Re: WHAT TIMING!!

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 8/29/07, Oliver Schneider <Borbarad () gmxpro net> wrote:


> ... and it is also a well-known fact that any kind of self-defense has to be lethal to the original attacker.

This has been argued for years in LE, military and self-defense
circles. The generally held thought is that you shoot until the
attacker is neutralized. This is for legal and tactical purposes.

> > It was accidental - but the perp is dead, regardless. Lets say you
> > didn't have a club but you did have a gun and you shot him, murder?

> Depends again, which makes it so hard to distinguish afterwards (or maybe unnecessary, even). However, exactly these 
> borderline cases - at least they should be borderline in an intact society - are the best to defend your point and 
> the worst for me, because everyone the trump card of "your daughter being raped by ..." can be played in almost any 
> case.

I don't understand what it depends on - did I not understand you
correctly when you stated you see no difference between murder and
killing?

> So is it a borderline case in your society?

No.

> How often is the whole thing about a thief, not a rapist?

In most cases you must retreat if given the opportunity and can only
shoot when in fear of your life or the life of another. Another
exception is in the case of an arsonist who's about to perform, or
performing, his work on a possibly inhabited structure. In other
words, a life must be threatened.

In Missouri and few other states new laws have provided the home owner
with a little more power - stating that they need not flee their own
home.

> With proper restrictions the criminal would less often have a gun on him, because he might feel that he doesn't have 
> to "defend" his life from the house owner who's "defending" his/her property.

Based on this sentence I have to ask if you understand the definition
of "criminal". What restrictions do you place on a "criminal" that
prevents him/her from doing what he/she damn well pleases? Further,
property ownership being a right, you have every right to defend it.

The criminal has asked to be shot just by entering your home and
besides, how do you know what his intentions are - until its too late?
Outside of the home most states in the US have a "graduating level of
aggression" rule - you can't pull a pistol in a fist fight, for
instance, but if a knife comes out, shoot away.


> > You should keep in mind that such a perp in such a situation could at
> > any moment infect your wife or daughter with AIDS (killing them,
> > essentially) should you not act quickly enough.
> Yes, that's why I agree with the "in the heat of the moment" argument, but without guns this would prove far more 
> often non-lethal, I am sure. And I mean for *both* sides.
>
> Now, I already suspect that the trump card of "that will allow criminals to get guns, because they don't care about 
> laws anyway - leaving us without defense". Weeeelllll ;) ... taking into account that there are a lot of countries on 
> earth which have more restrictions on guns and a considerably lower rate of homicide, I'd say: give it a try then!

The problem with your logic is as described above - you can't place
restrictions on criminals, they, by definition, do not abide by them.
Further, once you have removed the populace's ability to defend itself
you have assumed that role. What police force, that you know of, is
legally *liable* for preventing someone from being assaulted?
Naturally, there isn't one. So, as it was in the begging, continues to
be and always will be, you are personally responsible for your life.

> Also the often cited ability to overthrow the government ... how often has that been exercised so far?

Several times every century, on varying degrees of scale.

> > I know most all of the popular motives - I'm asking you which motive
> > you're going to attack first. But let me explain, its a joke. The one
> > true motive is the human condition and their isn't a "fix" for that.
> Good. Is there more to it than the statement? How did you verify that claim? And btw, greed would be a good point to 
> start with.

I have no idea how to approach this question at this time. The truth
of the statement is so self-evident to me I can't develop an
explanation. Its like asking someone why they think they're alive.

> > <Oliver> There is no license to kill - for no one and from no
> > one.</Oliver>
> >
> > <Brian>Where does this idea of yours come from? If religious - I"m
> > unaware of a single religion which forbids killing. If its not, well
> > then, its an atheist free-for-all - or it comes down to property rights.

> However you like to see it.

I'm asking about how you see it.

> This was, by the way, aimed at the "soldier == murderer?" question. And reassuring families of soldiers doesn't make 
> them less murderers to me. Sorry, that's also a fact.

