Two men stood in front of the autonomous vehicle, operated by ride-hailing company Waymo, and literally tipped a fedora at her while she told them to move out of the way.
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they’re ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they’re being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you’re basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.
What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of “extended” srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I’ve had shit stolen. The police “handled it” to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife’s side of the family. Fuck thieves.
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn’t say it, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you sound like you’re out for revenge, but you don’t know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back
Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.
but neither would you being armed but not home.
Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…
You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.
I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”
Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.
If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.
If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.
When the solution is “Vigilantism” you know the situation is fucked.
No, its self defense.
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they’re ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they’re being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you’re basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I’m not getting into fist fights anymore.
If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
“Property is more valuable than human lives.”
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
“The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak” A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
You’re the one touting strength through arms here…
And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can’t believe I need to spell this out.
Who is “the stronger” in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
You’re talking about things like it’s obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
You’re expecting me to value people who steal shit.
And before this goes in a disingenuous direction, no, I don’t mean stealing bread from a damn grocery store.
I’m expecting you to not be a fucking enraged ape
Uh, that’s your attitude Mr. “Carry a gun so you can kill whoever bothers you”.
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.
There’s also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.
Well he has a VA rating. Turning human bodies into rotting meat piles is his way of life.
There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I’ll just go on explaining as if you actually don’t understand.
The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.
What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of “extended” srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
Try “A government should take care of its citizens.”
I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.
People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.
Fascism is so normalized :(
Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.
The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.
I was referring to summary execution of a thief being a good thing.
No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.
That was in response to being robbed.
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “defending yourself”.
I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it’s literally the #1 killer of children.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
Yeah, not here.
I’ve had shit stolen. The police “handled it” to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife’s side of the family. Fuck thieves.
Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?
Agreed thieves are terrible.
Not many better options if you are getting robbed though.
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
I don’t think I understand your question.
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn’t say it, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you sound like you’re out for revenge, but you don’t know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
They’ve taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They’re just out to kill people they think of as less than human.
Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.
Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…
You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.
The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
You’ve had a variation on this in just about every response. It’s getting very old. We get it, US bad.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it’s getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”
None of that is “defending yourself”.
the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative
https://legaldictionary.net/self-defense/
And you understand that reasonable force varies by state, right? I’ve said it multiple times.
I will use the maximum allowed for the state I reside in. I have lived in states which allowed for deadly force to protect property.
Yes, you’ve made it quite clear you are happy to murder “undesirables” on the flimsiest excuse you think you can get away with.