Is a person justified in killing someone committing criminal assault (i.e. robbery, rape, beating)

[gorfle]

[slackmaster]

1. Not exactly - my caveat

It's justifiable to use a potentially deadly level of force to stop such an attack.

If the perpetrator happens to die as a result, that's his or her problem. Killing should not be on the mind of the person intervening.

[raimius]

4. Caveat

If the threat is reasonably believed to be of serious/lethal nature, lethal force is justified, IMO.

If someone says, "I'm going to beat you with this wet noodle" lethal force would NOT be justified. Replace "wet noodle" with a car, knife, pointed or blunt object, firearm, chainsaw, etc, etc, then it would be justified.

[nichomachus]

2. Far too broad a question for a yes or no answer

[ZombieHorde]

3. I voted 'no' since robbery was included.

[fed_up_mother]

5. Problem is most folks would be scared shitless during an armed robbery or burglary

If some guy broke into my house and I was the only one inside, I'd just get the heck out. However, if my kids were upstairs, I would be scared he'd rape or hurt one of my children. I just wouldn't take a chance with my kids' lives.

[slackmaster]

6. Definition of robbery from the California Penal Code

211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

Why would deadly force not be appropriate to stop a robbery? It is a violent crime.

[ZombieHorde]

9. If someone was pointing a lethal weapon at a person...

then I agree with killing them (and donating the meat to a charity (just kidding)), but not for the theft, only for self defense.

I heard a story, which may not be true, where a guy held up a convenient store with a weapon. The robber got the cash and ran out of the store. The store clerk then went out of the store and shot the robber in the back.

In the above situation, which may not have ever happened, I disagree with the clerk's use of force.

[slackmaster]

10. Theft is one thing, Robbery is quite another

The victim of a theft does not necessarily need to be present when the theft occurs (an exception would be picking someone's pocket). Robbery is a face-to-face crime.

I heard a story, which may not be true, where a guy held up a convenient store with a weapon. The robber got the cash and ran out of the store. The store clerk then went out of the store and shot the robber in the back.

Yes. The purpose of using deadly force is to stop an attack. By the time the robber left the store, the attack was over therefore there was no justification for deadly force.

Had the clerk been able to produce a gun and shoot the robber while he was standing there brandishing a weapon, the shooting would have been justified.

[jmg257]

25. Once again, NY says otherwise...

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.

4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force,
other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the
extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an
arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he
reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has
committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom."

Now, I don't know exactly how shooting the perp running away from a robbery "effects the arrest" of that person, but it seems it can be justified per NYS.

[slackmaster]

27. I'm not sure that a non-LEO shooting a fleeing robber in the back would be OK in NYS

The California statute along those lines says homicide is justifiable if it occurs in the process of stopping a fleeing felon by "lawful means", which would generally not include shooting someone who is no longer an immediate threat.

[jmg257]

30. I know I wouldn't do it, even when I was an LE. nt

[tburnsten]

48. I think lethal force is legally justified to prevent the escape of someone who committed a felony as

[Mnemosyne]

12. Meat too tough,

EAT THE RICH instead! Shooting anyone in the back is a no-no. Hell, even the Dick shoots them in the face! :evilgrin:

I agree with your caveat in #1.

[tburnsten]

47. In the hypothetical situation

I believe the clerk would be charged with and found guilty of manslaughter. Similiar situations have happened and they result in the shooter being incarcerated. But the post isn't about shooting someone after the fact or shooting someone committing ordinary theft, it is about using potentially lethal force during a violent crime to prevent or end it.

[damntexdem]

7. Yes, assuming that it's justified.

If it's necessary to stop what is happening, even if it happens as a consequence of reasonable attempts to stop what is happening.

[Old Codger]

8. Always depends

The real answer is it is only allowed under very precise conditions and they are "If you reasonably believe you or someone else are/is in danger of severe bodily harm or death." and the governing word is "reasonably" In some states you have an obligation to leave even your own house to escape danger, in some states you are not required to leave and have the right to defend your property and self but only if you are in your home, Oregon is one. In some states you are not required to even move off of the sidewalk to avoid the danger if you have a legal right to be there, Utah is one of those. Anyone who carries must think the possibilities through well beforehand and have a clear picture in their own mind as to what constitutes "clear and present danger" if you have any doubts at all you are probably wrong to use lethal force. It is not cut and dried and it is not an easy decision to make if you doubt that you have the right to do so then don't. If you doubt your ability to follow through get away and do not present your weapon,if you present your weapon be prepared to shoot. If you shoot,shoot til the danger is neutralized.

[iverglas]

11. Is a person justified in killing someone wearing orange socks?

Yes.

IF s/he is also engaged in assaulting you or someone else and you reasonably believe that there is no reasonable alternative to using force in order to avoid serious injury or death, and if your intention is to avert serious injury or death and not to cause death.

I see not too many people fell for it this time around.


(fixed that badly edited subject line)

[gorfle]

13. Oh really?

I see not too many people fell for it this time around.

So far, 87% of respondents disagree with your earlier assertion assertion.

You fail.

Why don't you create a poll asking if people think they are justified killing people for wearing orange socks, so you can experience some more fail?

[iverglas]

18. yup

I read the comments from the people who gave sufficient thought to comment, and not just drive by and click.

"my caveat" - "always depends" - "assuming that it's justified" - "far too broad a question".

Yup.

Why the fuck do you not just ask THE REAL QUESTION?

Is a person justified in killing someone IN ORDER TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH TO HIM/HERSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON?

Who the hell cares whether someone thinks it is justified to kill someone who is committing a crime -- whether or not s/he understood what you said to mean "in self-defence"?

If someone says it is justified to kill someone who is committing a crime where there is NO reasonable belief that force is necessary in order to avoid serious injury or death, then s/he has just placed him/herself outside the walls of civilized society, and those of us inside the walls really don't give a shit what s/he thinks.

[gorfle]

20. 29-4

Another Iverglas assertion down in flames.

What's it like to be wrong in the court of public opinion so regularly?

[tburnsten]

49. The examples he gave all involve a high likelihood of the victim's death

So I don't think you are on point with this statement-

"Who the hell cares whether someone thinks it is justified to kill someone who is committing a crime -- whether or not s/he understood what you said to mean "in self-defence"?

If someone says it is justified to kill someone who is committing a crime where there is NO reasonable belief that force is necessary in order to avoid serious injury or death, then s/he has just placed him/herself outside the walls of civilized society, and those of us inside the walls really don't give a shit what s/he thinks."


In the question asked, it was made clear that we are talking about a situation where the victim stands a very real possibility of being grievously injured or killed, if they aren't already well on their way to it.

[AthiestLeader]

14. Brings new meaning to the word hypocrisy...

No I don't believe you should have the right. Regardless of what crime they commited.

[slackmaster]

15. Revenge killing is certainly wrong but I think you are missing the point - Re-read the OP

The topic is use of force to stop a crime in progress.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. The OP's depiction of force is overly broad

and comical.

It's almost a trick question. A crude crayon caricature of using force in self defense. Once again, not voting.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. HEY!

I thought this thread might have been a necro or something, because I didn't recall posting that...

