Gay/Lesbian religious unions (Marriage)

AnomalousEntity said:
Dictionary .com




Websters:



Your usage:



You use the term to describe a defensive situation and the text book definations clearly indicate the term to mean a person taking OFFENSIVE action against criminals.

Break down in case you dont understand:

A person pulls a gun on you and you defend yourself-Self Defense

A person pulls a gun on you and you chase them off, you then pursue them and get in your car and chase them down- Vigilante.

The term Vigilante does not apply to any manner or from of self-defense...only when offensive active pursuit, hunting, actively seeking out etc etc. does the term "vigilante" apply.

The courts have upheld and fully agreed with this "benchmark" of determing vigilante and thus illegal and unnecessary actions on an individuals part.. Although law enforcement does meet the definition of the "benchmark"

Defensive actions are clearly not defined this way and the courts agree with this also.

Its not that complicated.


PS. I didnt need the internet to look up Mormons, their activities and beliefs are pretty much common knowledge (and fodder for jokes) to most people.

I get the gist...but what had been said was that the person in question sees something happeneing (Not to them) and uses a gun to 'do something about it' - that's offensive action. The other case, the person coming at you only seems offensive/dangerous to you...by taking action before you are not actually in danger (shoot them instead of leaving and calling the cops), you are being a vigilante. I see no problem in the use of the term in either one of those cases. NEXT CASE!


ps. AE - I understand the term. Oddly enough, I'm neither young(Infatile) nor stupid... I used the term where it seemd proper to do so. If you would present another case in which I have used this term without due merit, please present them here again. I'll be more than happy to go up to bat again.

PPS. AE - we don't have a lot of Mormons around here... we mostly make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses and Hare Krishnas (sp?)
 
AnomalousEntity said:
They are called Mormons. Founded by Joseph Biggham. (Thus the term "Biggamy" ((spelling?)). Mostly populated in the Salt Lake area of Utah.
Although I think the rest of your info is fairly accurate, it was Joseph Brigham, Not Biggham, and the term Bigomy has been around far longer than him.

For your info... http://www.byu.edu/about/brigham/
 
A person pulls a gun on you and you chase them off, you then pursue them and get in your car and chase them down- Vigilante.

if you are in fear of your life, like they will come back, still self defense

if they even threaten you, or in any way make you feel like your life is in danger, even if it's not a physical immediate threat, still falls under the self defense heading

someone shoplifts, and you lay the smackdown on them, vigilante
 
MrBishop said:
I get the gist...but what had been said was that the person in question sees something happeneing (Not to them) and uses a gun to 'do something about it' - that's offensive action. The other case, the person coming at you only seems offensive/dangerous to you...by taking action before you are not actually in danger (shoot them instead of leaving and calling the cops), you are being a vigilante. I see no problem in the use of the term in either one of those cases. NEXT CASE!


ps. AE - I understand the term. Oddly enough, I'm neither young(Infatile) nor stupid... I used the term where it seemd proper to do so. If you would present another case in which I have used this term without due merit, please present them here again. I'll be more than happy to go up to bat again.

PPS. AE - we don't have a lot of Mormons around here... we mostly make fun of Jehovah's Witnesses and Hare Krishnas (sp?)



The same laws that apply to personal defense apply in situations of Defense of others. The same definitions also apply. The courts have already ruled the same for defense of others. In fact, the person doesnt not even have to be in danger of loosing life and limb...you can use deadly force in the case of a witnessed rape.

A fact that is so obvious I didnt think it was necessary to spell it out for you so No the term "vigilante" is complety wrong. I would think if you really understood the term, you would not continue to make such egregious errors.

Also if you will go back to the thread you will see that I already explained the laws regarding the use of deadly force and am at dread to have to repeat myself on it again. The scenario you mention was already addressed. It may help if you actually read the thread.
 
paul_valaru said:
if you are in fear of your life, like they will come back, still self defense

if they even threaten you, or in any way make you feel like your life is in danger, even if it's not a physical immediate threat, still falls under the self defense heading

someone shoplifts, and you lay the smackdown on them, vigilante


Thats not correct Paul.

