Keep in mind that there is an acceptable level of physical force during self-defense.
If I'm a 350lbs wrestler and the guy attacking me is weak skinny puke with no fighting skills then is logical I can defend myself and there is no harm can be done to me or....
..A guy with a knife trying to kill me and I have a .45 in my right hand should be enough self defense/protection on my part.
Geez, in the US a guy once chansed a burglar out of his house and shot him dead and got given nothing on grounds of self-defence. It's piss easy to get off on a self-defence defence in the US; it's not a crime to kill if you can establish you were defending yourself or, it seems, your property. In some States, anyway.
It's obviously ludicrous to call self-defence murder, as that forces murder out of people who would otherwise have died, expecting them to just stand there and get stabbed. No sane legal system allows that.
But as ky friendly school PC once explained to my class, if you stab a burglar in a desperate fight when surprised ar home, it's self defence; if you give him a couple more once he is down on the ground because you lost your temper in the fight, that's murder.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Keep in mind that there is an acceptable level of physical force during self-defense.If I'm a 350lbs wrestler and the guy attacking me is weak skinny puke with no fighting skills then is logical I can defend myself and there is no harm can be done to me or....
..A guy with a knife trying to kill me and I have a .45 in my right hand should be enough self defense/protection on my part.
That's definitely true. A person shouldn't just kill someone if they can avoid it but if a person feels they have no other choice who's to say they were wrong. For example you are attacked by 3 individuals, not robbed not raped but attacked. Would you just sit there or lay there and take the punishment? I think a person's first reaction would be either to run or kill.
Also, it isn't legal to carry around a gun in many places so you might not have that privilege. Knives however usually are so long as they meet a certain length requirement. If you and an attacker have a knife he or she might not be so inclined to back off.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think you misunderstand. The situation stated was something along the lines of "If you had to choose who would die, would you pick one innocent women, or 2 paedophiles". AC, I belive, said that two lives should be saved over the one life, which is what I was responding to when I said "Quality over Quanity", meaning, that two lives aren't always better than one, if those two lives have been used to cause harm to other people, and have a high risk of causing harm again. This "requirement" was brought into the mix by you,after the fact, and had nothing to do with my original statement which you were responding to. I wouldn't want either the paedophiles or the innocent woman to die, but if I was FORCED to choose, I would choose to end the lives of the paedophiles simply because they're more dangerous to society and have caused harm to others, and may do so again.
I'm not sure I follow you. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer getting jailed for 44 years for killing two paedophiles OR 20-25 years for killing an innocent woman OR not killing anyone and address the problems and you say that you would choose killing the Paedophiles cause they are a danger to society ? It escapades my logic.
But maybe you would opt keeping the woman alive cause she is 'Female'.
Well everyone seems to opt to either and or to kill, while it would have been better to say that we wouldnt choose over murder.
Originally posted by PVS
however your lawyer could claim temporary insanity, given the trauma of having one's life threatened.
I think some people would be so overcome with rage at the thought of someone attacking them, ot someone they loved, they may not know at the time that they are beating the crap out of the bad guy, until they snap out of it.
Originally posted by GCG
I'm not sure I follow you. If you were forced to choose, would you prefer getting jailed for 44 years for killing two paedophiles OR 20-25 years for killing an innocent woman OR not killing anyone and address the problems and you say that you would choose killing the Paedophiles cause they are a danger to society ? It escapades my logic.But maybe you would opt keeping the woman alive cause she is 'Female'.
Well everyone seems to opt to either and or to kill, while it would have been better to say that we wouldnt choose over murder.
i won´t kill the innocent woman because she is innocent, and the phedophiles I won´t kill to because I will get jailed for 44 years, but that is the only reason of why I shouldn´t do that.
Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
They don't even send child molesters to prison for 44 years.. much less a vigilantie, and then people wonder why there's neo-cons, obviously liberal judges isn't working for society's advantage..
Murdering one person is 25 years to life in prison. This man killed two people. He therefore got 22 years per person he killed. Less than the minimum sentence.
Get over it, he got off EASY, because he killed scum. He nonetheless deserves the time.
And it may help some people to know that a rapist's time in jail is worst of all felons. They are the bottom of the bottom, all other prisoners even look down on them. Guess what happens? The rapists get raped. Sort of a warped view of justice(raping the rapist because you hate rape), but they're prisoners, what do you expect.