There are gang thugs who have killed more people than he has walking around the streets. They don't have personalized armies hunting them down.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Printable View
There are gang thugs who have killed more people than he has walking around the streets. They don't have personalized armies hunting them down.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Gangs don't plant bombs at public events. Next pointless comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
What? Did you read what i wrote? You argued that USA would have issues with the killings of civilians I just provided that they have no issues of killing civilians if they find it benefits their goal. Ergo "for the greater good" which I dont really mean, I think its absurd and disgusting.Quote:
There was no greater good here, the guy is a nobody and they already knew it. There was no justification for further deaths for the sole reason of capturing him alive. To claim otherwise is idiocy. Even when someone has immense value, such as Bin Laden, they still won't risk losing people just to capture him. He had a gun, so they shot him in the face. It's that simple.
I am not convinced that they even killed Bin Laden, but thats another topic.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...59326062_o.jpg Maybe something to reflect on.
Your right. Organized crime is nothing like Terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
*leaves thread*
I said they wouldn't risk civilian life to capture someone alive that they could kill without risking civilian life. It's not me who isn't reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
You don't think Bin Laden is dead? lol I love conspiracy theorists, they're the easiest to make fun of.
As for your picture link, if they want that kind of garbage to be taken seriously by idiots, they should at least spell "safety" right. It's a stupid statistic, and for obvious reasons that must be lost on you.
And there aren't specific task forces who's sole job is to deal with gangs and organized crime every single day? None of which plant bombs at public events to target innocents for no purpose. You aren't making any points, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
So, they wont risk any civlians life for capturing someone but they will murder civilians for nothing at all really. Sound logic you have there.Quote:
I said they wouldn't risk civilian life to capture someone alive that they could kill without risking civilian life. It's not me who isn't reading.
I am not so sure, but I am sure its nice to be like you swalloing anything your goverment feeds you. Must be nice.Quote:
You don't think Bin Laden is dead? lol I love conspiracy theorists, they're the easiest to make fun of
It must be nice being you.
You are not making any sense whatsoever so I'm not even sure how to respond. Are you trying to compare drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan to a police manhunt in Boston or something? They aren't even comparable situations, but nothing you tend to argue with makes any sense so I'm pretty used to your nonsense by now.
Oh I'm sure there is a lot of stuff the government says which is total bull****. But thinking they could pretend to kill the most wanted terrorist on the planet and get away with it is just stupid. Unless you're of the opinion that they didn't actually kill him and have him locked away somewhere, that's about the only other possibility. But if you think he's still out there somewhere hiding, you're completely daft.
You were arguging that America care about civilians yes? They wouldnt want to harm any civilians so they could arrest the Bomber, so far I am correct? I was just giving a example where they didnt care about civilians causalites since you seem to think that they wouldnt risk any civlians death over something.Quote:
You are not making any sense whatsoever so I'm not even sure how to respond. Are you trying to compare drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan to a police manhunt in Boston or something? They aren't even comparable situations, but nothing you tend to argue with makes any sense so I'm pretty used to your nonsense by now.
So, what proof do you have hes dead? You have the word of few people that they killed Bin Laden and thats about it. USA really needed Bin Laden to be captured or killed cause hes been mocking them for so long it was getting really embaressing(sp). Plus if you look from Bin Ladens side it would be a golden chance of just getting heat off from him. What speaks against this is ofc that he would probably be more inclined to shout out the the world that he was still alive and what miserable liars US was. His death isnt really crystal clear.Quote:
Oh I'm sure there is a lot of stuff the government says which is total bull****. But thinking they could pretend to kill the most wanted terrorist on the planet and get away with it is just stupid. Unless you're of the opinion that they didn't actually kill him and have him locked away somewhere, that's about the only other possibility. But if you think he's still out there somewhere hiding, you're completely daft.
I said domestic law enforcement would not risk lives to capture rather than kill a criminal. You're attempting to compare that to the US military fighting terrorists in foreign countries during war, which is ridiculous. Has there ever been a war without civilian casualties? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
I don't have proof. As a logical thinker, I don't need proof. What proof do you have that we landed on the moon? There is none, just the understanding that such a task could not be faked and covered up successfully.Quote:
So, what proof do you have hes dead? You have the word of few people that they killed Bin Laden and thats about it. USA really needed Bin Laden to be captured or killed cause hes been mocking them for so long it was getting really embaressing(sp). Plus if you look from Bin Ladens side it would be a golden chance of just getting heat off from him.
