A teacher raised an interesting statement today...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Using the teachers logic, if you do not keep a gun in your home to protect your children and someone breaks in and harms them have you committed premeditated child abuse?
 
Natedogg

I am also a forensics major (2nd year grad school) I asked this to some of my teachers even my victimology teacher (liberal class IMO) said no way. Of course most of my teachers are present or ex officers.

What type of forensics major are you? I am a TI looking into Arson and homicide right now can't decide police or fire hahaha
 
Be Happy! It Could have been WORSE

This Nitwit could have been a JUDGE!
Course that would expose him to legal definitions, instead of neurotic ones.
:evil: :neener: ;)
Ditch the class..................
 
No, it's not BC. I'm talking about debate class at Stockdale High School, and the class is one of the biggest collections of sheeple that I've ever seen. Debate and logic is a great way to shape one's mind, but not with a leftist extremist at the wheel. I can see my classmates as clay mounds, ready to be molded. And under this man, they will be molded to his beliefs. Oh, here comes another 30 or so young people to the liberal way of thought.
 
I've found this definition and a few others regarding murder, many of them being similiar: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

The common words in all the definitions is "unlawful", "premeditated", and "malice". Ask him to elaborate on his thoughts, and if you cannot come to an acceptable answer, call him a moron and drop the class, seriously (well, not necessarily the moron part).

I once had a physics teacher who tried to use an elevator's motion in an example in class. He stated that when you go down in an elevator you will feel heavier. Conversely, when you go up in an elevator you will tend to feel lighter. The frightening part is that everyone in the class just wrote it down, which is where the term "sheeple" comes from. Anyway, 20 minutes later and with some frustration I had to teach the instructor about his lesson. I don't mean to sound arrogant about this, but if I have a teacher that doesn't know the basics, then he/she shouldn't be teaching. One other time I got up and walked right out in the middle of the lecture because I thought the teacher was full of... well, you know. But hey, I figure if I'm paying $800 dollars to take a class, I'm entitled to do that.

Hmm, didn't mean to hijack the thread, sorry about that. Anyway, I say stand up to you teacher and get him to explain himself. I always recommend being respectful even if you do feel frustrated though. Feel free to tell him that you feel his answer is unacceptable to you, unless he has proof or good logic and reasoning behind his statement.

Also, if you are the only one that thinks the way you do you aren't necessarily wrong, but keep an open mind because you probably are.
 
Owning a gun doesn't make you a premediated murderer any more than:
* owning a fire extinguisher makes you a premed. arsonist
* owning a knife makes you a premed. assaulter/murderer
* owning a car and alcohol makes you a premed. drunk driver/murderer
* being born with a penis makes you a premed. rapist
*being born with a vagina makes you a premed. prostitute
* owning a camera makes you a premed. child pornographer
*owning a bag of fertilizer makes you a mad bomber/murderer
* owning a baseball bat makes you a premed. murderer/assaulter
.... the list goes on and on.
And for all those bashing teachers, I happen to be a high school physics teacher. :fire:
 
Please don't be mad, I don't mean to offend teachers, I just mean to offend the bad teachers. The vast majority of teachers I've had were good ones so the bad ones are definitely in the minority. Just know your stuff or at least look it up before telling the class about it. I just don't like teachers drilling me about things that they are wrong about, an example of which I stated above.

For what it's worth, the best teacher I ever had, all the way through high school and 7 years of college, was my high school physics teacher, teaching at a public school.

From the end of your post, I got the vibe that you might be mad. While I don't hesitate to stand up for myself in an argument, I don't want to unintentially rub someone the wrong way. Messageboards make sarcasm and other attitude in posts look like actual criticism.

And, so I haven't completely gone off topic, self defense isn't murder. :)
 
This story has proven to be an urban legend, but still a good example of the basic flaw in your teacher's way of thinking:

"Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio by a female interviewer concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun control this is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between the female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald as he was preparing to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "

From Snopes.com:

Origins: As great a tale as this is, it's pure fabrication. It began life in 1999, purportedly about an "LTG Reinwald" of the US Army. In 2001 it reappeared, this time attributed to "Marine Corps General Reinwald."

The U.S. Army denies that there is a Lieutenant General Reinwald and chalks the whole thing up as a hoax. (Which is as logic dictated all along; if an armed forces spokesperson ever gave voice to a sexist remark likening a female interviewer to a prostitute, that officer would soon be called upon to make a very public apology as well as face charges within ranks for conduct unbecoming.)

National Public Radio had this to say about the matter:

"We are aware of an erroneous story posted on the Free Republic Website, and possibly elsewhere, which mentions a supposed interview between an unnamed NPR reporter and a U.S Army Lieutenant General Reinwald. The story is false -- the dialogue mentioned was not an NPR interview, and it never aired on any NPR program. "

Those who like their guns and who believe responsible gun ownership begins with teaching young people the right way to handle firearms at an early age have a great fondness for this story. As well they should, because this anecdote illustrates in a humorous way the difference between having the ability to do something and that ability dictating life choices.
 
Anyway, I say stand up to you teacher and get him to explain himself.
Click to expand...
That is the best advice.



It is early in the class, and it just may be that your teacher is trying to teach a valuable lesson in debate. That lesson is the technique of using your opponent's own words to discredit said opponent.

