Breakdown In Civil Order

[laughing dog]

BLOOD CHOKE

not windpipe choke.

However, if well trained enough then Penny should have known about the dangers of blood chokes.

Why does anyone think that Penny was trained in choke holds?
Tom

Mr Penny was in the Marines.

If he had no training in chokeholds, then he had no business using one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're doing the same thing.

The ugly reality is that it's an unknown situation with no good outcome. Saying "that's bad therefore it's wrong" is meaningless in a situation where good can't happen.

How do you know good "can't" happen?

Liberal disease--the faith that there is a good outcome if the side with the power looks hard enough. Compared to conservative disease--the faith that everyone has a way of pulling themselves up if they just try hard enough.

So, black and white thinking. Gotcha.

You're not addressing the point.

I think I addressed it quite accurately.

I see no evidence that there's a good solution. Asserting it exists is no more a proof than asserting God exists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BLOOD CHOKE

not windpipe choke.

However, if well trained enough then Penny should have known about the dangers of blood chokes.

Blood choke is normally quick out with no lasting problem unless it's maintained past unconsciousness. Airway choke is a lot slower and doesn't always go away when released.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're doing the same thing.

The ugly reality is that it's an unknown situation with no good outcome. Saying "that's bad therefore it's wrong" is meaningless in a situation where good can't happen.

How do you know good "can't" happen?

Liberal disease--the faith that there is a good outcome if the side with the power looks hard enough. Compared to conservative disease--the faith that everyone has a way of pulling themselves up if they just try hard enough.

So, black and white thinking. Gotcha.

You're not addressing the point.

I think I addressed it quite accurately.

I see no evidence that there's a good solution. Asserting it exists is no more a proof than asserting God exists.

You seem to have a case of myopia. You should see a doctor about that.

 

[laughing dog]

You're doing the same thing.

The ugly reality is that it's an unknown situation with no good outcome. Saying "that's bad therefore it's wrong" is meaningless in a situation where good can't happen.

How do you know good "can't" happen?

Liberal disease--the faith that there is a good outcome if the side with the power looks hard enough. Compared to conservative disease--the faith that everyone has a way of pulling themselves up if they just try hard enough.

So, black and white thinking. Gotcha.

You're not addressing the point.

I think I addressed it quite accurately.

I see no evidence that there's a good solution. Asserting it exists is no more a proof than asserting God exists.

You seem to have a case of myopia. You should see a doctor about that.

It could be a severe case of irony.

 

[bilby]

It could be a severe case of irony.

I thought that was the popular name for haemochromatosis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're doing the same thing.

The ugly reality is that it's an unknown situation with no good outcome. Saying "that's bad therefore it's wrong" is meaningless in a situation where good can't happen.

How do you know good "can't" happen?

Liberal disease--the faith that there is a good outcome if the side with the power looks hard enough. Compared to conservative disease--the faith that everyone has a way of pulling themselves up if they just try hard enough.

So, black and white thinking. Gotcha.

You're not addressing the point.

I think I addressed it quite accurately.

I see no evidence that there's a good solution. Asserting it exists is no more a proof than asserting God exists.

You seem to have a case of myopia. You should see a doctor about that.

You're still not providing any evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

You're still not providing any evidence.

Neither have you.

Your inability to see a “ good outcome” ( which you do not define) reflects both on the possible existence of a “ good outcome” and your ability to recognize it.

In the OP situation, it appears that you think the only possible outcome was Mr Penny literally choking Mr Neely to death. Which is patently absurd. Which means there is a less bad outcome (good outcome ?) of Mr Neely not being killed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still not providing any evidence.

Neither have you.

Your inability to see a “ good outcome” ( which you do not define) reflects both on the possible existence of a “ good outcome” and your ability to recognize it.

In the OP situation, it appears that you think the only possible outcome was Mr Penny literally choking Mr Neely to death. Which is patently absurd. Which means there is a less bad outcome (good outcome ?) of Mr Neely not being killed.

You're the one making an assertion--that there is a good outcome. These problems exist because there is no general case good solution!

