Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jean Charles de Menezes verdict
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 113 (432092)
11-03-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Legend
11-03-2007 4:00 PM


Sorry my point wasn't clear.
At the risk of taking the analogy far beyond its utilities to make a specific point, that is exactly what the Bush administration did: they claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda was in cahoots, and that sleeper cells existed in the U.S. and other countries, and, in fact, Iraq did invade its neighbors and posed a constant threat to other nations.
At least, though, the Bush administration claimed that Iraq posed an imminent danger that needed to be dealt with immediately. CK claimed that the trespasser in question was running away -- he therefore didn't pose an immediate threat, and it is legitimate to question whether the use of force was necessary. In response, it was claimed there was some vague possibility that the trespasser would pose a threat in the future. It is legitimate to question whether that is sufficient to justify the use of deadly force -- that was the point I was trying to raise. Sorry that it wasn't clear.
CK claimed the shooter was a psycho. That wasn't disputed in the response. But it does seem warranted to question whether a psycho's claim of being threatened really excuses his use of violence; in fact, psycho's tend to be considered to be a danger to society precisely because they cannot be counted on to refrain from the use of inappropriate violence.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added subtitle.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Legend, posted 11-03-2007 4:00 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-03-2007 7:08 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 47 of 113 (432096)
11-03-2007 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
11-03-2007 6:00 PM


I understood your point the first time
quote:
At the risk of taking the analogy far beyond its utilities to make a specific point, that is exactly what the Bush administration did: they claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda was in cahoots, and that sleeper cells existed in the U.S. and other countries, and, in fact, Iraq did invade its neighbors and posed a constant threat to other nations.
No, this is a false analogy, the equivalent of making a false accusation about someone and then going to their house and beating them up. The US had no reason to feel threatened, they just claimed they did.
Martin's case is the total opposite: two intruders broke into his house at night. He shot them and killed one of them as he was running away.
If you want to use the Iraq case, a more appropriate analogy would be: Iraq army invades Britain / US, they're pushed back and we nuke them as they're retreating, but still within our soil.
And if you want to look at a real life case of such a scenario just look at the Falklands war, the Belgrano incident. The Argentinian battleship was sunk while it was outside the exclusion zone and heading away. Noone was ever charged with anything, on the contrary the incident was justified by the British PM at the time. Again, two standards here, one for the government, another for the common pleb.
quote:
CK claimed the shooter was a psycho. That wasn't disputed in the response.
No, because it's irrelevant WRT his right to self-defense. Are you suggesting that mentally-ill people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves if they're threatened?
quote:
In response, it was claimed there was some vague possibility that the trespasser would pose a threat in the future.
No. I said that in such a situation one might interpret someone's moving away in different ways, one of which might be that he's just manoeuvring for another attack (see Belgrano incident). That's precisely the point: you don't know what he's going to do, so it should be well within your rights -as the victim of the intrusion- to respond pro-actively in order to safeguard your person/family/home.
quote:
But it does seem warranted to question whether a psycho's claim of being threatened really excuses his use of violence;.
His use of violence should be excused by the simple fact that he was confronted by two intruders in the middle of the night in his own home. His right to defend himself against this real and present threat should be taken as granted regardless of whether he's a psycho, a Catholic, gay, illiterate, or whatever.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 11-03-2007 6:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 7:54 AM Legend has replied
 Message 60 by Chiroptera, posted 11-04-2007 12:19 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 48 of 113 (432098)
11-03-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Omnivorous
11-03-2007 3:46 PM


quote:
That he only served three years seems perfectly consonant with the police shooting an innocent man 7 times in the face.
sorry, I'm not following. Could you make this point clearer for me please?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Omnivorous, posted 11-03-2007 3:46 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 49 of 113 (432149)
11-04-2007 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Legend
11-03-2007 7:08 PM


Re: I understood your point the first time
Again, two standards here, one for the government, another for the common pleb.
I'm confused. The Belgrano incident was perfectly legitimate activity in war for one (the exclusion zone is just for neutral vessels). However, assuming that the Belgrano incident was bad - do you think that this is a similar incident to Tony Martin at a governmental scale? Do you think they are equally bad or equally good acts? Or do you think Tony Martin was OK, but the British government was not?
Noone was ever charged with anything, on the contrary the incident was justified by the British PM at the time.
And also justified as legitimate war action by the Captain of the Belgrano, and the Argentinian government as well as the Rear Admiral in charge of the group the Belgrano was part of. You could probably do with finding a better analogy.
The point is that self-defence requires an imminent threat to yourself or to other people. The police officers at the scene were advised that this man presented an imminent threat, which is why they were not charged with murder, because it is reasonable for them to trust their superiors.
The police force in general failed to establish correctly that he was an imminent threat, which is why they were found guilty. I am appalled that Blair has not resigned over the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-03-2007 7:08 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 8:35 AM Modulous has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 50 of 113 (432155)
11-04-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
11-04-2007 7:54 AM


