92-year old vet kills a man with one shot page 4

110 posts

Flag Post

Actually the logical argument would be that you keep what you exchanged goods or valuables for. It is the basis of fair trade. The burglar by definition is not exchanging goods or valuables for the items they take, and is attempting a zero sum transaction. Worse, they are damaging other property of the owner in the process, and leaving them to deal with the damage.

 
Flag Post

Uh, okay, Omega, if I’ll argue with you for a while we’ll probably come to a point where we acknowledge some people took something from the planet and claimed it as its own, and others who accidentally invented something first get to reap the profits even though that’s 100% luck. But that is no reason to argue burglars are evenly in their right to take “legal property” from one person. At the current moment in time, the majority of people are not to be blamed for any faulty distribution of wealth. Only the very rich can afford to lose a significant amount of money to save more others from death, and even then is stealing probably not the best option.

 
Flag Post

true, but “fair trade” is not what we have. we have manipulable exchange rates. and we have rent…a lot of rent, which is not exchange of goods or valuables. we also have digital counterfeiting of money, as per what banks do regularly. investments too is not exchange of goods or valuables.

your argueing from the assumption of a state that doesn’t exist.

 
Flag Post

I’m arguing a state which most-certainly does exist, within the environs of the home, and within the limitations of the average homeowner’s life.

 
Flag Post
Uh, okay, Omega, if I’ll argue with you for a while we’ll probably come to a point where we acknowledge some people took something from the planet and claimed it as its own, and others who accidentally invented something first get to reap the profits even though that’s 100% luck. But that is no reason to argue burglars are evenly in their right to take “legal property” from one person. At the current moment in time, the majority of people are not to be blamed for any faulty distribution of wealth. Only the very rich can afford to lose a significant amount of money to save more others from death, and even then is stealing probably not the best option.

i agree with all of that. but that does still mean the situation is much more arbitrary than the highly simplistic: (imagine robot voice) burglar bad, thus authorised for killing; old man in his rights, thus authorised to kill. (/robot voice)

I’m arguing a state which most-certainly does exist, within the environs of the home, and within the limitations of the average homeowner’s life.

absolutely not. you’re assuming an ideal societal situation. there have been many freedom fighters in the world that illegally took what wasn’t legally theres, and they’ve been seen as the good guys. just because something is legally someone elses because that individual got it through legal exchange, doesn’t mean they’re in the right, and taking it by force is always wrong.

so let me ask, would the busdriver have been in his rights if he’d shot dead Rosa Parks?

 
Flag Post

Freedom fighters are fighting against an oppressive government, not a random old man who looks like he’ll be a soft target.

Even your robin hood example was fighting a corrupt government for the benefit of the general population.

These burglars are simply out for themselves. The situation is very different.

What exactly does non-violent protest have in common with mugging an old man, please? I’m not seeing the connection.

 
Flag Post

lol. lots of freedom fighters were not non-violent protestors.

i’m just showing that just because one person is a burglar and the other a home-owner doens’t inherently mean that one is good and the other is bad, at least to a degree that it would be right for the home-owner to kill the burglar.

i’m just countering jhco’s absolutism.

oh, here’s an example: in the Netherlands, squatting is legal (up until two years ago, anyway). squatting is a form of burglary.

 
Flag Post

i agree with all of that. but that does still mean the situation is much more arbitrary than the highly simplistic: (imagine robot voice) burglar bad, thus authorised for killing; old man in his rights, thus authorised to kill. (/robot voice)

The homeowner may do that because of crappy American laws, and I agree they are crappy. From what I understand, it is better to shoot an intruder than harm them, because it’ll be less likely you’ll get convicted for something. It isn’t so much protection of your good as it is protection from prison.

 
Flag Post

Omega, as long as you do actually understand that you going out and ripping off an elderly person then selling what you get to pad your wallet is NOT the same as ‘fighting for freedom’. That you understand the difference is what concerns me here.

Squatting is not a form of burglary, it is a form of trespass. Squatters do not target homes with people living in them, to load up on as many goods as possible, and then head off to fence them for money. They break into empty houses for a roof over their heads.

 
Flag Post

If he could have aimed for the heart he could have aimed for his leg, I don’t believe people should have the ability to choose whether someone lives or dies, they’re not god after all (god doesn’t exist, yes I know)

 
Flag Post

As BSG pointed out earlier in this thread, if you aim for the leg and actually hit, you have a greater chance of killing your target than with a torso-shot. Just, they have time to strike you back before they bleed out.

 
Flag Post

The main problem I see is that when you bring a gun into a situation like this you escalate it to the use of deadly force. How would we have reacted if after the first guy he shot his friend shot back and killed the old man?
Then there is need and justification. Sure the burglar was doing something bad here but was it bad enough to kill him over? The total value of what he was stealing can’t be that high that it would be worth killing over (otherwise can we just shoot all bankers on sight?). It would have been better to find some way of identification (like hiding and taking pictures) and then going to the police.