Its only a fact in your mind. In truth the only difference between
killing and murdering is intent and the personally held beliefs of the
one doing the killing/murdering. Its a moral/spiritual dilemma - not
an intellectual one.

> "You shall not covet your neighbour's oil^Whome" ...

Just when you think you're in a rational discussion with someone -
BAM! Reality sinks in and you find the same snide, baseless remarks
being made again...

> but anyway, if you are a soldier you got the license to kill in whatever situation and for whatever purpose?!

Of course not, as I think the Nuremberg trials showed.


> Thanks, this will certainly make a lot of victims of <plug-in-nationality> soldiers as well as the families of both, 
> soldiers and victims, happy, convincing them that their killer/relative was a good person. Including soldiers under 
> the command of aggressors, dictators ... you name it, of course.

I have no idea what you're talking about. But you should note that
several of history's greatest horrors followed the same time line for
firearms laws: registration - confiscation - mass murder.


> But I think I can see what you're up to. Because the soldier is "forced" to follow the commands (his life being 
> threatened if he doesn't), he's not responsible for what he does, but ultimately whoever is is in command - which 
> then boils down to the small group of leaders or a single person. Is that what you mean?

No, that's not what I mean. I can only suggest, at this point, that
you spend some time studying the purpose of the military.  They're a
self-defense tool. They've been used for aggression, but their proper
role is self-defense.

Even the German soldiers weren't bad guys, their intent was to save
their race - or w/e BS was fed to them - and then later their country.

As I tell my son when we're watching old war movies and he asks who
the bad guys, "its war, they're soldiers, there are no bad guys - just
bad leaders with bad ideas."

> Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that view, because as Walter E. Williams said in his article: "That has to be 
> nonsense. Guns do not commit crimes; people do.". Which means that a soldier is to choose whether:
> 1. he wants to be court-martialled (in wartimes usually done "in situ", resulting in the death of the soldier)
> 2. he wants to kill a potentially large number of people - including the previously mentioned children, daughters, 
> grandmas ... you name it.

That's a pretty disgusting argument you're making...

> Interestingly many sane people have gone crazy over the fact that they "had" to kill as soldiers. It doesn't make 
> them less a murderer *to me*, but it adds a tragic dimension to the cases that let's me feel with them.

When you pull your head out of your ass on this one you might start to
THINK as well as feel.


> But tell me, where exactly do you draw the line between "killing" (as a soldier), "murder" and "war atrocity"? Does 
> it not depend on the victor or the victim?

No. It depends on the intent, which will dictate whether or not it was
legal in accordance with the community's standards, and the
moral/spiritual beliefs of the killer/murderer.


> > [reworded] In all of these instances, the morals concerning the taking
> > of another man's life only consider it murder when the motive is selfish
> > (revenge, money, hate) as opposed to save the life of one's self, the
> > life of another or property.</Brian>
> Hmm, saving one's own life isn't selfish? That's new to me.

Of that, I have no doubt. Self preservation is no more selfish that
giving birth to a kid.

> The only excuse in that case and the case of your kinsfolk is, that humans have a certain instinct for their own 
> survival - and it's hard to suppress instincts. That's why there is usually no penalty for killing in self-defense, 
> whether accidentally (with a "less lethal" weapon) or intentionally (e.g. with a gun). Doesn't make it less selfish, 
> does it?

Selfish doesn't enter into it.

> Sorry, but property is a bit misplaced on your list. But maybe you are, at last, allowed to covet (and take) your 
> neighbor's oil anyway? Well, then it's a whole different story, of course.

We're talking about defending property, not taking it. As much as you
might like to twist the argument into some ignorant political
statement, it has nothing to do with politics.

I would like to know where you live though. You probably have lots of
cool stuff and I could just come and take it away - without having to
worry about you doing anything, even calling the cops! I'm in need of
a new stereo tuner, got one? If so, save me some trouble and just ship
it to me, I'll provide the mailing address off-list.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.