People can surrender in combat, and expect POW treatment if they are lawful combatants. Non-combatants, and unlawful combatants (this dude falling into the former or, if you want to make a very strained point, the latter) are still entitled to surrender and, if in custody, a fair trial.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
do you realize that judge dredd is making fun of you, or do you cheer along like a complete idiot?
Do you realize that I am holding up a mirror to your idiocy?
Precisely so. I had meant to credit you with the primary chain on that.So what I said, only with more experience and less words.
Once lethal force has been introduced, you stop the threat. Period. Using whatever force you have available.
There was a video going around a year ago from Arizona (I think), where a subject had been wandering through a residential area, randomly firing off a rifle. The first officer was staying about 100-50 yards back, driving his patrol car, trying to block traffic from approaching further, telling other officers to stand off. The second officer simply took his Crown Vic up to about 65, and ended the potential threat.
Use what tools you have available to you. meet threat with reasonable and necessary level of force, and end the threat. Go home with the same number of holes you started the day with.
violently killed a human being*
at least have the courage to not use bullshit like this and "officer-involved shooting". the constant dehumanization is what causes half of the incidents that comprise this thread.
Dave
Staff member
You know nothing, Charlie Snow. You really have no idea what you are talking about here. I'm not even going to go into the psychological effects of empathy and a necessary killing for the sake and safety of others. There's a reason cops and the military have high degrees of alcoholism and relationship issues. They constantly tread a fine line between getting the job done and seeing people as nothing more than walking felonies. Police generally have a very high empathy rating and are concerned about the community. Dehumanization is as much a defensive technique as anything. And you can spout some of the things you do specifically because of these folks' ability to put aside their feelings and humanity for a short time and get shit done. But when the job is done it all comes crashing back.
I'm not saying you're entirely incorrect, I'm saying put the blame where it belongs and cut them some friggin' slack.
I'll bite.
To the best of my knowledge, the guy wasn't killed, but yes - had he died, the officer would have violently killed a human being, who had made a conscious decision to act in a violent and dangerous manner, endangering the general public.
I live with the knowledge that I might be forced to kill another human, every day. Any call may become violent. Any call may become deadly. And if I'm not prepared to meet that potential threat, I might not go home to my wife and kids.
So, yes - if the situation warrants it, I am fully prepared to kill another person, should it become necessary. I'm not sanguine about it, merely pragmatic.
Dave
Staff member
...he says from the safety of his living room behind his computer screen, never having to take responsibility for anything even remotely as weighty in his life...
Cajungal
Staff member
I think it's safe to say that most people can see the difference between killing a person who doesn't resist and killing a person who's made it clear that he doesn't intend to stop shooting people.
Can't imagine how hard it must be to have a job in the military or law enforcement. I've never had to make those kinds of decisions. These feelings don't eliminate my belief that there are problems that need to be solved, but yeah, lumping everyone together solves nothing.
Can't imagine how hard it must be to have a job in the military or law enforcement. I've never had to make those kinds of decisions. These feelings don't eliminate my belief that there are problems that need to be solved, but yeah, lumping everyone together solves nothing.
No see, thanks to the "ethical X is impossible under a Y system" school of memes, he's OK.[DOUBLEPOST=1467995021,1467994989][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, it does solve racism
Oh, this is the thread where we're talking about the robot bomb, ignore my surprise about it on the other one.
This is fucked up in all possible ways. I just can't understand people on the side against stricter gun control, it must be exhausting to have to mentally justify it after a mass shooting every other day.
This is fucked up in all possible ways. I just can't understand people on the side against stricter gun control, it must be exhausting to have to mentally justify it after a mass shooting every other day.
Heh, we need a "sad but true" badge/reaction thing.
I understand the whole "arming the populace as a tyranny deterrent" point and the 2nd amendment and all that. I'm in Mexico, I *know* stricter gun control isn't really the catch-all solution.... but I can't for the life of me grasp why people would be against better background checks, licenses for ammunition buying and all that. You have a right to a gun, cool, prove you're going to use it responsibly. You kinda have to to use a car legally, no? Why aren't there competency tests before allowing you to buy a gun or something.
It's just... gah.
I understand the whole "arming the populace as a tyranny deterrent" point and the 2nd amendment and all that. I'm in Mexico, I *know* stricter gun control isn't really the catch-all solution.... but I can't for the life of me grasp why people would be against better background checks, licenses for ammunition buying and all that. You have a right to a gun, cool, prove you're going to use it responsibly. You kinda have to to use a car legally, no? Why aren't there competency tests before allowing you to buy a gun or something.
It's just... gah.
GasBandit
Staff member
Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If we ever decide that really needs to change, there is a process in place for amending the constitution, and we've done so many, many times.
There is not, however, have a constitutional right to a car. (And in fact, you only have to have a license if you drive it on public streets... if it's, say, a pickup truck you only haul stuff around on the farm/ranch/your 100 acres of whatever, no license required).
I shouldn't have to "prove" I'm only going to say nice things before I exercise my freedom of speech, either.
Last edited:
Let's go ahead and extend that to freedom to associate. Licensing for guns and ammunition would be like telling people they can't meet together in clubs, groups, communities, or for religious observances unless they've taken classes, are licensed generally to associate with others, and for some types of meetings you'll have to get special permission to attend or organize one.
Ok, tell me something then: Is there a valid reason besides NRA lobbying for the Constitution NOT being amended already? AFAIK even many pro-gun right wingers are ok with some background checks being done, specially with mental health issues.
