71–80 of 155 posts
Do y'all remember the (likely fake, but widely reported) news about Israeli stingrays in DC a few months back, in September of this year? Whatever happened to that story? It was memory holed very quickly, which makes me suspicious that those weren't actually Israeli stingrays.
It wasn't memory-holed: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!
I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you th…
Response time in an emergency in major cities ranges from 5-10 minutes. Longer the further out from the city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when their state of mind could be affected by drugs or mental illness. And you have no idea what their goals actually were or are.
Milliseconds matter, so there isn't really a better way to handle that situation, in my opinion. It'd be nice if there existed non-lethal weapons which could incapacitate as effectively as lethal ones, but they don't seem to exist yet.
If it were a death sentence, then you'd be allowed to shoot someone in the back after they've exited the house and are running away. And obviously you aren't; that'd be murder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…
Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.
Unfortunately the only way around this is to donate to the ACLU and have every single case thrown out no matter how egregious until the police learn their lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…
In my opinion, providing legal drugs and rehabilitation to addicts, free of charge, would significantly reduce these kinds of thefts and break-ins, in addition to a lot of other huge societal benefits. The system works by only allowing the addict to consume the drug under supervision; they can't take anything outside of the clinic. It seems to work very well in some European countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial.
Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?
Unfortunately the only way around this is to donate to the ACLU and have every single case thrown out no matter how egregious until the police learn their lesson.
I used to donate to ACLU when they were a pure civil liberties organization. Now that they're a leftist/social justice group I have nowhere to donate.
It's actually hard to think of an issue where Republicans have been on the right side of protecting Civil liberties in recent history other than gun control.
Are the ACLU leftists or are leftists the ones protecting civil liberties? Sort of a chicken and the egg situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…
> Being kinder to garbage
See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help.
People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele).
The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset comes from a very aggressive mindset, at least that's how it seems to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when t…
Why would you assume this? Do you have any studies that back this up? My default assumption, way more logical I'd say, would be that they want to steal stuff. Stealing is logical and rational, under some circumstances. Attacking someone (so putting yourself at risk as the attacker) or killing someone (again, putting yourself at risk immediately and after) are not rational.
Why would you assume that they want to kill or harm you? I'd say that I have Occam's razor on my side with this one. Stealing stuff makes waaaay more sense and again, can be quite logical in many circumstances.