Shooting an unarmed man

[laughing dog]

You are misinformed. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is reasonable". The former is a higher standard. If that higher standard is appropriate to meet to deprive someone of their liberty, why is a lower one appropriate to deprive someone of their life?

You utterly missed his point.

No, I did not. I simply think that it shows the shallow thinking or depravity of those defending these outcomes.

Cases such as this are judged based on what a reasonable man would do in the situation. That's what he's referring to, it has no relationship with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

You're right, it doesn't. But my point that anyone with minimum reading comprehension would have seen is that it should: that the higher standard is even more appropriate when the result is depriving someone of their life instead of their liberty.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

<Pulls pin, throws grenade in laughing dog's lap>

You must spend at least 10 seconds considering what to do about the situation before you act.

I know right?!? Everyone has grenades because second amendment and shit. Only a good guy with a grenade can stop a bad guy with a grenade.

aa

 

[Gun Nut]

You are misinformed. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is reasonable". The former is a higher standard. If that higher standard is appropriate to meet to deprive someone of their liberty, why is a lower one appropriate to deprive someone of their life?

The alternative to the "reasonable person" is the "unreasonable person", and that is who you are being in this thread.

You are one condoning the killing of innocent people, not me.

Generally speaking, would you say that the "Ends justify the means"? An evil act that has an unintentional positive outcome is not an evil act? Does it work, in your estimation, the other way around too? A righteous act that has an unintentional negative outcome is no longer righteous, but evil?

Trying to understand why you are using your hindsight to retroactively judge a split second reaction taken to defend one's own life. you can't say "but he was unarmed" unless you are subscribing to the philosophy that those particular ends vilify those particular initial reactions.

 

[laughing dog]

You are misinformed. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is reasonable". The former is a higher standard. If that higher standard is appropriate to meet to deprive someone of their liberty, why is a lower one appropriate to deprive someone of their life?

The alternative to the "reasonable person" is the "unreasonable person", and that is who you are being in this thread.

You are one condoning the killing of innocent people, not me.

Generally speaking, would you say that the "Ends justify the means"? An evil act that has an unintentional positive outcome is not an evil act? Does it work, in your estimation, the other way around too? A righteous act that has an unintentional negative outcome is no longer righteous, but evil?

No to both of your irrelevant questions. BTW, wrong and evil are not the same.

Trying to understand why you are using your hindsight to retroactively judge a split second reaction taken to defend one's own life. you can't say "but he was unarmed" unless you are subscribing to the philosophy that those particular ends vilify those particular initial reactions.

Since the victim was unarmed, it is counterfactual to claim otherwise. Why any sane civilized person would claim otherwise is unimaginable to me.

As to the rest of your response, people are judged on split second decisions all of the time - both in criminal and civil cases and outside of the legal system. The jury in this case used hindsight to judge the shooter on a split second decision. It just happens to be a verdict you agree with. So please stop with this "hindsight" and "split second decision" hypocrisy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would immediately toss it back to you and run. If it is a toy or a dud, then no one is harmed. If it is real, I have eliminated a real threat to me and to humanity,

That's a snap decision, something you said was unacceptable. You need the facts before you act.

So your defense of shooting an unarmed person is by bringing up an example of a heavily armed person attacking you.

 

[Gun Nut]

Generally speaking, would you say that the "Ends justify the means"? An evil act that has an unintentional positive outcome is not an evil act? Does it work, in your estimation, the other way around too? A righteous act that has an unintentional negative outcome is no longer righteous, but evil?

No to both of your irrelevant questions. BTW, wrong and evil are not the same.

Trying to understand why you are using your hindsight to retroactively judge a split second reaction taken to defend one's own life. you can't say "but he was unarmed" unless you are subscribing to the philosophy that those particular ends vilify those particular initial reactions.

Since the victim was unarmed, it is counterfactual to claim otherwise. Why any sane civilized person would claim otherwise is unimaginable to me.

As to the rest of your response, people are judged on split second decisions all of the time - both in criminal and civil cases and outside of the legal system. The jury in this case used hindsight to judge the shooter on a split second decision. It just happens to be a verdict you agree with. So please stop with this "hindsight" and "split second decision" hypocrisy.

The jury was shown a still image a person dressed the same way as the person that was shot, pulling a black cell phone out of his pocket. They were allowed to see the image flash on the screen for 1 second. The jury was convinced that, in the moment, in light of the physical threats made, defending one's self with deadly force was reasonable and justified.
The jury did not use hindsight.. they used foresight and empathy.. those things you seem to be lacking in this.

