrote: Sending a couple of burglers to an early grave, even if they are fleeing, sends a message that a neighborhood is no longer easy pickings. If that is what one has to do in order to get their peace and security back, then more power to them.
Due process be damned. Everyone should be allowed to act as judge, juror and executioner for anything greater than jaywalking.

It's the hyperbole you and Blackhawk use that pretty much seek to end the discussion.

When you start endorsing vigilantism to the degree you seem to be, you give idiots like Zimmerman the feeling that they're justified with a "shoot first, ask questions later" style of justice. In Zimmerman's eyes, he probably thought he was defending his territory.

While I would like to say that's Zimmerman's fault. Doing do anything to help the kid or protect against future Zimmerman "vigilantism." (which is way different than the "vigilantism" you linked to) I'd actually say this specific case would have possibly been less likely to happen if the 2nd amendment weren't as holy is it is. Guys who have document violent run ins with the police should not be allowed to carry fire arms into the streets, concealed or otherwise.

If we want to use hypebrole, when is it OK to fend off a criminal? If vigilantism is on/off proposition then if someone comes at you with a knife you should let him stab you to death unless the police arrive to arrest him and perhaps you deserve to die.

Vorret · Post by **Vorret** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:01 pm

If you call the police and they say :

"Take the matter in your own hands we're not dealing with it"

Maybe.

But in this case the dispatch clearly told him that the police was on the way (in fact it got there what, 1 minute 30 later?) so his actions are completly uncalled for and he should be in jail for murder.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:02 pm

LordMortis wrote:
If we want to use hypebrole, when is it OK to fend off a criminal? If vigilantism is on/off proposition then if someone comes at you with a knife you should let him stab you to death unless the police arrive to arrest him and perhaps you deserve to die.

Edited for less snark: see top post from myself on this page for my answer. Then read el guapo's post for legal view.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:22 pm

LordMortis wrote: If we want to use hypebrole, when is it OK to fend off a criminal? If vigilantism is on/off proposition then if someone comes at you with a knife you should let him stab you to death unless the police arrive to arrest him and perhaps you deserve to die.

The line's pretty straightforward (and reflected in existing law). If someone's threatening severe bodily harm to you or to someone else, you have the right to use deadly force. If not, then you don't. If someone comes at you with a knife, that's lethal force, and you have the right to respond by shooting him.

What these statutes do is extend the right to self-defense to situations where no one is facing lethal danger.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:00 pm

El Guapo wrote:The line's pretty straightforward (and reflected in existing law). If someone's threatening severe bodily harm to you or to someone else, you have the right to use deadly force. If not, then you don't. If someone comes at you with a knife, that's lethal force, and you have the right to respond by shooting him.

What these statutes do is extend the right to self-defense to situations where no one is facing lethal danger.

Apparently the line isn't straightforward, or your definition of straight is different than mine. If the question that LM posed was so straightforward then we wouldn't see the continued expansion of "Castle Doctrine".

As of Dec 1 of last year in NC you can kill anyone who forcibly enters your home, car, or workplace. Apparently Texas extends this doctrine to protecting your neighbor's stuff, and FL has extended the doctrine to mean your castle is where ever the hell you happen to be standing. A 5-second google couldn't tell me if Mass. has a "Castle Law" or not, but it looks like something was introduced into your state senate last month. The degree of variance from state to state leads me to believe that this topic is the exact opposite of straightforward.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:05 pm

RLMullen wrote:
El Guapo wrote:The line's pretty straightforward (and reflected in existing law). If someone's threatening severe bodily harm to you or to someone else, you have the right to use deadly force. If not, then you don't. If someone comes at you with a knife, that's lethal force, and you have the right to respond by shooting him.

What these statutes do is extend the right to self-defense to situations where no one is facing lethal danger.
Apparently the line isn't straightforward, or your definition of straight is different than mine. If the question that LM posed was so straightforward then we wouldn't see the continued expansion of "Castle Doctrine".

As of Dec 1 of last year in NC you can kill anyone who forcibly enters your home, car, or workplace. Apparently Texas extends this doctrine to protecting your neighbor's stuff, and FL has extended the doctrine to mean your castle is where ever the hell you happen to be standing. A 5-second google couldn't tell me if Mass. has a "Castle Law" or not, but it looks like something was introduced into your state senate last month. The degree of variance from state to state leads me to believe that this topic is the exact opposite of straightforward.

I meant that it's straightforward with regards to what LM was asking about - when a criminal is attacking you. If a criminal comes at you with a knife, that's deadly force and you can defend yourself.