Think of the war in IRAQ.

We are not using the George Bush definition of "threat" here, we are using the UN version of "threat".

You can only use deadly force for immediate, apparant, imminent threat to life, limb, or rape.

This was also addressed in the other thread and is what I was referring to in the above post to Bish about his concerns.
 
AnomalousEntity said:
Thats not correct Paul.

Think of the war in IRAQ.

We are not using the George Bush definition of "threat" here, we are using the UN version of "threat".

You can only use deadly force for immediate, apparant, imminent threat to life, limb, or rape.

This was also addressed in the other thread and is what I was referring to in the above post to Bish about his concerns.


Talking US or Canadian self defense laws, if you are in fear for your life, and it does not have to be immediate danger, you can use force to defend yourself.

You do not have to wait for the guy to throw the first punch, you can punch him first, as long s you can prove to a jury, that you felt threatened.
 
paul_valaru said:
Talking US or Canadian self defense laws, if you are in fear for your life, and it does not have to be immediate danger, you can use force to defend yourself.

You do not have to wait for the guy to throw the first punch, you can punch him first, as long s you can prove to a jury, that you felt threatened.



Talking about a "tricky law"!

I dont agree. According to that, if a guy told you he was going to "kill you", you could park in front of his house and blow his head off when he left for work in the morning...now THAT IS VIGILANTE!

I disagree with that totally! A responsible gun owner does not ACTIVELY pursue a threat. He does jump in for the defense of others but that is as far as it goes.

Throwing the first punch...maybe...but chances are your not going to seriously hurt a guy in a brawl. As a matter of fact...as long as he isnt coming at you with a knife or gun (at which case Id shoot him), why not just turn and run like hell?

And no Bish before you jump in...you have to wait until you SEE THE WEAPON before you take action...you dont just do it because you "think it" the way you keep asserting responsible gun owners do...because they dont and the law is clear on this.
 
AnomalousEntity said:
Talking about a "tricky law"!

I dont agree. According to that, if a guy told you he was going to "kill you", you could park in front of his house and blow his head off when he left for work in the morning...now THAT IS VIGILANTE!

I disagree with that totally! A responsible gun owner does not ACTIVELY pursue a threat. He does jump in for the defense of others but that is as far as it goes.

Throwing the first punch...maybe...but chances are your not going to seriously hurt a guy in a brawl. As a matter of fact...as long as he isnt coming at you with a knife or gun (at which case Id shoot him), why not just turn and run like hell?

And no Bish before you jump in...you have to wait until you SEE THE WEAPON before you take action...you dont just do it because you "think it" the way you keep asserting responsible gun owners do...because they dont and the law is clear on this.


it is a VERY tricky law.

Now you have to prove you felt threatened, and to flesh it all out, you have to prove you took all other recourse, calling the cops, trying to walk away, the legal seminar I went to said the feeling threated is the extreme situation, if the person you beleive carries a gun, recites your address, says they want to kill your family (want not will, so it is not a direct threat) turns there back, and walks to there car, and you beleive that they will get in, drive to your house and murder your family, and you are carless, cellphone less, you can act to stop them from leaving, and can use deadly force....but the deadly force is even trickier, you have to prove there was no way you could stop this person any other eay, so if he is a wimp, and you are a sopranoesque gorilla, you'd lose.

cases like this have been won in the states.

the basic self defense defense is this

DEFENSE, SELF-DEFENSE - A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain.

The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts he has aided the assailant.

The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards.

As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy.
--b--
 
paul_valaru said:
it is a VERY tricky law.

Now you have to prove you felt threatened, and to flesh it all out, you have to prove you took all other recourse, calling the cops, trying to walk away, the legal seminar I went to said the feeling threated is the extreme situation, if the person you beleive carries a gun, recites your address, says they want to kill your family (want not will, so it is not a direct threat) turns there back, and walks to there car, and you beleive that they will get in, drive to your house and murder your family, and you are carless, cellphone less, you can act to stop them from leaving, and can use deadly force....but the deadly force is even trickier, you have to prove there was no way you could stop this person any other eay, so if he is a wimp, and you are a sopranoesque gorilla, you'd lose.

cases like this have been won in the states.

the basic self defense defense is this

Our laws are very very simliar with a couple of exceptions...our laws are actually more stringent.

