If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in
: > > "DYM" > wrote in message > .. . >> It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and >> choosing not to cross it. >> > Like not firing explosives at cars because you may reasonably > expect to get your ass whipped for it? > Yes! Exactly. They made a very poor choice. Doug |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On 21 Jul 2005 08:09:48 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote: >> Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is >> has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food???? > >Nah, he's a fairly regular poster here. So is Aunt Judy. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news > On 21 Jul 2005 08:09:48 -0700, "Harry K" > > wrote: > >>> Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is >>> has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food???? >> >>Nah, he's a fairly regular poster here. > > So is Aunt Judy. You criminal coddler, Scott |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
> Shooting fireworks at cars is a dangerous act.
> > The two boys used thier own judgment, and they > chose to act in a way that led to one of them being > struck by a car, while the other escaped with only > a beating. I think the occupants of the car that got > out and administered the beating were merely agents > of karma, and should be let go. I agree. Until the UK's Home Office abandons its stupid and unjust practice of prosecuting victims who defend themselves, one can only hope that the jury will refuse to convict him. I certainly would. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
DYM wrote:
> That would be vigilantism. It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only when a third party does it. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
John David Galt > wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2
@blue.rahul.net: > DYM wrote: >> That would be vigilantism. > > It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only > when a third party does it. > It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. Bronson was a victim but that didn't stop him from despensing justice from his weaponry. So, are you for law and order as our President keeps boasting, or do you want chaos from every Tom, Dick & Dirty Harry deciding on their own what your punishment should be. Doug |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"John David Galt" > wrote
> DYM wrote: >> That would be vigilantism. > > It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only > when a third party does it. Except that, at the time that the attackers were assaulted, they had abandoned their attack. The attackees were justified in holding the attackers for the police, but not in beating them. That's probably the reason the PA and police are trying to figure out what to charge the attackees with: motive/intent is not clear. Floyd |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
DYM wrote:
> John David Galt > wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2 > @blue.rahul.net: >>It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only >>when a third party does it. > It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is > that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. Tell that to the next woman who manages to fight off a would be rapist. She should just let him do it, from what you're advocating. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:36 GMT, DYM > wrote:
>John David Galt > wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h$2 : > >> DYM wrote: >>> That would be vigilantism. >> >> It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only >> when a third party does it. > >It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is >that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:21:36 GMT, DYM > wrote: > > >John David Galt > wrote in news:dbrp07$s0h= $2 > : > > > >> DYM wrote: > >>> That would be vigilantism. > >> > >> It's not vigilantism when the VICTIM HIMSELF fights attackers, only > >> when a third party does it. > > > >It can be by committee or a self-appointed doer of justice. This key is > >that the doer (?) is acting as cop, judge and jury. > > So where do you draw the line between self-defense and vigilantism? Self defense ends when the threat to ones person (or someone else's) ends. The threat in the scenario ended the second the kids ran. That's why you can claim, and usually win, on self defense for shooting someone in your home at 0 dark 30 but not if they are leaving when you shoot em in the back. Chasing to catch and hold em for the cops is legal, beating them isn't. Harry K Harry K |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|