I'm simply refuting the contention that Houdini being punched and then dying from it was a "freak accident." There was nothing accidental about it. The man attacked Houdini with the intent of causing grievous bodily harm, grievous bodily harm was inflicted, and Houdini likely died from it. A perfect chain of completely intentional events and their expected consequences. Nothing "freak accident" about it.
So the guy who punched Houdini intended to kill him
and Houdini agreed to this? The freak accident is that he died from it when death was not the intended outcome. It's not that difficult.
If you accept, then, that it's possible for someone to kill you with their fists, then you have to admit that someone who attacks you with their fists and gives no indication that they will stop until you're dead, then it's clearly reasonable to defend yourself as though they're going to kill you.
That is a leap in logic that I do not accept and one that I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for. What you are saying is that every single fist fight/bar brawl is intended to be murder.
Identically to how you're not required to treat someone attacking you with a knife as though they're a surgeon about to perform a necessary medical procedure to your benefit, but rather an assailant who means to maim or kill you.
Well, yea,
because they have a weapon! It is debateable whether or not it is acceptable to shoot someone who is brandishng a knife, but that is not what we are debating. We are talking about shooting unarmed assailants. I will say that I am leaning towards what Oni has been saying about teaching folks self defense so that someone who has a knife doesn't equal a death sentence for you. I will also clarify that at no time have I said or even given the impression that I am completely against gun ownership.
You would be completely wrong. Officers will fire upon the unarmed - and will be legally and morally in the right to do so - when it's necessary to defend their own lives or the lives of others.
You will notice that I requested something stating ANY police department's policy on this as opposed to crashfrog saying "nah man, cops can shoot you no matter what".
That's because police officers understand that you can be beat to death, like 800 people were in 2009 alone (Bureau of Justice Statistics.)
Perhaps you could link me to what you are talking about because I cannot seem to find it.
And if you're fired on with pistols you'll respond with rifles, correct?
Correct me if I am wrong....but haven't you been of the position that essentially "a gun is a gun", when talking about rifles or pistols? I swear I have seen you argue that the same rounds used in, let's say an M4 or M16 (which is what a soldier would have) are the same rounds that can be used in a handgun.
Are you now saying that a rifle is far more deadly than a handgun? Is it coming directly from you that a good start for regulation would be to ban rifles? Good idea!
The doctrine of proportionality doesn't require constructing a hierarchy of weapon lethality, so that you spend entire minutes sitting there determining whether the guy with a tire iron means you have to use your bare hands because you don't have anything on you whose lethality is between bare hands and tactical knife.
"The doctrine of proportionality" deals with punishment. YOU YOURSELF cried about how we aren't debating punishment. Secondly, "The doctrine of proportionality" is not what US soldiers use when assessing immediate danger. You will notice that I mentioned THE GENEVA CONVENTION for a reason as that is what is used.
Lastly, of course there is no expectation of constructing or detailing a hierarchy of weapons when faced with imminent danger. However, I can assure that soldiers who make the wrong decision will likely face punishment. We are talking about soldiers (in this case) firing live rounds at unarmed people. You keep bringing this shit up about hierarchy. YOU are the one saying it is ok to shoot to kill unarmed people and that soldiers and police have the authority to do so. That is incorrect.
I live in Washington DC, which has the highest rate of homicides in the nation (and until recently a complete ban on handguns.) Just this past year a man died during an altercation in which only a single punch was thrown.
Oh my god crash! Personal anecdote is soooo sexy! Give me some more!
If you don't think that a man beating on you with his fists constitutes a threat to your life, then you just don't know what you're talking about.
If you think it is appropriate to kill people just because you have no other means to protect yourself, I feel sorry for you and think you ought to be locked up. You are a potential murderer. If you think that every fist fight is imminent death, you don't know what you are talking about.
Almost a thousand people are murdered that way every year - far more than are killed by assault rifles, incidentally.
First it was an unsourced 800, now it is almost 1000? Damn I want some of your sexy figures that I can manipulate any way I see fit! That shit makes me hard!
I'm sure that if someone started firing on you with an assault rifle, you'd have no problem justifying return fire, despite the fact that almost nobody in the US is killed by assault rifles in any given year. The number of people who die that way every year is irrelevant. What justifies the armed response is that it's necessary to save your life. Period.
So we go from talking about shooting unarmed people to shooting back when shot upon?
You live in DC, you said? Are there lots of gun fights at the DC Corral? Do you guys still ride horses over there? Is horse theft still punishable by death where you're from?
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
™ Version 4.2