Re: I understood your point the first time
Modulous writes:
I'm confused. The Belgrano incident was perfectly legitimate activity in war for one (the exclusion zone is just for neutral vessels). However, assuming that the Belgrano incident was bad - do you think that this is a similar incident to Tony Martin at a governmental scale?
Yes, with the difference being that Martin had an even more legitimate reason to respond pro-actively, as the intrusion occured in his own home and not some disputed backwater 3000 miles away. Also, the intruder (Belgrano) was already outside the exclusion zone (home) so our forces should have even less reason than Martin to fear it.
Modulous writes:
Do you think they are equally bad or equally good acts? Or do you think Tony Martin was OK, but the British government was not?
I think they were both valid and legitimate acts of self-defense. If anything, Martin's act was even more legitimate as he was a lone, middle-aged man in his own home and not a higly-trained task force sent to defend a disputed territory on the other side of the world.
I'm pointing out the hypocricy of a society and justice system that tolerates, even glorifies, the one while vilifing and punishing the other.
Modulous writes:
And also justified as legitimate war action by the Captain of the Belgrano, and the Argentinian government as well as the Rear Admiral in charge of the group the Belgrano was part of. You could probably do with finding a better analogy.
I never disputed its legitimacy. The only better analogy I can find would be the one I mentioned in an earlier post, i.e. Iraqi army invades Britain and is nuked while retreating.
Modulous writes:
The police officers at the scene were advised that this man presented an imminent threat, which is why they were not charged with murder,
And Martin was confronted by two strangers in his house the middle of the night. Are you suggesting that two strangers breaking into your house at night do NOT present an imminent threat?!
Modulous writes:
The police force in general failed to establish correctly that he was an imminent threat, which is why they were found guilty. I am appalled that Blair has not resigned over the matter.
So, the police kill someone after wrongly establishing that he's an imminent threat, they get a slap on the wrist. Tony Martin kills someone after -rightly or wrongly, and common sense suggests rightly - establishing that he's an imminent threat, he gets five years in jail!
Can you see where I'm coming from? I'm appalled that the police involved in the De Menezea case weren't criminally prosecuted. The Daily Mash got the tragic irony spot on though!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 7:54 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 11-04-2007 12:19 PM Legend has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 113 (432172)
11-04-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Legend
11-02-2007 7:01 PM


Using the innocent
The sheer incompetence of the police. Even believing that he was a carrying sucide bomber, they still alowed him to board a bus and a train before finally deciding to stop him.
Even supposing he was the one they were looking for, you can't hold people down and shoot them in the face. What I think happened was the police assumed he was carrying a bomb, which could be detonated with a plunger-style blasting cap. Menezes, totally mystified as to why strange men are accosting him, he flails about trying to get them off of him when he motions in such a way that the police mistakenly interpret the gesture that the suicide bomber (aka - innocent man) was attempting to blow them up. They decide to go for the head so the chance that he will be unable to carry out the deed will be lesser.
Overall, the whole debacle has been highly disturbing. I find that it sets a precedence for absolving the police of responsibility and following of due process and, in conjunction with the abolition of Habeas Corpus, post 9/11, brings us one step closer to a police state.
But you don't find it disturbing that a bus was bombed, killing many innocent people? Why not start a thread on that? I suspect you don't really care one whit about Menezes. I suspect he's just a stepping stone to furthering your cause so you can justify your paranoid delusions about police state's.
An innocent man tragically died. The police involved should be held accountable and liable for that life. That's all that needs to be discussed.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Legend, posted 11-02-2007 7:01 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2007 10:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 56 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 11:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 113 (432174)
11-04-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
11-04-2007 10:35 AM