The first thing you've said that made any sense. If Bin Laden was alive he'd love nothing more than to embarass the **** out of American by holding today's newspaper and laughing in some cave video. Yet you still have the idiotic thought that it's possible. I don't know whether to laugh or just feel bad for people like you.Quote:
What speaks against this is ofc that he would probably be more inclined to shout out the the world that he was still alive and what miserable liars US was. His death isnt really crystal clear.
Certainly there is civilian causalities in war a downside to it. But, for example bombing a village and killing 30 civilians that had done nothing is not okey.Quote:
I said domestic law enforcement would not risk lives to capture rather than kill a criminal. You're attempting to compare that to the US military fighting terrorists in foreign countries during war, which is ridiculous. Has there ever been a war without civilian casualties? I think not.
You always need proof, try to argument something without having proof and then just resort to "I am a logical thinker" then you would be laughed at.Quote:
I don't have proof. As a logical thinker, I don't need proof. What proof do you have that we landed on the moon? There is none, just the understanding that such a task could not be faked and covered up successfully.
There is also the option that he was tired of running and he wanted to live his last days in "peace" or that he was already dead and US didnt know about it. The whole thing is rather convinient for US and Obama. You must be a bit critical when it comes to information not be a sheep. But I guess its a sure thing, someone told you something so it must be true. I feel bad for americans every day, http://media.tumblr.com/8a8d969f9286...AOM1qz4rgp.png and how the education seems to be lacking in the country.Quote:
The first thing you've said that made any sense. If Bin Laden was alive he'd love nothing more than to embarass the **** out of American by holding today's newspaper and laughing in some cave video. Yet you still have the idiotic thought that it's possible. I don't know whether to laugh or just feel bad for people like you.
You can carry on living in your dreamworld where you think you could, where killing someone is just like in the videogames just push a button and how your Goverment never feed you lies ;)
There are idiots in every country, so what? My education went just fine. I love being an American, so I don't care if you "feel sorry" for me. People come from all over the world to make this their home, they probably don't care about the anti-American bull**** people like you regurgitate on internet forums either, lol.
And in typical Korp fashion, you like to make **** up in your arguments, like how I think killing people is like a video game. You're nothing but a troll, I'd feel sorry for you except you aren't even worth that.
We set reflectors on the moon so we can shoot lasers and they bounce back at us. If the reflectors weren't there, they wouldn't bounce back. There's proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
You've personally been on the moon and seen these reflectors? You've personally seen these lasers? Maybe they were put there by robots, maybe by aliens. You don't have proof according to Korp-logic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Thats really your own fault, you several times claimed how you would shoot that person if you caught him. Like it would be the easiest thing in the world to do. If you like said, I would try to shoot him down or something similiar that would been a different thing.
Whats the stupid anti-american bull****?
Why you talk about proof suddenly, you dont need proof for anything was pretty obvious in your previous post. Nobody needs proof cause they think they are logical thinkers!Quote:
You've personally been on the moon and seen these reflectors? You've personally seen these lasers? Maybe they were put there by robots, maybe by aliens. You don't have proof according to Korp-logic!
Try reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
It's called sarcasm. You apparently need definitive proof for obvious things, whereas I am intelligent enough to deduce reality from fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Lets quote the first thing that you wrote about it
You probably wouldnt have wrote what you quoted if I hadnt confronted you about it at all. You would just walked out put a few rounds in him, chill.Quote:
You joke, but if I found the guy hiding in my backyard, I'd have put a few rounds in him and then called the cops to come clean up the mess. Problem solved.
Yes, you are very intelligent, you repeatedly claim that I am a troll yet somehow you manage to do the unintelligent thing and engage in a conversation with me. From your viewpoint you would think tht is rather stupid behaviour and let me quote one thing that you said to me once..Quote:
It's called sarcasm. You apparently need definitive proof for obvious things, whereas I am intelligent enough to deduce reality from fiction.
Quote:
And FYI, calling someone a troll is paramount to trolling, so knock it off.
So where in that first post did I state it would be easy to kill a man? Oh, nowhere whatsoever? Ok then. Although my personal belief is I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if I killed a man who murdered 4 people, including an 8 year old boy, and wounded 200 others. But hey, ya never know, and I would never be able to know for sure unless it happened.
Well, you first of all thinking that you would be able to put a few rounds in a person would imply that you would have no problem to kill him if it was so. Or you are a expert marksman that could avoid shooting his all vital spots with your few rounds and just wound him?