Where this gets complicated is once all these statutes are introduced that extend this right beyond the basic self-defense situation. There, yes many states absolutely have varied and complicated statutes giving different situations where you can use force.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:24 pm

El Guapo wrote:
RLMullen wrote:
El Guapo wrote:The line's pretty straightforward (and reflected in existing law). If someone's threatening severe bodily harm to you or to someone else, you have the right to use deadly force. If not, then you don't. If someone comes at you with a knife, that's lethal force, and you have the right to respond by shooting him.

What these statutes do is extend the right to self-defense to situations where no one is facing lethal danger.
Apparently the line isn't straightforward, or your definition of straight is different than mine. If the question that LM posed was so straightforward then we wouldn't see the continued expansion of "Castle Doctrine".

As of Dec 1 of last year in NC you can kill anyone who forcibly enters your home, car, or workplace. Apparently Texas extends this doctrine to protecting your neighbor's stuff, and FL has extended the doctrine to mean your castle is where ever the hell you happen to be standing. A 5-second google couldn't tell me if Mass. has a "Castle Law" or not, but it looks like something was introduced into your state senate last month. The degree of variance from state to state leads me to believe that this topic is the exact opposite of straightforward.
I meant that it's straightforward with regards to what LM was asking about - when a criminal is attacking you. If a criminal comes at you with a knife, that's deadly force and you can defend yourself.

Where this gets complicated is once all these statutes are introduced that extend this right beyond the basic self-defense situation. There, yes many states absolutely have varied and complicated statutes giving different situations where you can use force.

I suppose, as usual, I'm not clear. I mean to say exactly that it's complicated as to the extension of "the right of self defense" to things like the protection of property. That's why it's hard for me to accept being told that my beliefs equate to any one breaking nearly any law "deserves" to be shot in the back or that I endorse the death penalty for everything but misdemeanors/anything more than jay walking. And why I don't understand how you if switch the on/off bit that all lawbreakers must die to off why it doesn't mean law breakers should only ever be handled by the police. I'm ambivalent to the whole situation.

The use of violence in modern society is a literally terrible responsibility. It's not only a responsibility that victimizers may respond to, it's also one that they may prepare for or escalate. Without more details, I'm not sure how I feel about one guy shooting to kill thieves in a neighborhood while they run away while I am sure I don't agree with the idea of tailing a kid and then shooting them "in self defense."

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:45 pm

The example you gave was someone coming at you with a knife, not someone taking your property.

The reason why hepcat was saying that you're endorsing the death penalty for non-trivial crimes because that's one possible implication of situations like this. Yes, burglary is a serious crime. But that also begs the question - for what type of crime would you say it's not permissible to use deadly force to prevent? Would you say that it's ok to use deadly force to prevent someone from vandalizing your property? If yes, does it have to be serious vandalism (say, someone smashing in all of your windows), or would it extend to someone kicking over your lawn gnomes? At some point you could wind up with it being ok for any crime more serious than a misdemeanor.

We're talking about endorsing the death penalty because we're granting private citizens the right to kill people in certain circumstances. And while jaywalking is hyperbole, once you go beyond "ok to use deadly force in response to fear of bodily harm" you create the very tough issue of where you draw the line.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:52 pm

I should add that I don't have a ton of sympathy for burglars who wind up getting shot during the crime. To some degree getting shot is a foreseeable risk when you break into someone's home, regardless of what their legal rights to shoot you are.

Still, given the people one encounters on a day to day basis I tend to think it not a great idea to give people ill-defined rights to shoot people.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:21 pm

El Guapo wrote:The example you gave was someone coming at you with a knife, not someone taking your property.

Which happens when we turn off the ability to be judge, jury, and executioner.

The reason why hepcat was saying that you're endorsing the death penalty for non-trivial crimes because that's one possible implication of situations like this. Yes, burglary is a serious crime. But that also begs the question - for what type of crime would you say it's not permissible to use deadly force to prevent?

Now I am being told there is a line. It's self defense. If we move past that line then all crimes are punishable by death. Who is begging the question here?

"You can only use violence to stop a crime when it is in self defense."
"Why?"
"Because self defense is only time you are justified to use violence to stop a crime."
"What about to protect your property?"
"Nope."
"Why?"
"Because you can only use violence to stop a crime in it is in self defense."

Would you say that it's ok to use deadly force to prevent someone from vandalizing your property? If yes, does it have to be serious vandalism (say, someone smashing in all of your windows), or would it extend to someone kicking over your lawn gnomes?