This is going to cause major confusion. :)

[AthiestLeader]

17. Actually...

Actually it was posted the same day.

And after re-reading I have still drawn the same conclusion. I don't think you should 'kill' although to stop a crime is certainly justifiable.

[iverglas]

19. you missed it

It's all in the name.

Of course, AC did spell his correctly. ;)

[spin]

22. Actually, you use a weapon to stop an attack, not to kill...

unfortunately death may result.

When you watch movies, often the person shot just falls down dead. Real life doesn't work like the movies.

In some cases the person does stop the attack when shot even if the wound is not serious. Often though, the person will continue to attack even after being shot several times.

Shot placement is extremely important as is the construction of the bullet used.

The only way to immediately incapacitate a person or other animal is to damage or disrupt their central nervous system (CNS) to the point of becoming paralyzed, losing consciousness, or dying. Bullets can achieve this directly or indirectly. If a bullet causes sufficient damage to the brain or spinal cord, immediate loss of consciousness or paralysis, respectively, can result. However, these targets are relatively small and mobile, making them extremely difficult to hit even under optimal circumstances. underlining mine.

Bullets can indirectly disrupt the CNS by damaging the cardiovascular system so that it can no longer provide enough oxygen to the brain to sustain consciousness. This can be the result of bleeding from a perforation of a large blood vessel or blood-bearing organ, or the result of damage to the lungs or airway. If blood flow is completely cut off from the brain, a human still has enough oxygenated blood in their brain for 10 seconds of willful action, though with rapidly decreasing effectiveness as the victim begins to lose consciousness.

Unless a bullet directly damages or disrupts the central nervous system, a person or animal will not be instantly and completely incapacitated by physiological damage. However, bullets can cause other disabling injuries that prevent specific actions (a person shot in the femur cannot walk) and the physiological pain response from severe injuries will temporarily disable most individuals.

****snip*****

Emotional shock, terror, or surprise can cause a person to faint, surrender, or flee when shot or shot at. Emotional fainting is the likely reason for most "one-shot stops", and not an intrinsic effectiveness quality of any firearm or bullet; there are many documented instances where suspects have instantly dropped unconscious when the bullet only hit an extremity, or even completely missed. Additionally, the muzzle blast and flash from many firearms are substantial and can cause disorientation, dazzling, and stunning effects. Flashbangs (stun grenades) and other less-lethal "distraction devices" rely exclusively on these effects.

******snip*****

However, if a person is sufficiently enraged, determined, or intoxicated they can simply shrug off the psychological effects of being shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power

So the bottom line is that shooting someone to stop an attack might kill them. While shooting ability developed by practice will enable a person to hit a target on the shooting range, shooting skills often go downhill rapidly in a real fight. A mere fraction of an inch can cause a bullet to wound but not incapacitate a person.

And of course, a target on the range doesn't shoot back at you. Target shooting and hunting would not be anywhere near as popular if the target or the game were able to defend itself with firearms.

[appal_jack]

35. At least "A-Crusader" can spell "Atheist"

As for "AthiestLeader," unless you are more "Athi" than all those whom you lead (i.e.- the Athi-est of them all), then you fail.

-app

[tburnsten]

50. It isn't about a crime that WAS committed

It's a question about stopping a crime in progress, like walking in on a rape or someone being beaten severely or an armed robbery. No one is talking about using lethal force on someone who once upon a time committed a serious crime except you.

[rrneck]

21. People are

more important than stuff. If you have a choice, don't do it.

[slackmaster]

23. I don't believe you understand the question

It's not about using deadly force to prevent the taking of stuff.

[rrneck]

29. There is only one person who can adequately answer that question.

I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We know Henry knows, and Henry knows we know it. We're a knowledgeable family.

John Castle as Prince Geoffrey
The Lion in Winter 1968

We all walk around in a cloud of sense impressions, memories, assumptions, emotions, dogmas, facts, and fallacies. One of the things that makes us human is our ability to predict future events based on past experience and present conditions.

I answered "yes" to the question because I gave the benefit of the doubt to the person being assaulted. That's because I assumed that the robber would probably be armed and willing to use the weapon against me or somebody else. But maybe not. Is the robber somebody's kid from down the street or someone that Mike Tyson wouldn't fuck with? It is hard to separate rape and beating, they usually go together. Sometimes people get robbed, beaten, and raped. In the case of beating, are we talking bitch slap, a shoving match, or lead pipe here? In the case of rape was the victim being stalked and harassed for weeks prior to the event, or was it a dark alley crime of opportunity? We could spin scenarios all day long and come no closer to an answer because the only person who can make that call is the one present at the event at that point in time. At that moment, the potential victim will have to asses a huge range of information regarding the tactical situation and decide to use deadly force based on that decision. The entire process probably takes about five seconds. And it could all hinge on whether or not a hand gets raised or a glance in the wrong direction. A confrontation like that represents a series of tactical reassessments compressed into an impossibly short space of time. But in the end, the moment we act, the moment the trigger gets pressed, represents a prediction of a future event. Welcome to the human condition.

I read a while back that mathematicians are having a terrible time predicting (mathematically) the relationship between a parachute and the air that surrounds it. The shape of the chute changes the airflow, and the airflow changes the shape of the chute. The variables involved in this simple interaction are astronomical, and that makes it very hard to predict. And that's just a parachute! We would all like to hope we would do the right thing when the time came, but that event depends on an impossibly large set of variables that get established along a time line well before the event. As the potential victim gets closer to the event s/he will be able to produce fewer and fewer scenarios (future predictions) about what will happen and how to extricate themselves from danger. The potential assailant has basically the same information. In the end, if no other options present themselves, deadly force is the only option available for somebody. And that represents a worst case scenario.

But at this point in time, in this forum, we have no way to know how to answer the question because there are no real exigent circumstances upon which to base a prediction. There are just too many variables that are little more than fiction. We can quote the law, but that won't help us answer the question really, because the law can only be used after the event to determine culpability.

So my too short post, "People are more important than stuff. If you have a choice, don't do it.", depends on the requirement of a potential victim to make constant and very rapid reevaluations regarding the potential threat and use only deadly force in the defense of human life rather than in defense of property. Of course, now I have written a too long post. Sorry. As you can see, I'm working through this issue myself.

But that's good, really. The original question was impossible to answer, but it was a question that needed to be asked. Once again, welcome to the human condition.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. See how the question is misleadingly vague?

It doesn't work.

[gorfle]

38. Are people worth more than stuff?

I'm not sure I agree that people are worth more than stuff.

Everything I own represents part of my life I had to expend to acquire it, and this can never be gotten back. A $500 television thus represents days of my life. My $28,000 car represents months of my life. How much value do you put on a day of your life? A month?

There are not many thieves that I would find stealing my "stuff" that I would find worth more than a day of my life.

Finally, the thief sets the value of his own life. If he decides that his life is worth a television, or some other "stuff", so be it - I won't question his judgment on that matter.

