"Well, here it goes buddy"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


I understand the statement. I don't understand how you can think that.

Regarding the incoherent bit, I can't tell if you are claiming that a system of laws in inherently flawed ("Not judging them is not the same as believing in a system of law though") or if you're saying that you're ok with laws, but not judging (unclear how THAT would work).

Judging in a court of law has to do with a persons guilt, not what their value is as a human being. Thank God for that. I believe in a system of laws and justice.

I don't claim to judge the inherent worth of a person.

But you do. You said that you would be more upset if he had gone into the street and shot people at random. You ranked the value of the thieves lives.

I, like everyone else, can make judgments about people's actions, statements, etc. We all do this, all the time. Your claim that you don't ever judge people is hilarious bull****.

-Arrian

I judge the actions and the statements, not the worth of the people making them.

[Arrian]

"I never judge people!"

"Too bad that bastard didn't get shot. Maybe next time."



We all make judgments. Accept it.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
"I never judge people!"

"Too bad that bastard didn't get shot. Maybe next time."



We all make judgments. Accept it.

-Arrian

I retract my statement, do you retract yours?

[Arrian]

No. And at your retracting yours once it became a problem for your argument.

I said was that I didn't think shooting two thieves is *exactly the same* as firing randomnly into a crowd.

Shooting fleeing thieves in the back is not an appropriate use of deadly force. That doesn't make it exactly the same as another inappropriate use of said force.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Arrian
No. And at your retracting yours once it became a problem for your argument.

To be fair, that's part of how debate is supposed to work. You showed that his statements were contradictory, which forced him to concede a particular point. It's pretty rare for Kid to do that, actually.

That said, the rest of what he's saying is his usual ridiculous crap. I wonder why we indulge in it.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Arrian
The question is... manslaughter or murder? I'm leaning toward Elok's position (manslaughter).

edit - definition:

Hmm. Ashersnuggles thinks it was clearly premeditated. I see it as he clearly intended to intervene... whether he clearly intended to kill them is questionable. But quite possible. So maybe he should've been charged w/murder.

Time to show my ignorance of the law... if the state presses murder charges, can they downgrade to manslaughter mid-stream? Can one be charged with both?

-Arrian

in this country he would be charged with murder (and he would almost certainly be convicted). i'm not an expert on US law (or texas law) but given the circumstances and what's been posted here, it's hard to see how he could be charged with anything less than murder.

again talking from a UK point of view, he could be charged with murder and the prosecution could accept a guilty plea to manslaughter. alternatively, he could be charged with murder and the defence could successfully argue that he was provoked or had diminished responsibility and therefore he would be convicted of manslaughter. you can be charged with murder and it can be downgraded to manslaughter via a partial defence. you cannot be charged with both at the same time.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
No. And at your retracting yours once it became a problem for your argument.

Your the absolute worst at recognizing trolls. I said that to get you into a conversation. I thought it was pretty obvious but it worked. It's not really a problem with my argument, since it's not part of it. I do not actually wish the guy had been shot. You can choose not to believe me if you like, but that's irrelevant.

I said was that I didn't think shooting two thieves is *exactly the same* as firing randomnly into a crowd.

Shooting fleeing thieves in the back is not an appropriate use of deadly force. That doesn't make it exactly the same as another inappropriate use of said force.

-Arrian

I know what you said.

[Arrian]

Re: murder/manslaughter... Ok, that's kinda what I thought. So... yes, he should've been charged with murder. Whether or not it got reduced to manslaughter at trial or by plea bargain would be another question.

To be fair, that's part of how debate is supposed to work. You showed that his statements were contradictory, which forced him to concede a particular point.

Granted, except I don't think he means it. Which is why I laugh. Tommorrow he'll be judging someone else, just like the rest of us.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Your the absolute worst at recognizing trolls. I said that to get you into a conversation. I thought it was pretty obvious but it worked. It's not really a problem with my argument, since it's not part of it. I do not actually wish the guy had been shot. You can choose not to believe me if you like, but that's irrelevant.

Perhaps. Then again, it seems to me that "oh, I was just trolling" is the first refuge of the poster who realizes they said something stupid.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Perhaps. Then again, it seems to me that "oh, I was just trolling" is the first refuge of the poster who realizes they said something stupid.

-Arrian

People are equal /= stupid.

[Arrian]

Wait, you're retracting "people are equal, always" now?

The stupid statement to which I refer is the one you claim was just a troll. The "I wish he'd been shot" one.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

He was told to stay inside + he shot them in the back... murder it is.

Regarding the "victims": too bad but not an ounce of sympathy.

[Tattila the Hun]

Eh, I believe anyone committing crime should lose the protection of law for the duration of the crime being committed. You break the law, on purpose, to get something? Don't expect that same law to protect you, if something happens... Restrictions apply, of course. I don't think jaywalkers should be shot, for example. I'd suppose a distinction might be drawn between a crime, and a felony, or such.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Eh, I believe anyone committing crime should lose the protection of law for the duration of the crime being committed. You break the law, on purpose, to get something? Don't expect that same law to protect you, if something happens... Restrictions apply, of course. I don't think jaywalkers should be shot, for example. I'd suppose a distinction might be drawn between a crime, and a felony, or such.

You select the crimes based on which ones you commit obviously.

[Zkribbler]

The problem with that rule is there is too great a chance for an error.

Mantraps were made illegal when firefighters started being killed by them while trying to put out fires.

I pointed out in a post above that it was theoretically possible that the burglars here had been sent by the propery owner to fetch his desparately needed medication. (They hadn't been. They were just run-of-the-mill bad guys.)

You're certainly allowed to make a citizen's arrest and to hold perpetrators for the police. But a law which encourages shooting people is not a good idea.