Re: Using the innocent
But you don't find it disturbing that a bus was bombed, killing many innocent people?
Um, I don't think the police were responsible for that.
The reason that the Menezes shooting is so much more disturbing to any reasonable person is that terrorists with the power of terrorists aren't all that scary. Sure, a few bombs here and there. To put it in perspective, the most famous act of terrorism - 9/11 - killed less people than died in motorcycle accidents that year.
On the other hand, terrorists with the power of a modern state is pretty fuckin' scary indeed. The Constitution doesn't defend itself, NJ, not even in the UK; if we don't push back against government encroachment towards our freedoms, the freedoms aren't going to push back on their own.
An innocent man tragically died. The police involved should be held accountable and liable for that life. That's all that needs to be discussed.
Well, they weren't. Now what? I'm curious what corrective measures you think can be taken that, were we to suggest them, you wouldn't accuse us of "agitating against the state" or some such nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2007 10:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2007 11:16 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 57 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 12:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 113 (432177)
11-04-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
11-04-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Using the innocent
Um, I don't think the police were responsible for that.
Yes, I know. I suspect that's precisely why some people don't care.
The reason that the Menezes shooting is so much more disturbing to any reasonable person is that terrorists with the power of terrorists aren't all that scary. Sure, a few bombs here and there. To put it in perspective, the most famous act of terrorism - 9/11 - killed less people than died in motorcycle accidents that year.
Should I callously and prickishly say that Menezes is just one person, so, eh? *shrugs*
On the other hand, terrorists with the power of a modern state is pretty fuckin' scary indeed. The Constitution doesn't defend itself, NJ, not even in the UK; if we don't push back against government encroachment towards our freedoms, the freedoms aren't going to push back on their own.
Already proving my point. I mentioned, as a blurb, something along the lines of authority figures, and like a homing beacon you're already on your soapbox decrying injustice. I wanted to see how quickly Big Brother was going to be mentioned-- from communist sympathizers no less!
Well, they weren't. Now what? I'm curious what corrective measures you think can be taken that, were we to suggest them, you wouldn't accuse us of "agitating against the state" or some such nonsense.
Protest. If enough people make a big stink out of it, they will be forced to look at it again. No matter how well meaning it might have been, they screwed up. The officers involved screwed up big time. And they can't just say, "Oh well," when I'm sure there is a family in Brazil that is not satisfied with, "Oh well... We had good intentions."
My point was look at how Menezes is completely overlooked. He's being used to foist a political agenda. I don't like that.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2007 10:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2007 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 113 (432178)
11-04-2007 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
11-03-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Just a few points.
It is, as the trainers argue, not a question of training, but one of psychology. Some police officers simply shouldn't be given access to weapons, and there are some officers that do have guns that the trainers do not believe should have - but they are powerless to fail the officers because being a crazy lunatic is not grounds for failure.
You're absolutely right. There are a lot of bad officers who get hired. Sure, the departments go in to your background as best they can to try and get a general idea of what kind of person they are prospectively hiring. Some departments won't hire you without a detailed background investigation, a psychological battery, or a polygraph-- all of which is incredibly intrusive, but necessary.
All police agencies fear the gung-ho cops recklessly trek in to the unknown and who ultimately become a liability. And I think they hire more decent cops than they do bad ones. But at the end of the day, its still a gamble. The reward may outweigh the risk in most cases, but doesn't that all go out the window the second a scandal comes up?
Its like an old boss of mine once said. You can have a thousand atta-boy's, but one 'aw shit' erases them all."

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2007 1:37 PM Modulous has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 113 (432180)
11-04-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
11-04-2007 11:16 AM


Re: Using the innocent
Should I callously and prickishly say that Menezes is just one person, so, eh? *shrugs*
One person killed by the police, though, for no good reason. You don't find that just a little more significant?
I mentioned, as a blurb, something along the lines of authority figures, and like a homing beacon you're already on your soapbox decrying injustice.
I don't think one post constitutes a "soapbox", and the reason that I'm making the argument is because it's important.
Don't you agree? Don't you think its a cause for concern when the government starts encroaching on personal liberty? I find freedom fairly important, personally, but I can appreciate how a right-wing authoritarian follower finds slavish devotion to authority so much more important. It's completely consistent with your personality type to find a positive defense of liberty objectionable.
I wanted to see how quickly Big Brother was going to be mentioned-- from communist sympathizers no less!
Communist what now? You've lost me.
Protest.
On soapboxes, perhaps?
If enough people make a big stink out of it, they will be forced to look at it again.
I don't see how they can. The concept of double jeopardy is in English courts as well as American.
Remember that it took riots in the streets of LA - with deaths and millions in damages - just to get a Federal trial in the Rodney King case, is that what you're suggesting here? Burning London to the ground for justice? I kind of hope there's a more constructive solution.
And they can't just say, "Oh well," when I'm sure there is a family in Brazil that is not satisfied with, "Oh well... We had good intentions."
It kind of looks like they can, because they just did, and they got away with it. When the state turns a blind eye to murder by the police, what precisely do you suggest be done?
He's being used to foist a political agenda.
A political what? Any time you're talking about something the government is responsible for - like the police - that's politics. How could it not be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2007 11:16 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2007 12:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 56 of 113 (432184)
11-04-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
11-04-2007 10:35 AM