[rrneck]

41. I worked hard for what little

I've got, so I see your point. Although I'll always be of the opinion that any life is worth more than everything I own, if he tries to kill me for my stuff, he's a dead (and stupid) sumbitch. It seems to me that that's how these things happen most of the time. If somebody breaks into your house or car or whatever they're just a thief and they most likely get away with it. If you're around and he wants to push the issue, then that's a whole 'nother sack o' 'taters. Like I said earlier, if either party fails to make the correct tactical judgment in the last few minutes before a physical confrontation, then the stuff seems to be a moot point anyway. But that's just another fictional scenario...

[iverglas]

55. lemme throw my sample scenario in

A few years ago, I went out to my car to find the front passenger door wide open. I forget whether anything was missing. The interior was a little more trashed than it usually is ... in addition to all the crap normally strewn around, the crap from the glove box was strewn around as well. Somebody may have got my parking change. BFD. I must have managed to leave the door unlocked ... that would be the one time in the year I did, of course ...

However. Leaving the door open causes the light on the inside of the door to stay on, and this causes the battery to die. This I know from having failed to completely close the door on a couple of previous occasions on a previous vehicle. In this instance, the door seemed not to have been open for long, because the car started with no problem.

However. Had the battery been dead, it wouldn't have just inconvenienced me and interfered in my private interest in going to the mall. It would have interfered with a rather important public interest.

I was on the way to the polling station to vote, after which I had to get to a poll several miles away to outside scrutineer -- pull the vote. It was a federal election day, and I was assigned to bang on doors and drag out recalcitrant voters for the good candidate in a riding that traditionally has tight races. If I had been unable to do that, the outcome of the vote might have been affected.

Odds are slim that this would have happened, but it is a fact that in a municipal election in the same area a few years earlier, the good guy won by an average of 1.5 votes per poll (with 70 or so polls in the municipal ward). On an advance poll day, I volunteered to drive an older woman in a co-op building to the polls, since she was voting for the good guy and wan't mobile; she was too visually impaired to see to vote, so I had to get sworn in (well, affirmed in) and vote for her, as she instructed ... and then we got back in the car and she asked me to drive her to the liquor store, and gave me the cash to buy her a bottle she said was for the nice young man who had fixed her toilet (to which one of her neighbours later said yeah, right) ... and wouldn't that have looked good to anybody watching ... . On election day proper, I dragged a single mum out to vote in a snowstorm 30 minutes before the polls closed, by strapping her infant carseat into my old Suzuki and driving her to the local high school, and sitting with the kid while she voted (she was a trusting soul). Then I drove her home ... and locked my keys in the car when I went to try to nab a couple of other missing voters. There were my 1.5 votes, anyhow, and in that instance it really did matter.

So, if I had caught the yob who stole my parking change, I would have liked nothing better than to tie him/her up and waterboard him/her just for the pleasure of it. For the love of fuck, if you're going to steal my parking change, have the goddamn decency to close the goddamn car door when you're done. The outcome of the entire federal election (since who governs, here, depends on which party gets the most seats, and a few votes in a riding can mean a difference of one seat in the House, which could mean the difference between Party X and Party Y forming the government) could have been altered by this assholish behaviour.

And even if all that had happened was that my trip to the mall was delayed, I would have felt approximately the same and been more than happy to thump the yob in question a few times if I ran across him/her. Or even if I ran across him/her in the act.

But that's why we have laws. So people are a little less likely to get tortured or even bruised for stealing parking change. Much as they might richly deserve it. Mind you, if stealing parking change did arguably affect the outcome of an election, the sentence oughta fit that crime. ;)

[tburnsten]

58. Would you have helped the old lady get to the polling station

if she hadn't been voting for whoever your candidate was? I'm just curious if you volunteered to help get voters to the polls, or if you helped get certain voters to the polls. It makes a difference in character and integrity, and your story makes it appear that you are selective in who you help to express their political choice.

[iverglas]

59. how cute

I was working on the campaign of Candidate X.

During the election period, I did the usual door-to-door canvassing to identify electors committed to voting for Candidate X.


On E-Day, Candidate X's campaign assigned campaign workers to do

(a) inside scrutineering -- sitting in the polling station as Candidate X's official representative -- observing the vote, challenging any irregularities, recording the names of electors as they voted and passing those names to the outside scrutineer, and staying "in for the count" to observe the ballots being counted, challenge any irregularities, sign the final documents as Candidate X's representative, and report the final count to campaign HQ;

and

(b) outside scrutineering -- obtaining the list of electors who had voted from the inside scrutineer at regular intervals, and going to the homes of electors who had expressed the intention to vote for Candidate X but had not yet voted to urge them to get out and vote and offer assistance to get to the polling station if needed.


On E-Day, Elections Canada employs people to

(a) officiate in polling stations, as poll supervisors, deputy returning officers and poll clerks, to record electors as they vote, distribute ballots, check ballots for authenticity (initials on outside of folded ballot) as they are deposited, count ballots when the polls close, and complete all formalities for recording and reporting the vote;

and

(b) assist electors who need information about how and where to vote, require a sign language interpreter or mobile poll, etc., although I do not believe Elections Canada provides assistance with transportation to the polls.


I was not employed by Elections Canada. I was a volunteer on Candidate X's campaign. Candidates Y and Z, and fringe candidates Alpha, Beta, etc., had their own campaigns and their own volunteers, who did their own candidates' inside and outside scrutineering, and provided assistance to their own committed voters.


I think things work kind of the same way, by different names, where you're at. Perhaps you have some non-partisan volunteer corps that does things like "help get voters to the polls" independently of candidates' campaign organizations. I wouldn't know. There is no such thing in Canada, and I have never had the slightest indication that there is any need for any such thing. All candidates' printed literature (most candidates deliver at least two campaign leaflets to every door in a riding) includes numbers to call to get a ride to the polls on E-Day. Electors are unlikely to call the campaign of a candidate they don't plan to vote for, to get a ride to the polling station, unless they are particularly wily and looking to waste the time of their candidate's opponent, I guess. And an elector who finds Candidate X's volunteer on his/her doorstep offering a ride is probably unlikely to accept it if s/he doesn't plan to vote for Candidate X, but one never knows, does one?

So the only way I could arrange to transport electors to polls without doing it through the campaign organization of the candidate for whom I was working would be to go door to door as some sort of freelance do-gooder offering to drive people to their polling station. What a bizarre idea.


It makes a difference in character and integrity, and your story makes it appear that you are selective in who you help to express their political choice.

Well god damn, eh? My story makes it appear that I work on the election campaigns of candidates whom I would like to win, because I believe the party they represent will best serve my riding and country/province/city. And anybody who wishes to work for a different candidate is welcome to assist electors they identify as supporting their candidate. And any elector is free to request assistance from the campaign organization of the candidate of his/her choice, and accept an offer of assistane from anyone who makes it.

And your comment makes it appear as if you don't actually have a clue, but decided to attempt a filthy bit of baseless character assassination anyway.

It doesn't interest me. Perhaps you can think of something entertaining to do with it, though, and I'll be sure to chortle appreciatively.

[57_TomCat]

60. I read the posts and...

could easily see his point of view. Your explanation certainly puts a different spin on the post. Here in the US I have worked for several "get out the vote" campaigns that were not affiliated with individual parties or campaigns. It is a rather popular form of election volunteering in these parts.

[iverglas]

62. really?

