Self-defence vs. