...I really don't know what to do if stuck in a situation, where you have to attack someone to defend yourself. But I think I most likely would adopt the position as written in the book Catch-22 of "I would rather die than fight."

It just seem wrong to deny others the right to life just so that you can keep your right to live. It seems so...hypocritical, and not only that, you are doing a crime. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that jazz.

I can understand why others would defend themselves, but I cannot see me defending myself.

...I really don't know what to do if stuck in a situation, where you have to attack someone to defend yourself. But I think I most likely would adopt the position as written in the book Catch-22 of "I would rather die than fight."

It just seem wrong to deny others the right to life just so that you can keep your right to live. It seems so...hypocritical, and not only that, you are doing a crime. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that jazz.

I can understand why others would defend themselves, but I cannot see me defending myself.

But I have not decided that his life is not worthy of continuing, only that my life well being and my property is mine and his desire for it does not get him the right to expropriate it. If he is willing to accept that I resever the right to protect myself.

I worked for 18 months in a convenience store on graveyard, and carried with me a Japanese design short sword. Some wag asked if I was afraid to work those hours because of the the hours, and i said I would stop any armed robber. When he laughed at the sword, I commented softly 'There are only three areas on the human body where you can guarantee killing a man with a gun using only one shot. I am willing to bet he will put me in the hospital, but I will put him in the morgue'.

During that time, the store was robbed three times, once on swing, one on evenings, once on graveyard. But no one ever thought about it while I was there on shift. I do know for a fact that one crook who robbed another store pulled up outside, saw me inside, and decided to go somewhere else.

I can understand why others would defend themselves, but I cannot see me defending myself.
Under the US system in criminal justice, you can protect yourself. It is called self defense. If you kill the attacker in the process, it becomes mitigating circumstances. It is not an excuse because you have no right to take the life of another human being. You do have the right to protect yourself because under the Declaration, you have the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Under the US system in criminal justice, you can protect yourself. It is called self defense. If you kill the attacker in the process, it becomes mitigating circumstances. It is not an excuse because you have no right to take the life of another human being. You do have the right to protect yourself because under the Declaration, you have the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not always. The liberals have been undercutting that trying to apply the same rules they use for the police. In other words, they expect every citizen to react as if trained for the situation.

Case in point with obvious sexual bias;

A man breaks into your house and you grab your fire arm. You empty it into him.

If you're a woman this is accepted. If your a man, you are using excessive force after the second shot.

And as for your rights to protect yourself, cases in point;

A man broke into a house in New York owned by a retired police officer in his seventies. The 18 year old dope fiend began slapping him around with his revolver, demanding that the 'white trash' give him all the money'.
In fear for his life, he tried to escape upstairs, but the boy followed. They struggle for control of the gun on the stairs, they roll down the stairs the gun goes off, killing the thief. The police walk through the incident while the man is taken to the hospital for treatment of a fractured leg.

Before he has time to settle in, a lawyer comes, and slaps him with a lawsuit because the thief is the sole support of his family.

If that isn't bad enough THEY WON! He won on the appeal.

Another case had a man shoot a burlgar in the leg and ended up with a half million dollar lawshuit he lost because he had used excessive force and cause emotional scarring because he continued to aim the weapon at the man as he called the police.

I agree with curmudgeon (cranky old man? :xp: ).

It's ridiculous how over-sensitive we've become. If someone's threatening you and breaking into your house, people get worked up when you use force to subdue them. What the hell were they doing in your house in the first place? Boo hoo, they were the sole provider? Chances are you are providing for a family as well, why can't they get a job and do it the way everyone else does?

In my opinion, if you threaten someone with force, you immediately make it legal for them to initiate force back, and you (initial initiator :xp:) void some of your rights, namely the right to sue in leiu of the defender instituting excessive agressive force.

Most people look at me funny when I say this, but remember...what were they doing using force in the first place? If you didn't attack or threaten someone/their property then it wouldnt be happening to you.

If someone attacks you then you should use any and all means to defend yourself, including deadly force if nessecary. Though most times it shouldn't be nessecary, if you can grab an assailent's head and smash it against a wall that's one of the best things you can do. But if you need to drop them, drop'em. Is it moral? If your life is at risk then your right to live overrides that of whoever is trying to kill you.

There are limits within the law though. Take law enforcement officers. They can exercise the use of force but it has to be a reasonable amount. An example would be the episode of Law and Order SVU. Detective Stabler and Detective Bensen went to pick up a suspect. They approached the suspect and identified themselves and like always the suspect decides to evade arrest. Stabler chases the suspect down and Bensen goes to cut him off. Well the suspect runs into a fence and tries to scale it. Stabler manages to catch up and pulls the guy off. The suspect takes a swing at Stabler and misses. Stabler responds with a punch to the face and pushes the suspect to the wal and brings the arms around the neck. Unfortunately the suspect died but that was found as a result of not taking his meds for a heart condition. My point is that Stabler exercised reasonable amount of force on a suspect that was suspected of murder and sodomy mind you. Police officers have a right to exercise reasonable amount of force if the suspect is hostile, deadly if their lives are in danger. It ticks me off so much when the media and people think that every time a cop takes down a suspect on the pavement, it is police brutality. Granted that there are a few bad apples, it doesn't mean all are like that. It peeves me that the media can never say anything good about what the PD does for the community.

It peeves me that the media can never say anything good about what the PD does for the community.

Well because the PD is supposed to do good stuff for the community. "If a dog bites a man, it's not news. If a man bites a dog, it's news."

And besides, I don't want to see on the front page of Reuters: "POLICE OFFICERS HEROICALLY PULL OVER SPPEDER AND GIVE SPEEDER A TICKET!" or something to that effect. Praising the police makes the nation looks like a nation that supports its cops a bit too much...as well as sometimes gets too hypocritical. Trust me, if I ever break the law (by going 1 mile above the Speed Limit), I don't think I want to go and support the police in its quest for justice, I want to go and not get caught.

The way the press deals with the press is if it's really good, they get kudos, as they did after the North Hollywood shoot out. Knwoing what i do about combat, I would have run to the nearest gun store without orders to get heavuer firepower.

But if it goes the other way, all you get is tearjerking news coverage. People forget that Rodney King had first led the cops on a high speed chase, then had berated them and tried to hit an officer. All they remember is the beating.

And no, before you ask, I think it was abuse. I know the difference.

I think they actually did go to a local gun store looking for weapons to penetrate all the body armor the bank robbers were wearing. This was a cut scene in the SWAT movie where the beginning recreates the Hollywood bank shootout, I think it's real.

With police using force, of course at times it's police brutality. Look at Rodney King. There was that guy who was shot 80 or 90 times. But the media have no right to criticise actions taken in a life or death situation when they can't even load a gun properly, especially when there are times police should use deadly force and don't. Using police shows as a base for how it is it happens all the time, and it'd be the same in real life. One thing I don't understand is that police, SWAT, say they're life saving, roll out the non lethal weaponry. They have the bean bag guns, tear gas, get some fire truck and turn the hose on some criminal or rioting crowd.

At times yes if they go overboard with the use. But as I have emphasized, the police have providence to excercise the use of force and like I said before with a reasonable amount. If that involves using a fist to take down a suspect because the suspect resisted arrest by swinging at the cop, then that is reasonable. Most people don't understand the concept within the confines of the law. All they see is that the police are ganging up on someone. The basic mantra of the police is to protect and to serve. By being granted to use force to bring down a suspect, they are serving and protecting the community by removing someone that could potentially harm others.

I don't know about the Rodney King incident but as mach pointed out, people semed to have forgotten that he evaded the police in a high speed pursuit. He then resisted arrest by striking an officer. If it escalated into a fist fist, then the officers were perfectly within their right to us force.

The use of force is a debateable subject since there are people who think that to strike someone in defense is bad while others say you have a right to defend yourself. Under the Declaration, we have the right to life, liberty, and th epusuit of happiness. If a person is threatened, they have a right to defend themselves. The amount of force comes into question depending on the defendant's size and relative weight to the attacker. There are limits to the amount of force you can use.

Of course, and with Rodney King for example he was shown to be beaten down with a piece of wood. What, the capsicum spray didn't work? And when the all white jury found the officers not guilty you can't blame LA for erupting into riots.

Of course, and with Rodney King for example he was shown to be beaten down with a piece of wood. What, the capsicum spray didn't work? And when the all white jury found the officers not guilty you can't blame LA for erupting into riots.
That is why now we try to get more diversity on the jury panels and/or a change of venue. Of course the media is going to make a big deal with celebrities. On the layer cake model of criminal justice, they get all the attention and at the bottom are the misdemeanors. Next to celebrities, capital cases get alot of media. Why not call that an abuse of force since we kill them?

Talk about physical force now. Hitting Rodney King with a piece of wood was crossing the line maybe. Without physical evidence that I can see at the moment I can't make that accurate of a call. Now if he had been cooperating with the cops and then been hit for no reason, that would constitute as police brutality and IAD would be in their faces. Pepper spray doesn't always do the trick especially if someone is aroused to a state where they don't care and just want to hit something. Reasonable amount is hard to define but mostly it's a common sense issue.

A man breaks into your house and you grab your fire arm. You empty it into him.
Technically you cannot justify the use of deadly force on a guy who commits a burglary with the intent to steal. You would be charged with assualt with a deadly weapon or murder or manslaughter. Now if you had said that the guy entered with the intent to harm you or your family, then that is another story. Mitigating circumstances because technically no one has the right to take another man's life.

Actually with Rodney King it was the beating that made him famous. The media jumped all over the case because the arrest was seen as racial hatred and fanned the flames of tension towards whites and the athorities who persecuted black criminals. Of course you know what happened then...the jury of ten whites, one Hispanic and one Asian gave the not guilty verdict, BOOM.

The way laws are designed to defend criminals at every opportunity is absolute horse puckery, according to the law you cannot defend yourself, not at all, you cannot be aggressive, you have to be seen to be as much of a victim as possible otherwise action won't be taken, and if anything happened to the criminal he could sue, and probably even win.

The way laws are designed to defend criminals at every opportunity is absolute horse puckery, according to the law you cannot defend yourself, not at all, you cannot be aggressive, you have to be seen to be as much of a victim as possible otherwise action won't be taken, and if anything happened to the criminal he could sue, and probably even win.
The original idea behind the Supreme Court Cases especially concerning miranda rights, it was to protect those that were suspected of a crime and allow for due process as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However with time and the slick talk of attorneys, we have a holy mess that seems to protect criminals and not the victims. The Kobe Bryant rape case is a good example. Even though we have the rape shield laws, attorneys can still bring up past sexual affiliations if they are relevant.

For all the rights that accused persons have...I would rather let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person go guilty.

Why? Because by doing such a thing, we would become guilty ourselves, no? Unless...you are willing to become JUST a bit guilty in order to acccomplish a greater goal. I wouldn't object to framing a homeless man for a crime he didn't commit if it makes people happy that the justice system is working, and act as a detterence. The question is: Would you?

For all the rights that accused persons have...I would rather let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person go guilty.
You merely reminded me of something someone said about capital punishment. We were discussing why it takes so blery long to execute someone who is on death row.


Why? Because by doing such a thing, we would become guilty ourselves, no? Unless...you are willing to become JUST a bit guilty in order to acccomplish a greater goal. I wouldn't object to framing a homeless man for a crime he didn't commit if it makes people happy that the justice system is working, and act as a detterence. The question is: Would you?
As someone who just had a taste of criminal law and the criminal justice system, I am well aware that the system is imperfect. Part of it has to be common sense. I would like to believe that the evidence tells all but we know that circumstantial evidence merely implies while direct evidence puts the person at the scene of the crime. Undoubtably we are going to have errors because the system is imperfect and humans are imperfect. Due process was written into the Bill of Rights by Madison so as to assure the people that they were protected from the law while being prosecuted for a crime. It sounds oxymoronish but if you think about it, we would scream bloody murder if we didn't have due process and our rights were infringed. It goes against the principles that guided independence.