If I had been a volunteer on the Obama campaign in the US rather than for my local New Democratic Party candidate in Canada (we don't have national candidates here), would someone have said to me that it reflected on my "character and integrity" that I was "selective" in who I helped "to express their political choice" because I worked to pull the Obama vote rather than to "get out the vote" indifferently?

I kind of think not. Not publicly at DU, anyhow.

[57_TomCat]

65. It all is in the context.

Supporting a candidate is one thing but working for the electoral process and being partisan is another. You will find poll watchers at our precincts but they prohibit partisan political activities. Observation only. No canvassing, signs or supporters within certain distances. Once you get to the polling place you are to be free from intimidation. Partisan scrutinizers with access to voting lists and the ability to target specific groups based on those people not yet reporting to the precinct is a definite no-no in my neighborhood.

The "get out the vote" movement and partisan activities are frowned upon. The object is to get people motivated into the process. A very hard thing to do. Being partisan can cause some issues that way.

A lot of "get out the vote" activities are in areas with a definite partisan bent but we try to simply get them involved in the process. How they vote is their decision.

What you described in Canada could be considered illegal electioneering in some states here in the U.S..

[tburnsten]

69. Exactly

[iverglas]

74. what the fuck does that mean?

Supporting a candidate is one thing but working for the electoral process and being partisan is another.

What the fuck is "working for the political process"? How the fuck does one work for a process?

Did I at any point say, imply or even hint that I was not working FOR A CANDIDATE?

NO. What I said -- with emphasis to assist you -- was:

It was a federal election day, and I was assigned to bang on doors and drag out recalcitrant voters for the good candidate in a riding that traditionally has tight races.


You will find poll watchers at our precincts but they prohibit partisan political activities. Observation only. No canvassing, signs or supporters within certain distances.

Yup. Just as is the case for the inside scrutineers I referred to. No badges, no name tags, no whispering of candidate names inside the polling station.

Partisan scrutinizers with access to voting lists and the ability to target specific groups based on those people not yet reporting to the precinct is a definite no-no in my neighborhood.

Really? Your poll watchers are not allowed to record and report the names of people who voted? Oh well. Too bad for you. Our CANDIDATES have access to that information -- voters' lists and records of voters who have been given ballots -- as an essential part of the process of scrutineering the vote. (How else could they identify voting fraud?) It may not be used for any other purposes. It may be used to identify people who have not yet voted.

That's part of our political process. I don't give a crap if it isn't part of yours. And I don't give a crap how it might look to the ignorant and uninformed in a foreign country.


The "get out the vote" movement and partisan activities are frowned upon. The object is to get people motivated into the process. A very hard thing to do. Being partisan can cause some issues that way.

The "get out the vote movement" has precisely BUGGER ALL to do with the activities of a political campaign. I was not talking about the "get out the vote movement". I was very clearly and obviously talking about the activities of a political campaign.

And once again, you know as well as I do that political campaigns where you are make huge efforts to get out THEIR vote on election day. (You learned about all that from us, by the way, the whole door-to-door thing having been initiated by social democrats in Canada decades ago.)


What you described in Canada could be considered illegal electioneering in some states here in the U.S..

Total fucking bullshit.

These days, pulling the vote is often done by phone.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/cagotv

Get Out The Vote for Barack in California

You can have a major impact on the race for the Democratic nomination in the days leading up to February 5.

With the California primary just a few days away, now's the time to turn our enthusiasm for Barack into the votes we need to be successful.

Across the state, Obama supporters are coming together and knocking on doors, making phone calls, and organizing in their communities just like we did in Iowa and South Carolina.

No prior experience is needed, so sign up today.

... I can make calls:

Sat, Feb 2
Sun, Feb 3
Mon, Feb 4
Election Day, Tues, Feb 5

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/uselectionroadtrip/2008/oct/29/obama-campaign-volunteers

Obama's army determined to get out the vote
In Missouri and around the country, Obama's foot soldiers are putting boots on the ground and ears to the phone

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/384852_slogonline25.html

Obama's eager foot soldiers put in very long hours. Boo Walukas, for example, says she works 40 hours a week as a nurse and another 40 knocking on doors. With a "Boobama" badge on her nurse's uniform, she drives around Cary, the suburb where she lives, urging Democrats to vote early.

North Carolina is one of 34 states that allow people to do so: Around a third of Americans will have voted before Election Day. "If you vote early, folks like me will stop knocking on your door," says Ronnie ("Ronniebama") Chapman, another volunteer.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/12/america/obama.php

The most pressing matter inside this field office for Senator Barack Obama was not the next debate or the latest scorching exchange with Senator John McCain, but getting every possible voter to the polls. As McGowan surveyed an assembly line of activity, a more immediate question popped into his mind: Have all the spots been filled in the 6 to 8 p.m. shift for walking neighborhood precincts?

"When we identify sporadic voters, we want to go back to their house until they can't stand us anymore," said McGowan, 23, who oversees the Obama operation in Fairfax County, Virginia's largest.

"We're going to have to make sure they turn out, or we probably won't win," said Steve Hildebrand, a deputy campaign manager for Obama.

"They'll get extra waves of mail," Hildebrand said. "They'll get extra phone calls. They will be given a lot of love."

Clearly, you're another one with no clue about how election campaigns are actually conducted, and elections are won.

[tburnsten]

81. It's called voter intimidation here and is highly illegal

People need to be able to make their choice on their own and without being watched by people working for one or any of the candidates. We keep our election system as impartial as possible by keeping campaign workers out of polling places, when you say you helped someone vote, I couldn't even fathom that you assisted a disabled person in voting while you were working for one of the candidates! That is absolutely insane!

[iverglas]

93. you feel free to misrepresent it as you like

As I said, I don't give a flying fuck.

Allowing candidates' authorized representatives to scrutinize the vote is called keeping the process clean, here.

And we let people have the assistance of whatever person THEY choose and trust to assist them in voting, as long as the individual in question is a registered voter in the riding in question and is properly identified. (My status as a party worker was of the utmost irrelevance in that situation; the woman accepted my offer of a ride to the polling station and then asked that I carry out her instructions to fill out her ballot for her. Her choice. None of your business.)


You do what you like, there. I'm sure what you do is the peak of perfection, just like everything else in the great and exceptional USofA. I mean, your electoral system works sooooo well ...

[iverglas]

102. fyi, sweetie

http://www.co.franklin.pa.us/franklin/CWP/view.asp?A=1440&QUESTION_ID=463347

General Election Information
Procedures for Voting a Paper Ballot in Franklin County:

... Q: How do I vote if I am visually impaired?
A: A visually impaired voter has several options for voting: 1) They could receive an absentee ballot; 2) They could vote a paper ballot at the polling place with assistance; or 3) They could vote independently on the AutoMARK ADA unit. Be advised that a visually impaired voter using the AutoMARK ADA unit should be prepared to spend approximately 20 minutes voting their ballot since all instructions, candidates and summary are read to them with the use of headsets.

... Q: May I receive assistance in voting?
A: No person is allowed to receive assistance in voting unless his/her registration record indicates the need for assistance or the voter completes and signs a declaration of the need for assistance at the polling place prior to entering the voting booth. A voter may select anyone to assist them EXCEPT: 1) The Judge of Elections; 2) The voter’s employer or agent of that employer; or 3) An officer or agent of the voter’s union.