you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, do you?
quote:
But you don't find it disturbing that a bus was bombed, killing many innocent people?
ofcourse I do. What makes you think I don't ?!
quote:
Why not start a thread on that?
Go for it!
quote:
I suspect you don't really care one whit about Menezes.
And you base you suspicions on...?
quote:
I suspect he's just a stepping stone to furthering your cause so you can justify your paranoid delusions about police state's.
You suspect too much. I suspect it's you who's harbouring delusional suspicions about me being paranoid.
quote:
An innocent man tragically died. The police involved should be held accountable and liable for that life. That's all that needs to be discussed.
Since when are you the arbiter of what needs to be discussed here and what not?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2007 10:35 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 57 of 113 (432185)
11-04-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
11-04-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Using the innocent
quote:
The Constitution doesn't defend itself, NJ, not even in the UK;
we don't even have one!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2007 10:43 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 113 (432187)
11-04-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
11-04-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Using the innocent
One person killed by the police, though, for no good reason. You don't find that just a little more significant?
It wasn't for no good reason. There was a reason. Unfortunately, it was a very bad mistake. Their reason doesn't take away the fact that they didn't have a lick of probable cause to justify deadly force.
Deadly force = That force which a person knows, or should know, has a substantial risk of causing death or grievous bodily harm. Its use is only justified under conditions of extreme necessity wherein death is imminent towards innocent life and when all lesser means of force has failed or cannot reasonable be employed.
I don't think one post constitutes a "soapbox", and the reason that I'm making the argument is because it's important.
Its a matter of coverage versus non-coverage, attention vs no attention. The media is particular to this. Its a question asking why you, or Legend, decide to decry injustice on what. Sure, you are justified in this instance. No doubt about it. But why no mention of other things too of similar importance?
    1. Would you agree that you have an aversion towards figures of authority?
    2. Do you find yourself romanticizing terrorists as "freedom fighters" in the same fight against oppression?
    Don't you think its a cause for concern when the government starts encroaching on personal liberty? I find freedom fairly important, personally, but I can appreciate how a right-wing authoritarian follower finds slavish devotion to authority so much more important. It's completely consistent with your personality type to find a positive defense of liberty objectionable.
    See, this is the problem we have. You see any acquiescence to authority as a bad character flaw. But you yourself have a slavish devotion to a bigger government, socializing everything, and a deep, and fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom actually entails.
    Whereas I want a smaller government, with less intrusion to privatized institutions (i.e. private (as in, personal protection).
    You have to find it ironic that what you support is historically the most oppressive system under the sun.
    Communist what now? You've lost me.
    You're a communist/socialist sympathizer; at least that's what you portray. Am I incorrect in this assessment?
    it took riots in the streets of LA - with deaths and millions in damages - just to get a Federal trial in the Rodney King case, is that what you're suggesting here? Burning London to the ground for justice? I kind of hope there's a more constructive solution.
    No, something constructive, as you say.
    When the state turns a blind eye to murder by the police, what precisely do you suggest be done?
    You constructively protest with a loud enough voice to reach the ears of people that have the authority and ability to re-examine the case.
    Any time you're talking about something the government is responsible for - like the police - that's politics. How could it not be?
    The government is not responsible for police, unless of course they are Federal officers. It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with judiciary.