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that MOST people don't go around committing battery once they're past middle school. Most people do NOT intentionally touch other people in a harmful or offensive fashion. I think it's quite a rare thing for most adults to do.

Your lack of self awareness and observantness is noted.

The fact remains that people touch other people all the time. Particularly in crowds.

In the US, merely touching another person is not considered battery, let alone unlawful violence or whatever you called it.

OMG, you touched me, that's battery! is absolute horseshit that only holds water in really bad movies.

 

[Emily Lake]

By your definition, shaking someone's hand or touching their shoulder to get their attention would be considered battery... and that is absolutely NOT the case

Well I am so glad that you were here to assert this, thereby making it true despite its contradicting the letter of the law.

This is dumb. Go find me the US laws that support your view that merely making physical contact with another person is considered :illegal violence" or whatever phrase you used. I've provided legal definitions for the US, you've provided nothing but your beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

I can respect that. But lets not leave that ugly statement "victim of the system" laying out there. Some might think you're a BLM member or something. You mean to say Neely was partially a victim of circumstances right? It's not entirely an external blame as Neely does indeed hold some personal responsibility.

We have to say these things every time so that we won't get jumped on for supporting criminals.

How about "victim of the lack of system"? The circumstance in question here are the lack of sufficient mental health services to appropriately deal with Neely and prevent him from being a danger to himself or others.

It's not just a lack of adequate resources but what system exists to confine such people? How do you decide exactly who? We used to lock up far too many and then overreacted, we need some middle ground but that first requires a good evaluation of what warrants psychiatric lockup. Most of the whack jobs are harmless.

That's not a contradiction to what I said.

 

[Emily Lake]

The obvious conclusion that Mr Penny did not have to kill Mr Neely comes from a combination of humane thinking and common sense. Most people view that as an example of healthy clear thinking. The views that
1) Mr Penny had no choice but to kill Mr Neely,
2) Mr Penny did nothing wrong
3) Mr Neely deserved to die, or
4) Mr Neely is responsible for his death,

are morally indefensible in civil society.

And you once again seem to be ignoring
5) Mr. Neely appeared to be a threat to those around him such that Mr. Penny felt it appriopriate to intervene, and Mr. Penny unintentionally overdid it

Which seems like it should be defensible, at least to me.

 

[TomC]

The obvious conclusion that Mr Penny did not have to kill Mr Neely comes from a combination of humane thinking and common sense. Most people view that as an example of healthy clear thinking. The views that
1) Mr Penny had no choice but to kill Mr Neely,
2) Mr Penny did nothing wrong
3) Mr Neely deserved to die, or
4) Mr Neely is responsible for his death,

are morally indefensible in civil society.

And you once again seem to be ignoring
5) Mr. Neely appeared to be a threat to those around him such that Mr. Penny felt it appriopriate to intervene, and Mr. Penny unintentionally overdid it

Which seems like it should be defensible, at least to me.

Me too.

Once again,
Someone gets stuck with a problem where the real root is lousy American mental healthcare and drug response and tendencies towards violence.

Easier to blame the victim.
Tom

 

[lostone]

The obvious conclusion that Mr Penny did not have to kill Mr Neely comes from a combination of humane thinking and common sense. Most people view that as an example of healthy clear thinking. The views that
1) Mr Penny had no choice but to kill Mr Neely,
2) Mr Penny did nothing wrong
3) Mr Neely deserved to die, or
4) Mr Neely is responsible for his death,

are morally indefensible in civil society.

And you once again seem to be ignoring
5) Mr. Neely appeared to be a threat to those around him such that Mr. Penny felt it appriopriate to intervene, and Mr. Penny unintentionally overdid it

Which seems like it should be defensible, at least to me.

Defensible, perhaps, but was it praiseworthy?

 

[laughing dog]

You're still not providing any evidence.

Neither have you.

Your inability to see a “ good outcome” ( which you do not define) reflects both on the possible existence of a “ good outcome” and your ability to recognize it.

In the OP situation, it appears that you think the only possible outcome was Mr Penny literally choking Mr Neely to death. Which is patently absurd. Which means there is a less bad outcome (good outcome ?) of Mr Neely not being killed.