 
Flag Post

Jesus Christ you’re a polemic one, Omega.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:Robin Hood is the protagonist of the story is he not? he is also the burglar of the story, is he not? that proves my point.

Robin Hood, the story of a protagonist burglar, proves that burglary is an acceptable behavior, or that people don’t really own stuff? No.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005: and others who accidentally invented something first get to reap the profits even though that’s 100% luck

Inventions are not usually accidental.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Inventions are not usually accidental.

Technological ones quite often are. You are looking for one thing and you find another.

Also, Robin Hood wasn’t a burglar. He was a mugger. He attacked the rich that passed through the forest – the only viable route from Nottingham to London. He did not invade their castles looking for valuables.

 
Flag Post

The historically inspired fictional anti-hero Robin Hood still expected to get shot at with arrows and stabbed with blades. He didn’t cry out “But I’m doing this for a good reason, don’t kill me!” Idealism is nice, but let’s not pretend stealing doesn’t negate your safety.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

The historically inspired fictional anti-hero Robin Hood still expected to get shot at with arrows and stabbed with blades. He didn’t cry out “But I’m doing this for a good reason, don’t kill me!” Idealism is nice, but let’s not pretend stealing doesn’t negate your safety.

I’m still grasping at how to explain to someone that the story of Robin Hood doesn’t negate individual ownership. If that is someone’s thinking, then I think this may just be a lost cause.

 
Flag Post
The homeowner may do that because of crappy American laws, and I agree they are crappy. From what I understand, it is better to shoot an intruder than harm them, because it’ll be less likely you’ll get convicted for something. It isn’t so much protection of your good as it is protection from prison.

then we seem to have no disagreement.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Omega, as long as you do actually understand that you going out and ripping off an elderly person then selling what you get to pad your wallet is NOT the same as ‘fighting for freedom’. That you understand the difference is what concerns me here.

certainly, i understand that difference. just like you understand it’s not a dichotomy and there’s a huge grey area between it.

for instance, not everything freedom fighters have done directly relates to fighting for freedom. a lot may have been survival, like raiding food supplies.

maybe these guys were also hungry.

Squatting is not a form of burglary, it is a form of trespass. Squatters do not target homes with people living in them, to load up on as many goods as possible, and then head off to fence them for money. They break into empty houses for a roof over their heads.

squatters are infallible then, never mistaking a home for being uninhabited? and i don’t think squatters or burglars go in announcing their intentions through a megaphone.

also the guy that got shot is also technically a trespasser. we can easily guess their intentions, but he hadn’t walked away with anything yet, so technically he got shot for trespassing.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Jesus Christ you’re a polemic one, Omega.

when compared to the highly agreeable, comformist human race, yeah.

Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:Robin Hood is the protagonist of the story is he not? he is also the burglar of the story, is he not? that proves my point.

Robin Hood, the story of a protagonist burglar, proves that burglary is an acceptable behavior, or that people don’t really own stuff? No.

that’s not what i said. i am just questioning the dogma that says that a burglar is necessarily, inherently the bad guy, so much that he is to be shot.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

The historically inspired fictional anti-hero Robin Hood still expected to get shot at with arrows and stabbed with blades. He didn’t cry out “But I’m doing this for a good reason, don’t kill me!” Idealism is nice, but let’s not pretend stealing doesn’t negate your safety.

but people rooted for him, not the sherrifs.

also in case you forgot, i’ll remind you i actually sided with the old man. i’m just protesting the dogmatic black and white thinking. because it’s important.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

certainly, i understand that difference. just like you understand it’s not a dichotomy and there’s a huge grey area between it.

for instance, not everything freedom fighters have done directly relates to fighting for freedom. a lot may have been survival, like raiding food supplies.

maybe these guys were also hungry.

No shit, sherlock.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Jesus Christ you’re a polemic one, Omega.

when compared to the highly agreeable, comformist human race, yeah.

Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:Robin Hood is the protagonist of the story is he not? he is also the burglar of the story, is he not? that proves my point.

Robin Hood, the story of a protagonist burglar, proves that burglary is an acceptable behavior, or that people don’t really own stuff? No.

that’s not what i said. i am just questioning the dogma that says that a burglar is necessarily, inherently the bad guy, so much that he is to be shot.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

The historically inspired fictional anti-hero Robin Hood still expected to get shot at with arrows and stabbed with blades. He didn’t cry out “But I’m doing this for a good reason, don’t kill me!” Idealism is nice, but let’s not pretend stealing doesn’t negate your safety.

but people rooted for him, not the sherrifs.

also in case you forgot, i’ll remind you i actually sided with the old man. i’m just protesting the dogmatic black and white thinking. because it’s important.

Bad guy is a subjective term from the perspective of the victim. To the rich people being stolen from, Robin Hood is absolutely a bad guy, or aggressor, regardless of his intentions. It isn’t clear what you’re trying to say beyond just being disagreeable.

Stop using the word Dogma, it’s got far more weight than how you’re applying it.