You really do need lessons in civics, as well as civility.

Technology is being developed to allow visually impaired voters to maintain the secrecy of their ballots on the same basis as other electors. (Do keep in mind that the incident I described happened about 15 years ago.)

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen&document=part2_div3&dir=rep/re2/sta2004&lang=e&textonly=false

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada
on the 38th General Election Held on June 28, 2004
Elections Canada: General Information: Official Reports: Elections Canada's Official Reports: Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 38th General Election Held on June 28, 2004
Other initiatives

... Voting by special ballot is an option available to all Canadians. Often it is used by people who find it difficult or inconvenient to vote in person at a polling station.

At the polling station, an elector could be accompanied behind the voting screen by a friend or relative if the elector needed help in marking his or her ballot. The elector could also ask the deputy returning officer for assistance.

A voting template was available to assist visually impaired persons. A toll-free phone number was available for people who were deaf or hard of hearing.

In the second last federal election, I was doing running -- poll to campaign satellite office. I discovered at the polling station, a community centre, that the elevator had been out of service for an hour, and my inside scrutineers described how voters who could not manage the stairs to the third floor rooms where the polls were -- older voters, voters with disabilities, parents with baby buggies -- were turning around and leaving, and the poll supervisor didn't have a clue what to do. I called my campaign office and was met with a little indifference, and demanded that the campaign contact the Deputy Returning Officer immediately and have arrangements made to solve the problem. I stood at the door and assured voters -- all voters -- that the problem would be solved shortly and they would be able to vote. The DRO's office sent out an experienced Elections Canada employee within 20 minutes, and she set up shop in the vestibule with forms for voters to transfer their vote to the one poll that was in a ground-floor room.

I hung around to observe the process and make sure people were getting directed where they needed to go -- my job and my right as a candidate's representative, with the full cooperation of the EC representative -- and shot the shit with the EC woman for a while. She had spent most of the day going around to polls with the team of international election observers who were accredited by Elections Canada to observe our electoral process, and we had an interesting conversation about that aspect of the election.

Canada is in the forefront of providing aid to developing democracies in strengthening democratic institutions and processes.

http://www.elections.ca/intro.asp?section=int&document=index&lang=e
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/23/politics/23elect.html

(I was in fact named to a team to monitor elections in Haiti some years ago, as a representative of the Socialist International component of the team, my party being a member of that organization, but the plan was dropped when the situation there crumbled and the security of international observers could not be ensured.)

Spreading voter intimidation and electoral corruption around the globe, that's us.

[tburnsten]

68. Our get out the vote campaigns are very different from yours, and generally aren't based on parties

[iverglas]

75. read post 74

You might learn something about your own political process.

[tburnsten]

67. That is exactly the kind of volunteer work I had pictured

It is very different from the type she described.

[tburnsten]

66. That isn't what it sounded like

It sounded like you were just volunteering to help get people who often skip voting because of difficulties with transportation make it to the polling area so they can vote, but that you were doing it with extreme prejudice.


I still think it is morally gray area to offer people voting assistance on the terms that they vote a specific way.

[iverglas]

71. I'll just bet you do

I still think it is morally gray area to offer people voting assistance on the terms that they vote a specific way.

I suggest you have a word with the campaign organizations of every candidate for every office in every place you have ever lived, then.

Because you know fucking well that GETTING OUT THE VOTE -- the vote FOR THE CANDIDATE -- is the main focus of any modern political campaign anywhere, and that it is exactly what Democratic Party candidates do everywhere in the US.

You also know that your framing of this activity -- "assistance on the terms that they vote a specific way" -- is disingenuous to the point of extreme dishonesty.

Because IT IS NOT WHAT I DESCRIBED. I described the activity of campaigning for a candidate and offering assistance to voters who have SELF-IDENTIFIED to the campaign organization as intending to vote for the candidate in question, AFTER they so identified themselves. I DID NOT DESCRIBE offering assistance to voters on condition that they vote a certain way.

What is rather obvious is that you have never worked on a political campaign yourself, of course. Quelle surprise.

[57_TomCat]

76. I think you went a little far there.

Her initial post, when read with a jaundiced eye based on my political activities and location made me wonder. Her explanation answered all of my questions and I fully support her activities in that way.

You second part however..."I still think it is morally gray area to offer people voting assistance on the terms that they vote a specific way." may be accurate but is NOT what she does and what she stated in her explanation. This makes your comment a very poor biased attack. I disagree with you here.

iverglas is working within the standards of her system. That is not the standards of our system in many places. What she was doing is well within the rules and I support her activism.

[iverglas]

79. ta

My favourite bit of bizarre partisanship occurred in a federal election a few years ago. I was inside scrutineering for the NDP candidate and was in for the count. The Liberal scrutineer was obviously sincere and had clearly taken his instructions to heart. He challenged about two dozen ballots for being improperly marked -- anything that could be "identifying" is ruled out, and he considered shakey Xs identifying. (An example of the importance of this is the tight municipal race I mentioned -- one of the ballots that the judicial recount hinged on had been marked with a happy face. This *could* be a signal to a scrutineer that the vote that was paid for was in fact cast, and is therefore unacceptable.)

Problem was, the vast majority of the ballots he was challenging were ballots cast for his own candidate. Hmm.

I may have challenged one ballot. When the count was done, I said I would withdraw my challenge (it was fairly obvious my candidate was going to win that poll, and the riding) and suggested he do the same. He did. ;)

Inside scrutineers for the various parties tend to be collegial among themselves, and with the poll officials as well. Scrutineers, especially for the NDP, are often more versed in the ways of the vote than the casual employee poll officials are, and this can cause conflict but also smooth things over on occasion. Sometimes you'll get an officious poll official or a snotty Liberal or a dirty-tricks Conservative, but those are the exceptions generally. You spend 8 hours cramped together up on hard chairs in a crowded schoolroom or such, you share your junk food and crib from each other's voters' lists.

[tburnsten]

84. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of a campaign worker

not only assisting a disabled person in getting to the polling place, but actually helping cast her vote. Sorry to go overboard but this is just incredible to me. There is a reason we don't even allow candidates to say anything other than their name if they want to meet and greet voters outside polling places, let alone send workers into the voting booths with voters.

[iverglas]

103. yes, sorry indeed

A sorry effort at character assassination and disparagement of a system you know nothing about, as well as a demonstration of the fact you know nothing about your own.

I guess you weren't out there pounding the pavement for Obama or any other Democratic candidate last fall, or your ignorance would not be so deep and wide and obvious.

[iverglas]

105. wrap your head around this

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-3238.html

Jun 11, 2008 -- AlterNet: Voting Rights Lawyers Defeat Texas' Bogus Voter Fraud Prosecutions
By: Steven Rosenfeld

A years-long, high-profile campaign by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, to prosecute elderly Democratic Party volunteers for voter fraud because they helped homebound seniors to vote by mailing their absentee ballots -- but not signing the backs of envelopes -- fell apart on federal court house steps in Texas on Wednesday.