In a debate it is far less effective to argue in a way that attempts to sway your opponent to your line of reasoning. It is far more effective to turn your opponents words into tools that will simultaneously discredit your opponent, and sway the audience to believe in your line of reasoning.

In order to become adept at this, a person must learn to listen (not just hear - as my debate teacher used to say) to the opponents words, think critically about them - their accuracy/veracity/relevance/etc. - and blend them into the argument that one has prepared.

If your teacher is extraordinarily bright, it could be that he introduced the idea of this seemingly paradoxical (but utterly false) argument in order to see which student would seriously think about the proposition, and also be willing to challenge it. Both of those predispositions being vital in a person capable of effective debate.

If your teacher is in fact a moron, and he truly believes that well considered self-defense is premeditated murder; then remember to argue in a way that will persuade the rest of the class. The reason being that only a fool would argue with a fool, for the fool's sake. And any person that succeeds in reaching adulthood with the belief that self-defense is premeditated murder, is irretrievably a fool.

Good luck!
 
It would not be commited with malice which must be proved to convict someone of murder, the most one can expect to have stick without malice is manslaughter.

Even back in common law days "self-defense" was a acceptible.

Also the act of self defense lacks a major factor that one needs to try a criminal case..Mens Rea = guilty mind. if the person does not commit the act out of malice (as was stated earlier) than there can not be an effective trial. In addition to that one must prove motive, and although the media wants us to think, one can be just be made up on a whim.
 
Your teacher is also legally wrong. All crimes involve intent to commit the crime (or negligence that resulted in the act.) When you defend yourself, the intent is to preserve your life. There is no intent to cause harm to the other person...only to prevent harm to yourself.
 
I would have replied to that moron like this:

"So then, if someone attacked you, and you had already decided that you would not protect yourself, and this person killed you, would that not be suicide?"

I liked the police thing, too.

What logically applies to one, must apply to all.
 
Is your teacher British? Reminds me of agricola explaining that self defense was still legal in Britain.
  • Someone tries to murder you and you defend yourself with a stick you found lying on the ground=self defense
  • Someone tries to murder you and you defend yourself with a stick you carried specifically for self defense=possible legal trouble
 
I am a product of public schools, and I don't think I turned out that bad.
My HS social studies teacher was very clear about his reasons for owning firearms.
He wanted to be able to resist an oppressive government, and he didn't hide it.
They aren't all bad.
 
Murder is what the law says it is, unlike say, killing, which exists outside any legal context. So, if it is not murder according to the law, it is not murder. The definition of first degree murder usually requires specific malice aforethought. This guy sounds like he has a specific philosophical ax to grind, but it doesn't seem very sharp.
 
i agree with the rest. self defense isnt murder. and i'd challenge your teacher to find ANY culture or "rule of law" that specified otherwise.
 
i agree with the rest. self defense isnt murder. and i'd challenge your teacher to find ANY culture or "rule of law" that specified otherwise.
Click to expand...

Uh, England in the year 2003?

Not trying to be snotty. Just reminding us all how far down that road some societies have gone. What a shame.....
 
Self defense is not EXPRESSLY forbidden in england. Although it seems to be getting there quickly.
 
No, it's not BC. I'm talking about debate class at Stockdale High School, and the class is one of the biggest collections of sheeple that I've ever seen. Debate and logic is a great way to shape one's mind, but not with a leftist extremist at the wheel. I can see my classmates as clay mounds, ready to be molded. And under this man, they will be molded to his beliefs. Oh, here comes another 30 or so young people to the liberal way of thought.
Click to expand...

Well, then I would do my best to provide these students with counterpoints to all the leftist FUD that the instructor will be putting out there. Consider it a success if you can save just one.
In short, make it your mission in life to be a royal PITA to the "teacher". Counter every emotional argument with the facts, and never give up.
I would jump at the opportunity to have as much of an impact as you potentially do.
 
Apple has the right track---use a few of those arguements.

I used to do high-school debate in my not-so-innocent youth. While logic and reason have their important place, another valuable tool to use is, through leading questions, to use the counterpoint's arguements & statements to lead to irrational conclusions such as:

Do you currently possess kitchen knives/gasoline/camera/car?

Because they possess firearms, do you believe that the police actively plan to murder people?

Do you believe that self defense is a legal defense?

Do you believe that the possesion of other objects (knives, baseball bats, chairs, etc) shows premeditation if those items can be used in self defense?

Another thing: have a LOT of research handy to prove your position no matter which way he/she leads. (i.e. the last question: any articles about people using household items for self defense). This way, you look prepared and thoughtful.

Have fun...
 
timbo,
I'm not angry or offended by your post. I apologize if I came off that way. I do get irritated by the bash-teachers bandwagon that pulls into every thread having to do with education on this forum. Sometimes the teacher-bashing bandwagon gets pulled over for speeding by the bash-cops bandwagon but it almost never fails to show up sooner or later.

Moparmike,
I'm not sure if I would change 'fire extinguisher' to 'gas and matches' after all. I was kinda aiming towards the idea that a gun is a means to put out a crime before it destroyed life and property... like a fire extinguisher. I reckon your approach fits better with the others, though. It's another good point to bring up in class and argue. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top