rainbowbob
Member
In a word: No.
In several words: The assailant is entirely and solely to blame for his assault.
Unwilling to pull the trigger.
- Thread starter wideym
- Start date
- Status
In a word: No.
In several words: The assailant is entirely and solely to blame for his assault.
rainbowbob
Member
James T: I can't know what is in your mind - I only know what you wrote.
rainbowbob
Member
No...Particularly an untrained young woman with a Lorcin she had never fired before.
rainbowbob
Member
No... I would blame the person responsible for the attack.
I might have wished they had done something...but they have no duty to act unless they are an LEO. The average person with a modicum of training is not to be relied upon for my defense. That is my responsibility.
rainbowbob
Member
Ha...Of course! Defending me and mine is my responsibility. And I would probably also feel guilty if I failed to defend another innocent if it was within my power to do so.
Blaming myself for failing to perform what I consider to be MY duty (i.e., removing the beam from my own eye) - is much different than blaming another for failing to do what I might perceive as THEIR duty (i.e., removing the speck from their eye).
I take responsibility for my actions - and leave to others the responsibility for theirs.
bogie
Member
This shooter agrees with the esteemed Colonel, as this shooter at one time succumbed to the fad, and actually purchased a guitar.
alaskanativeson
Member
Bogie said:
Not in MY classroom they're not.
Bogie, take heart that in at least ONE classroom in America there is at least ONE teacher telling kids that being a victim is a matter of choice. Yes, we had a lockdown drill. No, the kids are not told to get under their desks, they go to the wall away from the door. I go by the door. I've explained that if someone is trying to get in the door that shouldn't be there they can trust that I'll be there to stop them. Of course it helps that I live in a place where every kid goes hunting every chance they get, which is weekly most of the year and almost daily in the Spring and Fall. I've talked about who the "Minutemen" were and why they were both important and successful.
I do try to make my teaching neutral from a political point of view (I teach Social Studies) but I have no doubt that my teaching would get me booted out of teaching the sheeple being raised in places like Massachussetts and San Francisco.
alaskanativeson
Member
Nightwing said:
That is true, I can't control other people's choices. If someone is going to choose to break in to my house and try to commit violence against me I can't control them doing it. What I can do is control their actions once they're there. They have their choice and I have mine. I choose to protect myself and those I love to the death.
I appreciate that there are many people here who have expressed understanding of people unwilling to drop the hammer on others. I do not have that understanding to the same degree that some of you do. With me it's more a resignation that there are some people unwilling to stand up for themselves. I don't understand it but I accept the fact.
rainbowbob
Member
No...The assailant is to be blamed for his attack. I am responsible for my defense. What part of that aren't you getting Lewis?
LawBot5000
Member
Wow, pretty pathetic story. If you don't want to avoid rape badly enough to kill someone, I guess you're going to get raped once in a while.
While I am unlikely to be raped anytime soon, I will gladly mulch anyone that breaks into my house, eardrums be damned.
And even though I know it is legally risky, I am pretty sure I would intervene if I saw someone else being attacked.
While I am unlikely to be raped anytime soon, I will gladly mulch anyone that breaks into my house, eardrums be damned.
And even though I know it is legally risky, I am pretty sure I would intervene if I saw someone else being attacked.
Don't worry, brother. The Judeo-Christian God has you covered.
From the Jewish Torah: "If a burglar is caught in the act of breaking in, and is struck and killed, it is not considered an act of murder".
From the Jewish Talmud: "If one comes to kill you, arise and kill him first."
Jesus Christ speaking to His disciples at the Last Supper: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36
LawBot5000
Member
The bible only ever forbade murder. God has always been OK with killing in self defense, war, etc. Additionally, the covenant commands capital punishment for a number of crimes.
One of the main benefits of being God's chosen people was that he would bless the Jews with victory in war. God promises to help the Jewish people against their enemies (with natural disasters, insect plagues, etc) but also warns that he won't do all the work. They have to pick up swords and get busy if they want his favor. God was a lot more active back in the day.
God is actually quite fond of killing in certain situations. For their transgressions during (I think) Exodus, God ordered the Jews to wipe out the Amalekites entirely and punished certain of the Jewish kings when they failed to prosecute the war with sufficient zeal.
In more modern times, the Catholic Church has repeatedly said that using deadly force in self defense is fine because your life is a precious gift and declining to defend it is an insult to God. I am really unsure of my memory of this, and the reasoning might have been different. I am 100 percent sure the catholic church recently said deadly force in self defense is A-OK.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but he was also taking up arms against the Romans, so I'm not sure I would take the forgiveness angle to an absurd place. I think Jesus would probably want us to defend ourselves and forgive later.
I am not a theologian obviously, errors surely abound.
One of the main benefits of being God's chosen people was that he would bless the Jews with victory in war. God promises to help the Jewish people against their enemies (with natural disasters, insect plagues, etc) but also warns that he won't do all the work. They have to pick up swords and get busy if they want his favor. God was a lot more active back in the day.
God is actually quite fond of killing in certain situations. For their transgressions during (I think) Exodus, God ordered the Jews to wipe out the Amalekites entirely and punished certain of the Jewish kings when they failed to prosecute the war with sufficient zeal.
In more modern times, the Catholic Church has repeatedly said that using deadly force in self defense is fine because your life is a precious gift and declining to defend it is an insult to God. I am really unsure of my memory of this, and the reasoning might have been different. I am 100 percent sure the catholic church recently said deadly force in self defense is A-OK.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but he was also taking up arms against the Romans, so I'm not sure I would take the forgiveness angle to an absurd place. I think Jesus would probably want us to defend ourselves and forgive later.
I am not a theologian obviously, errors surely abound.
GhostlyKarliion
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 426
Um, sorry rainbowbob, you are wrong there, the police have no duty to protect you, that has been decided by the Supreme Court.
Now, on the question of how much if any guilt lies with a person who has the ability to stop a heinous act refuses to do so, I don't think it would be right to hold such a person to any social responsibility, they have no legal requirement to act. However, they should and rightly so be held accountable by their own conscience.
In my eyes a man who could stop an evil act and simply refuses to do so is worse than the aggressor, but I have no right to hold someone else accountable to my standard of righteousness.
What we all have to realize IMHO is, if everyone had the mindset of that woman who refused to defend herself, we, as a species, would probably be extinct.
With our limited physical prowess, stronger and much faster wild animals would have wiped us off the face of the Earth by now IMHO.
That's the main reason why I go for the indoctrination theory.
God gave us the self-defense instinct IMHO, some choose to disregard that instinct by indoctrination.
With our limited physical prowess, stronger and much faster wild animals would have wiped us off the face of the Earth by now IMHO.
That's the main reason why I go for the indoctrination theory.
God gave us the self-defense instinct IMHO, some choose to disregard that instinct by indoctrination.
BigCompetator
Member
This is a sad story. and i wish her the best but i myself was raised with strong belief of the 2nd amendment as have alot of you honestly i believe if she had some training and a little range time this senario would have been different.
rainbowbob
Member
The Supremes decided, in effect, that the police do not have the ultimate responsibility to protect every person, everywhere, every time. The reason being of course that that is impossible and it would leave them open to a lawsuit everytime a crime occurred when they were not present. That ruling does not relieve them of the duty to act if a crime does occur in their presence. Most bad guys, however, do not do their dirty work in front of a cop.
rainbowbob
Member
Lewis...Are you just playing or do you REALLY not get it?
Last edited:
RancidSumo
Member
A few weeks ago one of my teachers told me that, I told him that the right amount of violence will solve any problem. He changed the subject after that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
