CAPITAL PUNISHMENT! (Just for Kahl)

[Dimnos]

Of course I would probably try to shoot you in the leg or the stomach first. Because Im not a total dick.

[The Leader]

But what if they weren't in your house, Dimnos? Then you could probably be charged with murder!

[Dimnos]

Then I wouldnt be shooting at them.

[MajorScales]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

If you are defending yourself and knock somebody out or make them unable to attack you (incapacitate) them, and then after all this is over you walk up to them and cap a bullet right into the middle of their forehead, you can be charged with a crime. Because the point at which you incapacitate them is when you have stopped defending yourself.

If it was filmed on a nanny cam...but just the fact that you could should someone point blank in the head would cause some suspicion.

The guy that was just caught for holding the girl in the backyard for 18 years should be killed. I don't want to hear about it, he did it and he should vanish.

[Dimnos]

Quite right. Rape a kid you should die. Its much better than what they are going to do to you in general population. If anything your doing him a favor.

[kahljorn]

[quote]

When they decide to join up that was a decision you made that put you one step closer to that situation. Whereas when you are in your home and someone kicks your door in to rob you or whatever you made no decision.

lol trueish. Although you could maybe say the same thing about people who move into ghettos.
What I might say in response to this is that soldiers have taken up a "responsibility" to defend us, just like police officers; and that is the situation they have placed themselves in.

really, though, some soldiers do join to kill people.

That is a very idealistic way to look at it but I can see what you mean. Armies are for defensive purposes in a perfect world.

I think the purpose of this idea is to protect soldiers from the label of "Murderer."

I believe there are some Hutus in Africa that would disagree with you on this.

yea there are some people who seemingly go to war just to kill people, and usually those are considered the most abhorrent wars/people.

If you are a soldier holding a fortified position and a bunch of guy come running at you with automatic weapons what is the best way of stopping them from killing you and/or getting past you to whoever or whatever you are defending?

Shooting bullets at them.

Incapacitating an attacker isnt always a viable option. I am in agreement with you that when it is possible it should be done.

True. Even in these situations, though, its still wrong to have killed those people, its just more wrong to have let them kill you.

However on the battlefield they are still "around the corner" and lethal force is still the only viable option in many situations.

Yep, and I also think that war is outside of the scope of normal justice. War is so tragic

[kahljorn]

Im not sure about elsewhere in the USA but here in Texas if you kick in my door and just stand there looking at me I have the right to shoot you on the spot. You broke into my house, I felt endangered, I defended myself the only way I thought I could. You dont want to get shot? Dont go breaking into peoples houses.

I know there's a cliche about texas, but i doubt its that simple. Plus, somebody breaking into your house is only one of many situations. I also doubt you have a right to "Kill them" so much as you have the right to "Shoot them."

You never have the right to kill somebody.

[kahljorn]

In most jurisdictions, defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense to criminal charges for an act of violence. It acts to provide complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack.

from our old friend wikipedia.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

From texas law... but there's some shit that wikipedia article mentions where you dont have to retreat from your home.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

So, basically, if you coulda yelled at the guy and scared him off without him stealing your property than self-defense might not be a valid defense in court.

If some guy's trying to attack you on the streets and you could just safely run away but instead choose to kill him you could be charged with a crime.

[The Leader]

THAT'S NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE MISTER!

[kahljorn]

i guess now you also don't have to retreat if you're in your car or workplace if certain crimes like murder or kidnapping are being comitted.

[kahljorn]

the leader maybe you don't realize this but this thread was made just for me and you're annoying so please take your dickbaggery to the bakery and ask them to make you a dickbagguette so you can eat your own dickness, dickface. i hate you

[The Leader]

YOUR LAW HAS NO PLACE IN TEXAS, KAHLJORN. THERE THE ONLY LAW IS GOD'S LAW.

[The Leader]

[kahljorn]

What does the second one down on the second "Tablet" say?

at the inaccurate rendering of the ten commandments

[The Leader]

Pssh, not that god. The one true God.

[Tadao]

Chris

[kahljorn]

who is that?

[The Leader]

Roy Rogers! :D

[kahljorn]

Oooh it's roy rogers.

You know somebody made me a roy rogers one time and it tasted like shit so have your god explain that to me.

[The Leader]

He works in mysterious ways.

[kahljorn]

Everytime i order a tetragrammaton it tastes surperb

[Colonel Flagg]

[edit-off topic]

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Oooh it's roy rogers.

You know somebody made me a roy rogers one time and it tasted like shit so have your god explain that to me.

You should have ordered a Tom Collins. But you know what they say about hindsight.

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

[edit-off topic]

Like we give a shit here Colonel. Your opinion is always welcome.

[MajorScales]

Capital Punisment is a societal entity. We as a society decide if some fuck dies because he is caught red handed doing something unspeakable. When I was a kid I would order a Shirley Temple

[Tadao]

That doesn't make it right.