The Attorney General agreed to settle a federal lawsuit challenging the voter fraud prosecutions of the Democratic volunteers rather than go to trial, according to the Lone Star Campaign, which first characterized the AG's prosecutions as politically motivated voter suppression and funded the litigation. Gerald Hebert, an ex-Department of Justice Voting Section Chief and now executive director of the Washington-based Campaign legal Center, represented the Texas Democratic Party and volunteers in the suit.

... In a prepared statement, Lone Star Project Director Matt Angle commented on the settlement and the partisan nature of the prosecutions

... "Texans can now assist elderly or disabled neighbors participate in elections without fear of improper prosecution," he said.

I'm sure you're shocked and appalled.

[tburnsten]

108. Assisting in mailing an absentee ballot is nothing like going into the booth with them

And more importantly, is nothing like having the amount of surveillance of non-disabled voters by campaign workers you described.

[57_TomCat]

24. You are really missing the boat here.

Death as a result of the use of deadly force can be an unfortunate result. Deadly force however is only that force that might cause death or serious bodily injury. Its use is justified when used to attempt to stop an aggressive attack that might cause death or serious bodily injury. Death of the subject of deadly force is not and NEVER will be the object of the use of such force. You may use such force to "STOP" the illegal aggression of another and death "MIGHT" result but it is not the intent.

[slackmaster]

28. That's exactly what was taught in every self-defense class I've taken

Including empty hand, edged weapons, and firearms.

[rrneck]

31. You make a good point here

but to my mind stopping and killing are a distinction without a difference. You may have to argue in court that you were shooting to stop, which is to say you only shot him once or twice in the chest and he fell down, but if I have to put two rounds of .45 ACP center mass into somebody, I expect them to die. And at the moment I have to do it, with enough adrenalin in my system to kill an elephant, maybe I really would want him to die. I hope I never find out.

[slackmaster]

32. When someone comes up with an affordable non-lethal weapon that stops as reliably as a handgun

Then the distinction between stopping and killing will have a practical meaning.

[rrneck]

33. Absolutely nt

[57_TomCat]

36. I strongly disagree.

Historically only 25% of victims hit by handgun fire do not survive. Handguns in the LE field as well as the citizen self defense field are NOT good stoppers and never were. They simply provide a convenient method by which to carry a weapon that allows you to control your immediate area by deadly force. I have many textbooks on my desk that show the inability of a handgun to "stop" a fight. The handgun is still the best compromise for carry and ease of access in an emergency. If you want to "STOP" someone from doing evil then running over them with a big truck is about the only way to guarantee the immediate cessation of hostilities.

I carry a handgun because it is more convenient than a rifle BUT I have access to a rifle both on and off duty in most circumstances. On the other hand I recently watched a training film where an officer did stop an armed criminal from shooting the officer. He hit the suspect with his car for an immediate stop.

The handgun is a superior "convenient" option to project deadly force but it can not be relied on to stop or kill an assailant. If you do use a handgun for self defense, if you shoot straight and with a powerful cartridge, you still might die of suffer severe injury when the bad guy did not read the script.

I am waiting for a Phaser to be issued but then the potential for misuse of the "stun" feature is another can of worms. :)

[gorfle]

37. Oh phasers...

I have often wondered what the next revolution in infantry small arms will be, and, when it happens, if the citizens will be allowed it. I bet not.

In 1776, being armed meant being armed like the army.

If they invented a plasma rifle or a phaser tomorrow, it would be a Class III weapon from the get-go, I bet.

[rrneck]

40. Probably, but I wouldn't be surprised if we were

all arguing about whether or not we can carry it into the anti-gravity oxygen bar on the moon... :)

[rrneck]

39. I understand that, and you are no doubt right,

but I was referring to my expectations, not the actual chances of survival. I guess I would put the attitude in the same class as "never point a firearm at anything you do not want to destroy...". If I have to shoot somebody I don't expect to be thinking about percentages.

Of course I could just use my Remington 870 with a load of buckshot...

[spin]

42. Don't count on two rounds of .45 stopping or killing someone...

Check out this Department of Justice report, Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness:

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.
http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html

Or this FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:

Actual Shootings

In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras.

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_1

[rrneck]

43. Thanks for the links.

If the judge asks me why I shot him seven times, I'll say, "cuz I ran outta bullets yer honor." From what I've read, start with a double tap, look and see, then keep shooting if necessary. But I could be wrong.

[spin]

44. My plan is to shoot until the bad guy stops the attack...

but be ready to shoot some more if necessary.

[Endangered Specie]

45. I would prefer the wording "justified in using lethal force to stop someone

from committing criminal assault..."

[old mark]

46. Yes. How do you know what the attacker has in mind? How do you know

the victim of the assault has not been permanently damaged or eventually die from the assault?

I know of several instances in my region where victims of non-gun attacks died after being beaten with fists and feet and one in particular where the victim is a paraplegic after being beaten by several young men with baseball bats.

Do you want to trust your life to the kind mercy and good judgement of someone who attacks you with a club or a bat?

mark

[TWiley]

51. This poll PROVES why guns make society LESS safe

In the book "Freakenomics" the author uncovered this truth. Guns are not dangerous by themselves, swimming pools are more dangerous statistically, but the presence of guns increase the violence of an altercation. What would be a beating turns into a murder.

Sorry, butt those are the statistical facts, and your own poll proves it as well.

[57_TomCat]

52. As a cop I was taught...

that there is always at least one gun at every call I would answer. Mine.

I will also be the first to stipulate that a firearm allows one to "smite at a distance". This ability gives it an attraction over the other more mundane tools of robbery, murder and mayhem. Even so it does not in itself increase the violence of an altercation. The will of a person to use a firearm is what makes the potential of gun violence a possibility.

I can not remember the number of calls I have responded to in my 30 plus year career. At every call I brought a gun and on some calls guns were already present before I arrived. I never used my firearms on a call that was not justified in the eyes of the law. On several calls I would have been justified to shoot knife and gun wielding suspects but did not due to my experience telling me that it would be better to wait it out.

The gun does NOT increase the altercations level of violence but it does have the potential to increase it a greater amount than some other objects.

I might mention however that when deployed in a fight the knife has far more serious and often lethal wounds than a handgun. I would NEVER want to get sliced up the way some people I have seen were on a Saturday night fight. One case the pistol packer died of the wounds inflicted by the knife wielder where the knife guy had to be told he was bleeding and injured by the pistol packers weapon. (A .38 revolver, nothing to sneeze at)

[slackmaster]

53. The incidental killing of a would-be beater in order to prevent a beating IS NOT A MURDER

At least in my state.

[TWiley]

64. Well, regardless of the circumstances .... those will vary

Well, regardless of the circumstances .... those will vary from incident to incident, the point the Feakenomics author made was that vigilante response with guns escalated the violence.

What may have only been a case of a black eye, or a fat lip with some humiliation, the presence of a gun either in the hands of the victim, or in the hands of the vigilante resulted in a more serious altercation. Injury or death by gunshot.

This poll proves that the average gun owner who participates on this board would be very likely to use deadly force in almost any altercation. I'm sorry, but that is what the results say to me.

Violence is increased.