We have a "duty to retreat".

Meaning that if you have a means of escape, or retreat (running away, going from one room to another etc) you are required to do so before using lethal force. This rule DOES NOT apply after the assailant has entered your private dwelling already. you can shoot someone breaking and entering even if it is a small person and your big, and your armed and he wasnt....think of the bit about "not required to make a determination as to the threat".

Once he has entry its slightly different...you must again prove he was a threat (the logic here being to prevent you from inviting "Joe blow" over and killing him and then telling the cops "well he was in my house"...YOU CANT DO THAT.

Get them in the door way (or near the door), or they better an obvious threat.


Also, we absolutely can not pursue a criminal.

That doesnt apply in your sceanrio about a man going to kill your family because you would be acting in "defense of others"...but YOU CANT JUST SHOOT HIM AT THE CAR..

You could follow him to the home (hopefully while calling the cops) and if he pulls up in the drivway, gets out with a weapon or tries to break in...shoot him.

What if you dont have transportation...call the cops and send them to your home ahead of him!

flag someone down. Call your house and tell them to get the hell out...

Only if none of these options were present...hell shoot out his tires and empty the gun into the engine compartment!!!

Shooting another person is and should always be THE LAST RESORT! Period.
 
flavio said:
So what does that have to do with the current subject?


Other than the fact that the APA has/is considering taking pedophilia off the mental disorders list, nothing. :rolleyes:
 
Gonz said:
Other than the fact that the APA has/is considering taking pedophilia off the mental disorders list, nothing. :rolleyes:

So have you found any relevance to gay marriage yet? Are you still working on it or did you really just want to talk about pedophilia?
 
The link is simple if you weren't so damned hardheaded & voluntarily blind. Let me give you a hint. Slippery slope.
 
Gonz said:
Slippery slope.
Sorry, Gonz, but that's kind of like saying speeding is related to bank robbery because they're both illegal. I would't have pegged you as a homophobe.
 
There seems to be some confusion over the correct term to use:
bigamy n. The criminal offense of marrying one person while still legally married to another.

polygamy n.
The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
A mating pattern in which a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex.
The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time; -- opposed to monogamy; as, the nations of the East practiced polygamy.

polyandry n.
The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time.
A mating pattern in which a female mates with more than one male in a single breeding season.
The condition of being polyandrous.
So you may be a polygamist, but in law it seems you can only be charged with bigamy depending on which country you're in of course, since it is only a crime in certain countries.

Oh, and I don't think the "Latter day saints" would be happy about being called "ladder day saints" ... it conjures up some interesting pictures in my mind... :lol:

Anyway, don't mind me, carry on the discussion... it's fun watching you all tying yourself up in knots and revealing your individual prejudices. :)
 
chcr said:
Sorry, Gonz, but that's kind of like saying speeding is related to bank robbery because they're both illegal. I would't have pegged you as a homophobe.


Pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, polygamy, incest...they are all disgusting. 50 years ago, homosexuality was considered a disorder. Today, they want to get married. The slope is very slippery. As I tend to preach, look at history, once the gates are opened, the flood always come thru.

I'm not homophobic. I'm sick & tired of hearing about them though. What goes on in the bedroom needs to stay there. The only difference between "them" & "us" is who they choose to bed. I don't want to hear about the "us" shenanigans & I don't want to hear about the "them" tomfoolery either. Let's quit discussing who we fuck & it won't matter.
 
i think the problm is that the 'them' would at least like the same financial and basic legal benfits of being a 'them' than 'us'. simple stuff like next of kin benefits and being allowed immunity from capital gains tax [in the uk at any rate].

if we don't care about what people are getting up to in the bedroom then i see no preblem in affording homosexuals the same basic legal rights as married couples through civil contract.

otherwise i think you'll have to put up with hearing about it.
 
look at history,

Perhaps you should look at history.

I agree with you about all the whining, but history shows us that the squeaky wheel gets the grease (pun not intended).
 
Back
Top