That's part of what I'm playing through in my head. I don't buy that the answer is "no" because I don't feel like my life is being threatened and when is it you are entitled to feel like your life is threatened?

At some point you could wind up with it being ok for any crime more serious than a misdemeanor.

What makes that assumption right? And what makes the bodily harm assumption right?

We're talking about endorsing the death penalty because we're granting private citizens the right to kill people in certain circumstances. And while jaywalking is hyperbole, once you go beyond "ok to use deadly force in response to fear of bodily harm" you create the very tough issue of where you draw the line.

I'm not saying the issue isn't tough. Quite the opposite. I'm saying it's not easy. I don think calling the issue over because someone else equates all self protection against victimization that is not self defense for fear of immediate bodily harm is the right call. And I don't think all crimes in progress deserving of the death penalty is the necessary result if we allow the line to be examined. I abhor violence so much, that I am a Ben Franklin nightmare. The result for me is that I actually feel safer if I trust the guy living next to me is willing to watch my back and is capable of using violence to protect other people from unlawfully attacking my property. Having a law supports him sounds like a law I'm going to at least hear out.

I'm not out there saying "Yeah! Shoot them fuckers in the back!" but I am thinking it's not so bad to have a neighbor who would call 911 and then who would shoot someone who is getting away with stealing my stuff when the police don't arrive. And so I sit conflicted about that line and my threshhold to gain a little temporary safety is pretty high.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:48 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Now I am being told there is a line. It's self defense. If we move past that line then all crimes are punishable by death. Who is begging the question here?

"You can only use violence to stop a crime when it is in self defense."
"Why?"
"Because self defense is only time you are justified to use violence to stop a crime."
"What about to protect your property?"
"Nope."
"Why?"
"Because you can only use violence to stop a crime in it is in self defense."

Huh? Look, the line I'm drawing here is clear. You can use deadly force in self-defense if you reasonably fear severe bodily harm. What you're talking about in your circular argument is WHY the line should be drawn at self-defense, not WHERE the line is drawn. Plus your responses don't seem to be drawn from the counter-arguments in this thread. So to do it more accurately:

"You can only use deadly force when you fear severe bodily harm to yourself or another person."
"Why?"
"Because authorizing people to use deadly force in other situations would lead to unnecessary violence and deaths, including cases where the shooter will have made a mistake or been overly enthusiastic (see: the skittles shooting)"
"What about to protect your property?"
"Nope."
"Why?"
"Same as above. The fact that your property is involved doesn't change the fact that people will die, that there will be mistakes, people with too excited a trigger finger, etc."

The point is that drawing the line at self-defense is a clear, easy to understand line. Once you move beyond that line to say "deadly force is ok to prevent some types of crimes and not others", NOW you have a line-drawing problem, plus even once you define a line people are going to have a harder time knowing and remembering that line. ("It's ok to shoot someone if they're committing X crime but not Y crime" is more complicated then "I can shoot someone if I think they might kill me.").

Also note that we're talking about "deadly force" not force. Tackling someone, tazing them, forcibly detaining them while the police come is a different issue from whether or not you can shoot someone running off with your television.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:52 pm

LordMortis wrote:
I am thinking it's not so bad to have a neighbor who would call 911 and then who would shoot someone who is getting away with stealing my stuff when the police don't arrive.

And I am thinking that if a teenager making a stupid mistake dies at someone's hand to protect my old watch and some XBox games that it is an awful bargain, and I would gladly give away my whole collection to have them alive again.

I've held three jobs where I might have had to shoot someone, including one where stating a willingness to shoot an unarmed person in the back was a required part of the job interview. Twice in my life I've had a gun pointed at another human being and had to decide whether they should die. As a result, I've spent a lot of time thinking about exactly this kind of thing, about when it is really necessary that someone should die to protect life, body or property.

Maybe that's colored my thinking on this, but I draw the 'worthy of death' line far beyond 'physical stuff.'

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:56 pm

Plus you have to consider hypotheticals where the shootee is not guilty or where there's some other mistake involved. Think of the Henry Louis Gates situation for example, only where the cranky neighbor has a rifle handy.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:17 pm

Blackhawk wrote:one where stating a willingness to shoot an unarmed person in the back was a required part of the job interview.

What job would require that?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:19 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:one where stating a willingness to shoot an unarmed person in the back was a required part of the job interview.
What job would require that?

Accountancy is not an easy gig.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:26 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: What job would require that?

Probably not the one Blackhawk is talking about but the Neighborhood Watch Commander at The Retreat at Twin Lakes job probably qualifies.