[tburnsten]

70. Preventing a lethal attack is not a "vigilante" action by any stretch of the imagination

There have certainly been a rash of shootings by carry permit holders of people who wanted to fight them right? After all, concealed carry has been a well established system since the mid-eighties.







Oh wait, no, that never happened, because permit holders are the absolute best behaved subsection of our society, aside from the comatose.

[TWiley]

83. consider your statement

Quote: There have certainly been a rash of shootings by carry permit holders of people who wanted to fight them right? End Quote

Your comment seems to support the idea that carry permit holders have increased the violence. "Rash of shootings"

[tburnsten]

85. I couldn't find the sarcasm button

And I didn't think I needed it either. Did you read past that at all?

[TWiley]

100. Yes, I did. But it was confusing.

It was probably confusing because I did not expect sarcasm.

[tburnsten]

107. Oh well

I thought the line where I said that it hasn't happened yet over the last twenty years of concealed carry being widespread shows that it will not ever be a problem, and that carry permit holders are the single best behaved group of people in the country, would have been enough.

[jmg257]

77. I don't think "robbery, rape, beating" is "almost any altercation". Those are

examples of serious physical force being used against a victim. Generally, replying with deadly physical force is justified. And if that is reasonable, then an "escalation of violence" by the initial victim that ends the "assault" is most likely a good thing; and it also shouldn't be considered "vigilante".

[57_TomCat]

78. Your statement kills your argument .(pun intended)

Most vigilante activity is illegal. A gun in the hand of a vigilante is a dangerous thing. So is a rope and knife. We are NOT talking vigilante activity here. We are talking about a simple tool. A tool that is amoral but can be used for good or evil. Its presence does not increase the level of violence just the potential of a higher level of violence.

An anecdotal experience I recall involved two fellow officers, on duty but going off shift at the station. A discussion of the ex girlfriend of one, now the current girlfriend of the other turned nasty. Both officers were armed with service pistols, each had a backup pistol, both had batons and they promptly beat the crap out of each other. No gun play, no stick play and nothing but scrapes and bruises. Both were suspended and were seen socializing together during the suspension. Guns were there but did not play a part in the ensuing melee.

Just a story but it illustrates the point.

[TWiley]

86. Again, individual circumstances will change.

We could play the hypothetical game all night long. It would likely lead to some interesting reading, but it would never come to a conclusion. There are an infinate amount of hypothetical variables that can be introduced to prove either point.

I am happy for your two co-workers in that it seemed to work out. It would have been double sad if someone were shot or killed. The other may have landed in prison.

But, YES we are talking about vigilante activity here. Look at the poll. It does not say "the proper authorites shoot" it asks, would YOU shoot?.

[slackmaster]

89. Proper authorities can't always be there when someone needs to be shot

That's why individuals have the right to use deadly force, when they find themselves in the narrow set of conditions defined by the law as justifying it.

[slackmaster]

80. I've read Freakonomics, their little trick is not carrying their analyses to ALL logical conclusions

For example, when a wannabe robber is taken out of service by being killed, the authors conveniently neglect to account for future crimes NOT committed by that individual.

This poll proves that the average gun owner who participates on this board would be very likely to use deadly force in almost any altercation.

Just like the Freakonomics authors, you neglect to consider how a person's behavior changes when he or she is carrying a deadly weapon. Most people, at least the properly trained ones, experience a heightened awareness of their surroundings and are less likely to get into an altercation in the first place.

You phrased the OP with words that are tied into specific state laws that define when use of deadly force is justifiable. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the results say anything about how participants would react to "any" kind of altercation.

[TWiley]

88. Well, there is a reason

Quote: For example, when a wannabe robber is taken out of service by being killed, the authors conveniently neglect to account for future crimes NOT committed by that individual. End Quote

The problem here is that you CANNOT prove another robbery will occur if the suspect is either killed or not killed, until he commits another. He could find Jesus right? Statistically speaking, how many would you assume he WOULD commit? 2 or 1,000?. Pretty easy to cook the books with that type of methodology. Furthermore, I did not realize that robbery was a capital crime. Do you intend to leave these decisions to the gun enthusiasts out patrolling the street?

Quote: Just like the Freakonomics authors, you neglect to consider how a person's behavior changes when he or she is carrying a deadly weapon. End Quote.

Just like the above example, you want to dive into hypothetical situations that can be skewed either way. Look at the poll. That is less hypothetical. How many said they WOULD shoot versus would NOT shoot? Evidently, your "behaviorial change" tends to drift towards "shoot".

[slackmaster]

91. Your "almost any altercation" in reply #64 is a major goalpost move from the OP

In which you specified "criminal assault (i.e. robbery, rape, beating)".

Your tactics are transparent. Let's cut to the chase: You're trying to paint gun owners as people who are looking for an excuse to kill someone.

We've seen that kind of crap on this forum many, many times. You aren't fooling anyone.

[TWiley]

95. ahh ..... lets cut to the chase?

Quote: Your tactics are transparent. Let's cut to the chase: You're trying to paint gun owners as people who are looking for an excuse to kill someone. End Quote

If you read the origional post. The first choice is:

" I believe it is justified to kill someone committing criminal assault." 58 votes when I last checked

The Second choice is:

"I do not believe it is justified to kill someone committing criminal assault." 4 votes when I last checked

The conclusion:

I am not painting anyone. I am merely interpreting the poll data. Evidently 94% of gun enthusiasts would feel justified killing someone, and a paltry 6% would not feel justified. You are trying to accuse me of something the respondants did to themselves.

[slackmaster]

97. "criminal assaults" are a small subset of "altercations"

...I am merely interpreting the poll data.

Your interpretation is so bizarre that I cannot accept that it is the result of anything other than your personal bias.

Evidently 94% of gun enthusiasts would feel justified killing someone...

Yes, for the purpose of stopping a criminal assault.

That's not the same as being willing to "use deadly force in almost any altercation" (your own words from reply #64).

[TWiley]

99. Your reasoning is fascinating.

Quote: Yes, for the purpose of stopping a criminal assault. End Quote

By defination, assault IS criminal. Physical altercations are assaults and they are "criminal" too. Do you plan to educate your possee so they can pass the bar exam before you swear them in and send them into the streets to shoot the evil-doers?

Just curious. It seems to be a bad idea to have just ANYBODY out there shooting people.

[jmg257]

101. Not if it is me, shooting a criminal commiting a violent assault against me/mine. Then it's a GREAT

idea. And one I support as a part of the right to self-defense, as being justifiable, and as a very good reason to carry.

[slackmaster]

104. You just changed gears from "almost any altercation" to "physical altercations"

Another goalpost move.

Physical altercations are assaults and they are "criminal" too.

Neither of those statements is always true. Two people engaged in a consensual thumb-wresling match are in a physical altercation but not necessarily committing assault.

I think that constitutes yet another goalpost move, from "physical altercations" to "assaults".

It seems to be a bad idea to have just ANYBODY out there shooting people.

I take it you would disarm the police as well.

[TWiley]

106. No ..... that is simply what I was thinking when I wrote it.

On the altercation thingie ..... No ..... that is simply what I was thinking when I wrote it. You seemed confused about that.

