Would You Support? Thread Closed


PDA






cslinger
July 24, 2005, 01:23 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=148447

Succinctly summed up by Preacherman.
The only reason to shoot anybody is to stop the immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat they are offering to your own life and/or health.

That was exactly my point.

We have alot of folks in a lot of threads that immediately say we should pretty much kill every muslim or middle easterner simply because they "Might" very well kill us in the future. This is wrong. Just as wrong as suggesting that we pre-emptively kill any "potential" gang bangers.

I was trying to make a point in order to fight crime, terrorism or anything for that matter you must strike at those folks actively engaged in attempting to do you harm, not simply lash out at all those who "might".

Didn't mean to ruffle any mod feathers with that one. I was just trying to make a point.

Chris

If you enjoyed reading about "Would You Support? Thread Closed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Rojo
July 24, 2005, 01:41 AM
I thought it was a good point. I am in a devil's advocate type mood tonight so I saw it right away. An excellent illustration.

Mal H
July 24, 2005, 01:48 AM
You certainly made your point much clearer in this thread than in the previous one. You have to admit, there was no clue in that one that you were asking a rhetorical question or that there was a higher meaning in it.

cslinger
July 24, 2005, 02:01 AM
No offense intended. I wanted to illicit a few "Absolutely NOT" responses, preferably from some of the folks who say kill em all and let God sort them out and then make my point.

I thought about make some warning as such but thought it might lose impact.

Chris

Cesiumsponge
July 24, 2005, 02:02 AM
I caught the "chances are" part in the post and went to modify it. It was locked by the time I hit "submit". I thought it was some Minority Report-type bad sci-fi question when I first read it.

I made the example of if one would terminate someone who consumed alcohol because "chances are" he might drive drunk one day and hit someone. Anyhow, I find it hard to punish someone for something someone might do.

Any child might grow up to be the next Einstein or Hitler.

KriegHund
July 24, 2005, 02:06 AM
A minority report type deal is not what i would want...especially when they say the system is flawless, because then it always end up screwing humanity or something terrible like that ;)

PaladinVC
July 24, 2005, 02:50 AM
There are so many ways for humanity to totally bone itself. What we need is an elite squad of anarchists and luddites who will take hammers and Zippos to any new technology or idea. It's the only way to avoid being displaced by androids and aliens and bad ideas.

Butch
July 24, 2005, 11:04 AM
This goes back to the question, if you could go back in time & find Hitler in his crib, would you let him live?
That has always been an instering problem to me, because if you kill him, you are a baby killer, but if you let him live then you have allowed WW2 to start & become the deciding factor in genocide.
What would I do, ................................? :confused:

dpesec
July 24, 2005, 11:08 AM
you could change the past. If you subscribe to Quantum theory it's already happened. There's a universe for every decision.
So in one universe Hitler didn't live.
Boggles the mind.

thatguy
July 24, 2005, 12:01 PM
In most states the law requires the "immediate, or clear and present danger" doctrine to justify deadly force. In general, I agree.

But how about the California case a few years ago where the retired Navy man was threatened by a local punk. The man was a witness against the thug in court, and the criminal confronted the man, on his own property, and assured him that because of his testimony his wife would be killed in retaliation. The man took the creep at his word and shot him dead. His reward was a conviction for murder and a long prison sentence.

The law (according to the prosecutor, the judge and the jury) said that the threat wasn't enough. I disagree. There was every reason to believe this goon, who had a long record of violent criminal behavior, was serious in this threat. I think that a verbal threat combined with the knowledge that the speaker is a violent criminal is grounds for using deadly force.

Anyone else have an opinion? Verbal threats justification for deadly force?

Baba Louie
July 24, 2005, 12:54 PM
Anyone else have an opinion? Verbal threats justification for deadly force? Ya gotta be able to convince a jury and I think there are darn few attorneys out there good enough to sell that concept in present day USofA, CA.
Texas, Montana or Wyoming... maybe. Probably not.

Kinda goes back to the old nursery rhyme taunt of "Sticks and Stones... but WORDS will never hurt me" whether it represents prior intent or no. Continuum of Force says the law. A good thing.

Re: Kill them all and let... sort them out.

One Hundred Fifty years ago the Gov't in America did just that to the local Natives for the most part. Make a promise, break it, a few angry (and probably justified) young braves and warriors strike back in retaliation; their entire tribe gets wiped off the face of the earth. Give up in peace, leaders get killed in a reservation jail cell.

The old saying, "The only good Injun is a..." was believed by many and acted upon officially. Stone age/hunter-gatherer/no wheel technology vs. steel tools, gunpowder and disease that Europeans had developed an immunity to (for the most part). This nation continued to rise to greatness. Some think it arrogant.

Omelette... broken egg.

Jihad from a few young believers to our nations (cabin) door. Attacking our covered wagons.

Should you kill off their buffalo herd or not?

History has a way of repeating itself by those that either don't know it or fail to remember it.

Nations/Civilizations have fallen in the past due to blended cultures, soft leadership and the rot within. Evolution at work.

The strong continue to survive while the rest of the intellectual world despise them for being strong. The starving poor just want their rice bowl filled.

One group conquering another. So goes the story of mankind.

How will it all end?

Probably with the strongest and smartest at the top of the heap.

Or cockroaches dancing on our graves. ;)

jefnvk
July 24, 2005, 01:10 PM
Well, that certainly cleared that up. I was kinda wondering where you were going when I read it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Would You Support? Thread Closed" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!