Congratulations Omega, you’re a unique and special snowflake gold-star anti-conformist, and the kid everyone in philosophy classes hates. Please re-watch Fight Club and realize it’s making fun of you. You’re not “fighting” anything in this thread but yourself. Don’t take this as a personal attack either, because I think I get what you’re trying to say, it’s just not as profound or relevant as you think it is.

 
Flag Post

uhm…i’ve actually been to university philosophy, for fake. there’s only one type people hate, and that’s religious people that constantly “but bible”.

in fact i don’t think you have a clue about philosophy, because if there’s one thing essential to philosophy, it’s questioning the accepted truths as inherent. without that, we would be living in a complete theocracy.

Fight Club isn’t about comformism but consumerism, and it is absolutely anti-consumerist. i don’t know where you get it to make fun of anti-consumerists or non-conformists, but it’s certainly sided with anti-consumerism.

and don’t, just don’t put me in a group and tell me i’m conforming to a non-conformist image, if that’s what you’re doing. that’s the first of only two things that i find really insulting.

i don’t undestand why you’re so obecting. if you do agree with jhco’s black and white thinking, then why do you care about the guy being killed at all?

time and time again i have told you i am merely being sceptical of the assumed premises of good vs evil justifications. without doing so, there is no basis for complaint about this guy being shot, and yet there are people complaining about it, so that means my scepticism has merit.

 
Flag Post

Why do you spell “conformism” wrong? Your aversion to being classified as a non-conformist, coupled with your inability to understand the film Fight Club assures me that my assumptions were rather spot-on. Your being a philosophy major is neither surprising, nor opposite my claim.

You also didn’t reply to the part of my post where I show that your “questioning assumptions” is just your inability to appreciate the subjective nature of relationships. No one here is disagreeing that the individuals who broke into this house might have had other intentions beyond raping, murdering, or stealing from this man, but those intentions do not negate their offense against the individual who’s home they broke into. From his perspective, and lack of knowledge, they’re there to do “bad guy things.” Considering acquiring the knowledge of their intentions includes a significant tactical disadvantage, seeing their breaking in as evidence enough of nefarious intentions is both not unreasonable, nor a “black and white presumption of evil.” It’s intelligent. At least other people who disagree with the intelligence of his actions are presenting reasons why he may have overreacted, while you make polemic arguments that mean literally nothing but that you want to talk about what most people understand without having to mention it.

 
Flag Post

that’s a type-o. i also mistyped “objecting”.

Your aversion to being classified as a non-conformist

aversion to being classified as a conformist, not a non-conformist.

Your being a philosophy major is neither surprising, nor opposite my claim

nah, it was only for fake. you pay a relatively small amount of money, and you can sit in with the classes. i wasn’t allowed to sit in with the workshops, but i did so anyway. but only for a few months.

You also didn’t reply to the part of my post where I show that your “questioning assumptions” is just your inability to appreciate the subjective nature of relationships

i’m not quite sure…i think you mean the first sentence where you say the “bad guy” is the victims perspective, is that it? well, you edited that in, so it wasn’t there yet when i wrote my reply.

i’m not sure what you mean.

From his perspective, and lack of knowledge, they’re there to do “bad guy things.” Considering acquiring the knowledge of their intentions includes a significant tactical disadvantage, seeing their breaking in as evidence enough of nefarious intentions is both not unreasonable, nor a “black and white presumption of evil.”

agreed. said as much on the previous page.

At least other people who disagree with the intelligence of his actions are presenting reasons why he may have overreacted, while you make polemic arguments that mean literally nothing but that you want to talk about what most people understand without having to mention it.

wait, now you go from complete opposition to what i said, to saying that everyone already knows it to be true. and i’m not sure at which point you understood me better.

the common perception is that lawbreakers are bad, and most people lack the ability to conceptualise reality beyond that position. as such, in a battle between 17/18th century pirates and empirialists, if you were to ask people to point out the bad and the good guy, most people would point out the pirates as the bad guys, and the emperialists as the good guys, and will react bewildered if you suggest it was probably the other way around.

until you explain to them how the empirialists did a lot of slave trade, what this slave trade involved, and that most pirates were ex-slaves.

your reaction, BSG, is rather typical. “WHAT, no, that’s rediculous!”. “oh yeah, everyone knows that!”.

there’s a difference between “knowing” it, and realising it. if you are to read Hume or Aristotle, most of it is things that you already know and say “duh”. but that doesn’t mean that you realised it before, or that it doesn’t make a difference whether to realise it or not.

 
Flag Post

It’s just silly. Robin Hood is not a case study in burglary “acceptableness”. Further, I doubt this 92 year old guy is the “rich”. This is just a case of a douche bag taking things that belong, not to him, but to others. That’s a shitty thing to do, especially to an old person, who we as a society should protect. It’s especially shitty to try to defend such a shitty behavior. It isn’t unique. It isn’t non-conformist, or non-consumer. It’s just shitty. So, if you don’t want to be shitty, stop presenting such a shitty idea.