And everyone must know the 2nd amendment's definition of "arms" was more about muskets and not AR-15s, right?[DOUBLEPOST=1467999092,1467998906][/DOUBLEPOST]
You need a license to use big fireworks, doesn't mean you need one to be around them.
And everyone must know the 2nd amendment's definition of "arms" was more about muskets and not AR-15s, right?[DOUBLEPOST=1467999092,1467998906][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's a strawman if I ever saw one. No one's saying everything should be regulated the same way as weapons, explosives or heavy machinery.
You need a license to use big fireworks, doesn't mean you need one to be around them.
As a pro-gun liberal, I think there should be some gun control measures. But I see where the NRA stands, it is easier to shut down all gun control measures than it is to take a nuanced approach. NO sells to their constituents.
Also on the definition of "arms," the rifle owned by the average frontiersman was far more lethal than the musket carried by the infantry of the time.
The First Amendment actually says "the freedom of speech, or of the press", again, nice strawman.[DOUBLEPOST=1467999336,1467999265][/DOUBLEPOST]
Was the average frontiersman also far more lethal than the average infantry?
1) If you amend the constitution to reduce the second amendment's impact you might as well be getting rid of it. Not even moderate gun enthusiasts are interested in that.
2) The whole thing about "muskets vs AR-15s" is pointless. It's like saying, "The first amendment only covered speech expressed using voice in public halls and streets, and handwritten or at most using a manually typeset, manually operated printing press. They certainly couldn't have imagined audio amplification systems covering entire stadiums, long distance broadcasting, the internet, and high speed printing, and therefore the government can and should regulate those things to limit hate speech."
2) The whole thing about "muskets vs AR-15s" is pointless. It's like saying, "The first amendment only covered speech expressed using voice in public halls and streets, and handwritten or at most using a manually typeset, manually operated printing press. They certainly couldn't have imagined audio amplification systems covering entire stadiums, long distance broadcasting, the internet, and high speed printing, and therefore the government can and should regulate those things to limit hate speech."
GasBandit
Staff member
Obviously "many" is not enough to amend the constitution. The valid reason for the constitution amending it is not enough people believe it is the right thing to do.
In the same way that "freedom of the press" was about movable type ink printing presses and not about radio, TV, or the internet, right?
It's dangerous to chip away at the right that is the final guarantor of all the others.
I've explained my position on this forum hundreds of times. Yes, it is exhausting. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It's not me who forgets the violence, it is those who let the emotions brought on by the violence cause you to forget the reason why we still have what we have during times of calmer reflection.[DOUBLEPOST=1467999481,1467999412][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's not a strawman, it's an illustration of the ridiculousness of the "you know they were talking about muskets right" argument.
Yes, that's why we won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion
It might be dangerous to chip away at the right that is the final guarantor of all the others, but is it more dangerous than a mass shooting every other day?
Especially with so many people looking with a magnifying glass at every single word that would be changed?
Is that really more scary than the way things are now?
Especially with so many people looking with a magnifying glass at every single word that would be changed?
Is that really more scary than the way things are now?
Yes, individually. But line up 800 Hessians against 8 frontiersmen, you get 8 dead frontiersmen and at least 8 dead German officers.
Still a strawman, still not a logical argument. There's no specific amendment for press, it's part of free speech and doesn't need a narrower definition. "Arms" is it's own amendment, and does need a more specific definition. Is a grenade an "arm"? Is a nuke?
GasBandit
Staff member
I also want to come back to this and point out that we actually live in the least violent time ever known.
We just have a lot more cameras and a lot more global 24 hour news media.
You're wrong there. He made an argument from analogy (aka inductive reasoning). You could argue it's a false analogy, but it's on you to show that, not to yell 'strawman' and move on.
Yeah! Anonymous hasn't done anything wrong (except for maybe writing some bad poetry).
http://www.thegoparcade.com/game/thoughts-and-prayers-the-game
(suffers from the undefined "assault weapons" label, but still makes a point)
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
There's actually no mention of the word "musket" either.
The full text of the 2nd amendment is:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Let's just head off the discussion about what "well regulated" means, first of all... it doesn't mean "severely restricted by laws." It means "working correctly."
Basically, the idea is that in order for a free State to be secure, the militia (which means all able bodied citizens capable of fighting) needs to be a credible threat to tyranny, and that requires that their right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.
My own take on this is, as far as the founders were concerned, if a soldier carried it, it should also be available to the private citizen.
That does not mean nukes any more than it meant battleships back in the 18th century. THAT is a strawman argument.
I did argue why it's a false analogy, you might have a point about the semantics (and if I cared I'd still argue it's a strawman), but the point still stands. Press is covered by the 1st amendment which is about free speech. Not about only the press. Argue that "speech" had a different definition at the time and you might have a point.
GasBandit
Staff member
Out of curiosity, how would you rewrite the second amendment to be more general without mentioning "bearing arms" because so far as I can tell "bearing arms" is as general as "freedom of speech" and is limited in the same ways - you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, nor are you allowed to possess large scale explosives without permit.
So a suitcase nuclear device would be ok? How is that strawman when we know there's "carryable" nukes?
What about grenades? Rocket Launchers? All carryable, all arms?[DOUBLEPOST=1468000434,1468000317][/DOUBLEPOST]
Define arms as "non-automatic fire weapons" or whatever legal definition would make it illegal to carry anything that is not for hunting/self-defense. How is that even hard? Yes, it'd be a long, tedious process... but what lawmaking isn't?
You're all taking out the baby with the bathwater.
I think that had more to do with England having another war to deal with closer to home.