    “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2007 11:32 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2007 1:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 59 of 113 (432188)
    11-04-2007 12:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by Legend
    11-04-2007 8:35 AM


    Re: I understood your point the first time
    Yes, with the difference being that Martin had an even more legitimate reason to respond pro-actively, as the intrusion occured in his own home and not some disputed backwater 3000 miles away. Also, the intruder (Belgrano) was already outside the exclusion zone (home) so our forces should have even less reason than Martin to fear it.
    Well, to be fair, the two young thieves would at best pose a risk to a few lives. A battleship in a time of war poses a greater risk, and it had been heading in a threatening direction until it was chased away.
    And Martin was confronted by two strangers in his house the middle of the night. Are you suggesting that two strangers breaking into your house at night do NOT present an imminent threat?!
    No I do not suggest two strangers breaking in do not present an imminent threat. I suggest that two strangers that had broken into your house that are now fleeing from you do not pose an imminent threat.
    So, the police kill someone after wrongly establishing that he's an imminent threat, they get a slap on the wrist. Tony Martin kills someone after -rightly or wrongly, and common sense suggests rightly - establishing that he's an imminent threat, he gets five years in jail!
    I am not arguing that the police have been adequately punished, I was arguing that the officers on the ground should not be prosecuted.
    I'm appalled that the police involved in the De Menezea case weren't criminally prosecuted.
    The question is, who specifically? You cannot prosecute all of them, some of them made no mistakes based on the information they had been given...it was the information that they were given that was erroneous. Maybe there is one person, or group of people who should bare the ultimate responsibility for the mess. Unfortunately, I don't know the inner workings of the police, so I can't say who is ultimately culpable. Neither could the court (who presumably know a lot more than I do). That's why I think Blair should step down at the very least.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 8:35 AM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 11-04-2007 12:24 PM Modulous has not replied
     Message 62 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 1:01 PM Modulous has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 60 of 113 (432189)
    11-04-2007 12:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Legend
    11-03-2007 7:08 PM


    right or wrong - who decides?
    I understood your point the first time
    Perhaps. But that isn't clear to me after reading and rereading your post, so let me spell it out just to make sure.
    -
    Are you suggesting that mentally-ill people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves if they're threatened?
    I didn't say that, and, personally, I don't think that a rational person reading my post would come to that conclusion as to what my point was. Even if I wasn't clear (and I accept responsibility if I wasn't), I think that a rational person would have understood what I meant. Maybe I'm wrong, and someone more dispassionate can advise me otherwise.
    But let me spell it out. The problem with both the mentally ill and people at the extreme edge of what we would consider the "normal" range of behavior is that they do not accurately perceive what constitutes a reasonable threat. Many people commit acts of violence because the perceived a threat in a situation that a normal, reasonable person would not see a threat. I am not aware of any political ideology or social theory that advocates the use of violence whenever anyone anywhere in any situation simply claims she felt threatened. Rather, in all cases I am aware of, it is considered a part of civilized society to make sure that the threat was real or at least the person had a reasonable belief that she was under threat. "Psychos", that is, people who are mentally ill or at the very limits of what we consider normal behavior, are, by definition, either unable to accurately judge a real-life situation correctly or are impulsive or compulsive in their behavior. Therefore, it is legitimate that a person whose behavior is known to be abberant comes under extra scrutiny when she commits an act of violence and then claims it was in self-defence.
    -
    I said that in such a situation one might interpret someone's moving away in different ways, one of which might be that he's just manoeuvring for another attack....
    But is this a reasonable assumption? How many victims of violent crime in the U.K. became a victim because they allowed a perpetrator to run away, allowing him to maneuver for another attack? In fact, as far as I know, when faced with a gun, potential criminals tend to run away and don't press their attack. That is precisely one of the arguments that gun advocates use here in the U.S.
    From what I understand, the U.K. judicial system is very similar to that in the U.S., so I assume that this particular person was convicted by a jury of his peers who actually looked at the evidence before them and came to their conclusions as to whether this person had a legitimate reason to assume a threat by the person running away. Now, juries aren't always correct, but I assume that the criminal justice system in the U.K. is open like it is here in the U.S., so you can get access to the actual court records and provide the facts of the case that would allow one to conclude that this person really did have a reasonable belief that he was under threat.
    -
    His use of violence should be excused by the simple fact that he was confronted by two intruders in the middle of the night in his own home.
    No, his use of violence should not be excused simply because there were intruders in his own home. I am still trying to understand how shooting a person in the back as he is running away can be excused under any circumstances. And, since it appears to be the law of your country, passed by a democratically elected Parliament, I'm guessing that these limits on the use of deadly force more or less reflects the views of the majority of your fellow citizens. Of course, Parliaments don't always reflect the majority opinion (and sometimes for good reason!), and sometimes the majority can be considered wrong, but I don't think that you are doing a very good job why we should just accept your opinion as to what is right and what is wrong.
    Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

    Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-03-2007 7:08 PM Legend has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by Legend, posted 11-04-2007 1:59 PM Chiroptera has replied
     Message 65 by CK, posted 11-04-2007 4:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024