You're the one making an assertion--that there is a good outcome. These problems exist because there is no general case good solution!

Your response indicates that you did not read my post with a modicum of understanding. Mr Neely’s death was neither an inevitable nor a necessary outcome. His survival would have been a better outcome. Really, how effing hard is that to grasp?

 

[bilby]

By your definition, shaking someone's hand or touching their shoulder to get their attention would be considered battery... and that is absolutely NOT the case

Well I am so glad that you were here to assert this, thereby making it true despite its contradicting the letter of the law.

This is dumb. Go find me the US laws that support your view that merely making physical contact with another person is considered :illegal violence" or whatever phrase you used. I've provided legal definitions for the US, you've provided nothing but your beliefs.

Really?

California Penal Code §242

Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

I am fairly certain that these are not just my beliefs; States publish their law so that everyone can see exactly what it says (and doesn't say), and nobody has to rely on their opinions, or what they imagine the law ought to say.

Making physical contact with anyone without their consent is a breach of these laws (and of similar laws in other states, and in pretty much every jurisdiction whose law was based on English Law); Whether you like it or not.

Perhaps it is dumb; But that's not a reason to imagine that it's not true. The law is frequently dumb.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The obvious conclusion that Mr Penny did not have to kill Mr Neely comes from a combination of humane thinking and common sense. Most people view that as an example of healthy clear thinking. The views that
1) Mr Penny had no choice but to kill Mr Neely,
2) Mr Penny did nothing wrong
3) Mr Neely deserved to die, or
4) Mr Neely is responsible for his death,

are morally indefensible in civil society.

And you once again seem to be ignoring
5) Mr. Neely appeared to be a threat to those around him such that Mr. Penny felt it appriopriate to intervene, and Mr. Penny unintentionally overdid it

Which seems like it should be defensible, at least to me.

Defensible, perhaps, but was it praiseworthy?

I don't believe self defense cases are ever praiseworthy except in a you-did-a-good-job-in-tough-conditions type of way. They're always a bad outcome, it's just sometimes not doing it leads to a worse outcome.

 

[laughing dog]

The obvious conclusion that Mr Penny did not have to kill Mr Neely comes from a combination of humane thinking and common sense. Most people view that as an example of healthy clear thinking. The views that
1) Mr Penny had no choice but to kill Mr Neely,
2) Mr Penny did nothing wrong
3) Mr Neely deserved to die, or
4) Mr Neely is responsible for his death,

are morally indefensible in civil society.

And you once again seem to be ignoring
5) Mr. Neely appeared to be a threat to those around him such that Mr. Penny felt it appriopriate to intervene, and Mr. Penny unintentionally overdid it

Which seems like it should be defensible, at least to me.

Assuming Mr Neely was a threat to those around him (a big assumption), why should “ aw shucks, I overdid it” be an acceptable excuse for killing someone?

Chokeholds are tricky - if you don’t know what you are doing, you shouldn’t use it.

Unlike Mr Neely, Mr Penny will get a chance to defend himself in court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The obvious conclusion that Mr Penny did not have to kill Mr Neely comes from a combination of humane thinking and common sense. Most people view that as an example of healthy clear thinking. The views that
1) Mr Penny had no choice but to kill Mr Neely,
2) Mr Penny did nothing wrong
3) Mr Neely deserved to die, or
4) Mr Neely is responsible for his death,

are morally indefensible in civil society.

And you once again seem to be ignoring
5) Mr. Neely appeared to be a threat to those around him such that Mr. Penny felt it appriopriate to intervene, and Mr. Penny unintentionally overdid it

Which seems like it should be defensible, at least to me.

Assuming Mr Neely was a threat to those around him (a big assumption), why should “ aw shucks, I overdid it” be an acceptable excuse for killing someone?

Chokeholds are tricky - if you don’t know what you are doing, you shouldn’t use it.

Unlike Mr Neely, Mr Penny will get a chance to defend himself in court.

You're assuming there's a middle ground that would provide restraint but not harm him. There's nothing like a guarantee that such a space exists.