So you are faulting me for saying I have the ability to pull a trigger when I'm confronted with a criminal capable of mass murder? Do you also criticize police officers and security guards who are faced with such a decision and also pull the trigger? Would you look down on the single mother who shoots an intruder trying to kick in her door and wielding a knife? You look down on all those who defend themselves, or is it just me because I stated it in a manner not to your liking?
Do you? Or do you think you do? ..Quote:
So you are faulting me for saying I have the ability to pull a trigger when I'm confronted with a criminal capable of mass murder?
Thats their job, see the difference? Them doing it cause thats what they are supose to do you, you doing it cause you think you hold the right to act the justices. But this been pointed out already, i dont think civilians should take such matters into their own hands, thats why the police exist.Quote:
Do you also criticize police officers and security guards who are faced with such a decision and also pull the trigger?
Thats a different scenario you know it as well, ofc you if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use lethal force to save your our others life its not optimal but necessary. This scenario of yours you would look up the bomber and then proceed to shoot him, if had attacked you it might been a different thing but since that havent been the case a call tot he police would be the best course of action in your scenario.Quote:
Would you look down on the single mother who shoots an intruder trying to kick in her door and wielding a knife?
Not once in your post have you mentioned that he would play attacking part if you dont consider just hiding somewhere to be actively engaging in hostile activites. As you mentioned in one of your previously posts "If I found the guy hiding...."Quote:
You look down on all those who defend themselves, or is it just me because I stated it in a manner not to your liking?
This is what I've been saying the entire time, lmao. You just want to pretend that I said "if I found an unarmed 19 year old kid hiding in my backyard, I'd love to shoot him in the face", which isn't remotely close to the context of what I said. If I found a terrorist in my backyard with the capability of murdering 100s of people, I would shoot him if I thought he was still a threat to other innocents. My assumption this whole time is that the guy at least had a gun on him (I think I saw a video that had gunshots, but maybe they were just hitting him with rubber rounds or something, who knows), if he didn't have a weapon and was just an unarmed dying kid, it's a different situation because he's no longer a threat to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Th? difference is that I dont se someone hiding in your backyard as a direct threat. The person would need to a active hostile action and then it would be ok. So what I said is still different from what you think.
I said a half dozen times my assumption is he had a weapon considering he was in a shootout with police less than 24 hours before, are you blind or can you just not understand English? Going on a murderous crime spree and running from the police is not a continuing hostile action? lol
Thats something you added later on the discussion, post 26th on page 2 to be more exactk your initial posts didnt mention anything about him being armed you just concluded that you would put bullets in him. I dont know about you, but I am pretty sure there is something similiar in US as well that dont allow a civilian to walk up to a person and shoot him just cause hes a wanted fugitive. If there isnt thats pretty damn crazy. There is actually, but not viable in this case I guess from what I can read. But no I dont believe that he in the current condition would be posed a immediate threat to anyone, consider how he was wounded. The person that found him acted as a sane person would.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
My initial post didn't say anything about him being unarmed either, but you just want to make **** up as usual. Why would I not assume he's armed if he was in a violent shootout the night before? Why would I shoot someone without just cause and get myself thrown in jail? Try using your head once in a while, common sense goes a long way.
lol, talking about common sense while proclaiming that he would go and put bullets in a wanted dangerous fugitive :) Doesnt quite connect.
I'd prefer that to the police having another 50 person shootout in my neighborhood with bullets flying through innocent houses, which is what happened the night before when they "handled" it.
I have returned!
You feel it is ok to kill someone that is accused of a crime despite you having no legal authority to do so and contrary to the wishes of law enforcement agencies. That is vigilantism.
The general citizen is not capable of making the decision you are confident you can make. Legalising such action would result in chaos. In essence you are advocating the killing of a person by another because you believe they are responsible for a serious crime.
That is not how society works, nor it it how it should ever work.
Quote:
The Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense
Maryland also continues to follow common law principles on the issue of when one may use deadly force in self-defense. In the case of State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 485, 483 A.2d 759, 761 (1984), the Court of Appeals of Maryland summarized those principles, and stated that a homicide, other than felony murder, is justified on the ground of self-defense if the following criteria are satisfied:
Reasonable grounds; such as an armed fugitive found on my property hiding from police, wanted for the armed robbery of a convenience store, carjacking, murder of a police office, and bombing of 200 innocent civilians. This person shows no regard for human life and has assaulted anyone who got in his way of escape, even his own brother. My imminent danger upon discovering this fugitive is unquestionable.Quote:
(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
See above.Quote:
(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
Investigating suspicious activity on my property is not aggression or provocation. The fugitive has been in an aggressor in every encounter, with civilians or law enforcement, since being publicly identified by authorities.Quote:
(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;
Shooting a man wanted for multiple murders and mass injuries would not be called unreasonable or excessive by any court in America, my life would be clearly at immediate risk having unknowingly approached such a person and nobody could/would argue otherwise.Quote:
(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.