Quote "I take it you would disarm the police as well." End Quote

Nooo. I happen to like cops, but I dont care much for vigilante's. But I have to assume that YOU would like to do it because (first of all) YOU SAID IT, and (second of all) you seem determined to become a make-believe cop.

[tburnsten]

110. You seem to be determined to ignore the actual discussion

[TWiley]

114. huh ???

I don't understand what you mean.

[slackmaster]

113. Around and around and around we go

Using deadly force to stop a criminal assault does not make one a vigilante.

But I have to assume that YOU would like to do it because (first of all) YOU SAID IT, and (second of all) you seem determined to become a make-believe cop.

Using deadly force is one of the things I'd least like to have to do. I try very hard to avoid problem situations, and have done so for the better part of 50 years.

[tburnsten]

109. how could you miss the content so thoroughly?

[57_TomCat]

54. Another point...

If guns make society less safe then logic would dictate the guns of the military and law enforcement be removed from such society.

Since many criminal activities would still ensue such a LACK of guns would also make a society less safe. If no one, including LE, has the ability to stop a fight from a distance then the innocent will suffer as well as the guilty. I guess this is at least "fair". Share and share alike eh!

[iverglas]

56. what passes for logic hereabouts never ceases to gobsmack me

If guns make society less safe then logic would dictate the guns of the military and law enforcement be removed from such society.

Or hmm. Could that maybe be just a disingenuously literal reading of what was said ...

Yeah. I think it could be.

[57_TomCat]

57. Good for you iverglas

You win the kewpie doll.

It works both ways. Depends on the philosophy of the debater. Good points can be made by both sides.

[TWiley]

63. Try this point then

If guns make society safer, then why not give all school children a pistol to carry in their lunch box?

Furthermore, why not end the war in Iraq by giving every man, woman, and child an AK47 with an unlimited supply of bullets?

If what you say is correct, then each example should become more safe.

[57_TomCat]

72. You again miss the boat.

My argument is that the proper use of guns make society safer. Illegal use of guns make society less safe. Guns are already deeply entrenched in this country and will not go away. Expedient firearms are easy to make and the ability to steal weapons from cops and soldiers will always be there. Infringing on rights as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment is not the way to control gun violence while maintaining the individuality and personal responsibility this country was founded on.

As to school kids. Arming school children is not the best way to insure safe gun handling. Arming selected volunteer teachers however can provide a much safer environment.

In Iraq the citizenry already has a rather large amount of small arms. So does the military and police. How those arms are used will decide whether you are safer or not. Then again in Iraq field expedient explosives seem to be the current choice for mayhem. Building a bomb in this country simply requires a trip to Wal*Mart.

[TWiley]

82. Your argument is false

Quote: My argument is that the proper use of guns make society safer. Illegal use of guns make society less safe. End quote

The problem with this type of argument is that you can selectively change it. Not every use of guns is safe or legal. You only want to select the data that will prove your point while ignoring all the rest of it.

Your argument also falls apart with both my examples. If true, then schools should be safer if EVERYBODY had a gun. Your attempt to limit the data does not work either. Just because someone appropriate has a gun at school does not mean or prove that others will not bring them.

You point out that Iraq already has a large number of guns ..... and it is not safe. Why not add more? Your reasoning suggests that the more you add, the safer it gets. We all know this is not true. In fact, the US forces have been confiscating guns in order to make Iraq safer. That approach HAS worked.

The main argument of this thread is that vigilante action INCREASES violence. The poll in this thread proves this point. If a man rapes a woman, there is one victim and one defendant. Now, if a vigilante shoots the defendant, we have two victims and two defendants; hence an increase of violence.

[jmg257]

90. "vigilante action INCREASES violence." No one seems to be arguing against this.

What we are arguing, or I am anyway, is that an increase in violence is justified, including the use of guns, IF it is the victim or person using that reasonable violence to stop a violent assault against themselves or a 3rd person.

This is NOT a vigilante act! It is self-defense, and an inalienable right. Is it a use of violence? Of course - SO WHAT?!?, it is justified and pretty damn smart!

This what the OP poll is about, justifible use of force against a criminal COMMITTING a violent act.


And IF potential criminals learn to seriously fear potential victims a bit more, JUST MAYBE they will change their minds about being criminals.

[TWiley]

92. go back and read the O.P again

here is the question:

"I believe it is justified to kill someone committing criminal assault." It does NOT say that the shooter and the victim of the crime are the same person. In fact, it distinctly implies that a third party would be involved. By defination, if you are not a police officer, then it is a vigilante action.

[jmg257]

94. Ahh - OK - I see your point,

But I do not necessarly agree it involves a 3rd person (I didn't get that take when I read it the 1st few times). And I never took it to mean the traditional "vigilante" lynch-mob type "killing", as that wouldn't be the case involving the present state of "committing".

Anyway, the use of violence by a 3rd person is still justified. I do not think that meets the 'normal' definition of the term "vigilante", though it does kinda sorta maybe fit the 2nd meaning below from Webster, so I will give you that too - a bit ;). I agree the poll could have been more specific, but I think that was part of his point.(?)


: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice



Hmmm... now thinking more - in either case (1st person or 3rd person defense), the increase in use of violence in stopping a criminal act could certainly make society safer, assuming that criminal has now ceased his violent behavior, maybe for a looong time.

edit:expansion

[TWiley]

96. ok then, now consider the statistical argument.

The freakenomics author pointed out that the one victim and one defendant scenario was broadened into two victims and two defendants. Hence an increase in violence.

[jmg257]

98. And that I agree with. Which may or may not make society safer.

All depends on how one views a criminal becoming a victim of violence. If he/she has now performed his last criminal act due to incarceration, fear or death, then society benefits. Oh, and don't forget the initial victim is now safe.

[tburnsten]

112. As in, the attacker is now also counted as a victim, and the victim is also counted as an attacker?

That's fucked. You should seriously think about how much sense that makes, if you were to go mug someone, and in the process of asking them for their money or their life they shoot you, are you somehow now a victim? That doesn't square with me at all, I really think you are putting a lot of trust into the freakonomics author and not enough into the way life actually is. You can redefine anything you want to prove some point or other academically, but that doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality. And how many violent criminals only victimize one person?

[tburnsten]

111. no it isn't

Vigilantes hunt down criminals to dish out whatever form of justice they are in the mood for. Stopping an attack in progress at the moment the shooter, victim or not, realizes that a lesser action will not turn the attacker away, is not a vigilante action unless the shooter happens to be cruising the worst neighborhoods he or she can find specifically hoping to be attacked.


Using the Boondock Saints as an illustration, you are conflating the brothers killing the two russians in the beginning of the movie while they are attempting to murder them (what we are all talking about) with the brothers killing the mob boss at the strip club later in the movie (vigilantism). That is why you seem to be so alone in here.

[jmg257]

73. nevermind - just posted. Anyway, I don't own guns because they supposedly make society safer,

I own them because they make me safer.

[tburnsten]

87. Hell yes they do you selfish man!

[jmg257]

61. Or a justifiable homicide. Whether you are safer or not depends on which end of the gun you are on.

What would be a beating turns into a murder...

Given a choice, which we are, I prefer to be on the back end.


But your point is taken - it does indeed make sense that if there were NO guns in society, society would be safer from gun violence.