 

[Gun Nut]

I would immediately toss it back to you and run. If it is a toy or a dud, then no one is harmed. If it is real, I have eliminated a real threat to me and to humanity,

That's a snap decision, something you said was unacceptable. You need the facts before you act.

So your defense of shooting an unarmed person is by bringing up an example of a heavily armed person attacking you.

no one is defending the shooting of an unarmed person. We are defending the jury's decision based on the facts provided about the case.
You sound like someone who is claiming that a former bank robber was wronged by the system for putting him in prison for 10 years.... because he served his 10 years.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No to both of your irrelevant questions. BTW, wrong and evil are not the same.
Since the victim was unarmed, it is counterfactual to claim otherwise. Why any sane civilized person would claim otherwise is unimaginable to me.

As to the rest of your response, people are judged on split second decisions all of the time - both in criminal and civil cases and outside of the legal system. The jury in this case used hindsight to judge the shooter on a split second decision. It just happens to be a verdict you agree with. So please stop with this "hindsight" and "split second decision" hypocrisy.

The jury was shown a still image a person dressed the same way as the person that was shot, pulling a black cell phone out of his pocket. They were allowed to see the image flash on the screen for 1 second. The jury was convinced that, in the moment, in light of the physical threats made, defending one's self with deadly force was reasonable and justified.
The jury did not use hindsight.. they used foresight and empathy.. those things you seem to be lacking in this.

Simulations are most often incomplete representations of reality. What is incomplete here in the simulation also rationally ought to be considered or one may be falling for a ploy. As just one example, if someone pulls a cell phone, then what events is the potential shooter doing and how long is it taking? If it takes me two seconds to unholster my gun and another second to put it out there in front of me, aiming, am I not observing the whole time that the victim merely has a cell phone? What the shooter did is not in your description only an image flash which may be "lying by omission."

 

[laughing dog]

No to both of your irrelevant questions. BTW, wrong and evil are not the same.
Since the victim was unarmed, it is counterfactual to claim otherwise. Why any sane civilized person would claim otherwise is unimaginable to me.

As to the rest of your response, people are judged on split second decisions all of the time - both in criminal and civil cases and outside of the legal system. The jury in this case used hindsight to judge the shooter on a split second decision. It just happens to be a verdict you agree with. So please stop with this "hindsight" and "split second decision" hypocrisy.

The jury was shown a still image a person dressed the same way as the person that was shot, pulling a black cell phone out of his pocket. They were allowed to see the image flash on the screen for 1 second. The jury was convinced that, in the moment, in light of the physical threats made, defending one's self with deadly force was reasonable and justified.
The jury did not use hindsight.. they used foresight and empathy.. those things you seem to be lacking in this.

Apparently English is not your native language. The jury could not use foresight since that is looking into the future. And the jury did not use any empathy towards the victim. Simulations are, by definition, not the real thing and cannot completely replicate the actual event.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

<Pulls pin, throws grenade in laughing dog's lap>

You must spend at least 10 seconds considering what to do about the situation before you act.

I know right?!? Everyone has grenades because second amendment and shit. Only a good guy with a grenade can stop a bad guy with a grenade.

aa

Nothing to do with the Second Amendment--he was just insisting that people need to take the time to be sure of the situation before acting so I presented a situation where it clearly didn't work.

And by his own standard he failed it--his answer was to throw the grenade back. That's assuming that he knows where to throw it, is capable of throwing it back and knows there won't be others in the blast zone. Since I gave a very precise location for the throw it must have been at close range--but since I wouldn't want to be in the blast zone that pretty much implies there's some sort of barrier involved. The easiest way to accomplish this would be dropping it off a balcony--and that would make throwing it back very hard.

 

[laughing dog]

I know right?!? Everyone has grenades because second amendment and shit. Only a good guy with a grenade can stop a bad guy with a grenade.

aa

Nothing to do with the Second Amendment--he was just insisting that people need to take the time to be sure of the situation before acting so I presented a situation where it clearly didn't work. .... .

My response just the opposite. Your example literally exploded in your own lap. If you can throw it to me (which is not dropping it in your response, I can throw it back. And, of course, I did not say people had to be sure. Not that any of this will alter your morally disgusting defense of yet another senseless and needless killing.