And then there's the fact that I would be legally able to kill this person in the defense of the innocents he has already proven willing to kill:
Quote:
Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)
Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.
No, you deliberately put yourself in danger by approaching him.
again - In essence you are advocating the killing of a person by another because you believe they are responsible for a serious crime.
You are also engaging in vigilantism - you deny this?
False, the danger wasn't known until I identify the person in my yard as an armed fugitive. When I approach I'm just thinking 'who the hell is in my boat?'.
Note the laws above are based on my belief that I'm in danger, or my belief that I'm defending others. I'm advocating responsible civilians taking action to protect themselves and each other. Otherwise we will always only act after an atrocity has already been committed.
If a civilian with a concealed carry permit happened to see Adam Lanza approaching an elementary school armed with a rifle and 2 pistols, are you telling me that person should not intervene?
I also did a ninja edit!
I did a ninja edit aove btw that i think you missed.
In your example it appears that it is acceptable for citizens to approach, apprehend and kill individuals suspected of crimes. This is not the case, your example falls down.
another edit ftw:
(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;
^^ you are totally the aggressor in that situation. You are fully aware of the potential situation and are acting aggressively.
Yes, i totally understand that. Your fatal error is assuming that the general public are responsible individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
I have no such misconception, the average person is a moron. I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment, yet I also understand something has to be done to prevent idiots and lunatics from owning guns. They give the rest of us a bad reputation. My original post had a tone of bravado, I can admit that. That doesn't mean I don't understand the limitations of what I can and can't do, both legally and morally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Oh, yea, cause you would just totally execute the operation perfectly nobody would come to harm cause you have done these kind of things all the time right? Wake up and smell the coffee, you are no Rambo. Besides, even after you knew the outcome you come with such absurd claims? Not a single shot was fired when they arrested him that night right?Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Meh, I dont remember what i googled last night but there is a law that gives a person the right to murder someone but I think if not mistaken that you would need the person you shoot to be assaulting you so you have no other way of fending of the person than shooting him. That wouldnt be viable in this cause since it would be "Look whos in my boat see that its the guy from tv (wounded)
Rambo? Am I invading Russia? Knowing how to handle and operate a fireman and believeing I could do so in a dangerous situation makes me think I'm Rambo? Just more ignorant, presumptuous and pointless ramblings from the nonsensical mind of Korp. What does what happened in hindsight have to do with that moment in time? Obviously I know now he was apparently unarmed and gravely wounded, information I wouldn't have known then and didn't even know when I made the post that apparently twisted your panties into a bunch, lol.
There was a guy on a horse!
Seriously, chill a bit.
Okey, have you ever fired a gun against a human person before? (Neither have I, but I am not that naive that I think its just pulling the trigger) Probably not, so thats a step you would need to overcome. What is the dangerous part in this situation? You have a wounded man hiding in your boat, what I can remember not be able to resist any arrest?Quote:
Rambo? Am I invading Russia? Knowing how to handle and operate a fireman and believeing I could do so in a dangerous situation makes me think I'm Rambo? Just more ignorant, presumptuous and pointless ramblings from the nonsensical mind of Korp.
How would you not know? You would just shoot something that moved in your boat? Or are you trying to paint out a totally different scenario than what happend?Quote:
What does what happened in hindsight have to do with that moment in time? Obviously I know now he was apparently unarmed and gravely wounded, information I wouldn't have known then and didn't even know when I made the post that apparently twisted your panties into a bunch, lol.
As I've pointed out before, most people carrying guns have never fired on a person, but would do so when necessary. I guess you call anyone who's ever had to discharge a weapon in self defense or in the line of duty "acting like Rambo". Completely irrelevant point.
Here you are again, unable to read simple sentences and have to make the same comments repeatedly. How would I not know what? That he was unarmed and gravely wounded? I didn't even know he was unarmed until TODAY, lol. I made comments based on the information I had at the time, which was he was an armed criminal willing to shoot anyone who got in his way.
I implore you to slow down and actually read what I've said as this thread progressed, you seem to be missing some key points. If you simple want to antagonize me, make a better effort and try making real points.
You need to separate you as an individual from the discussion.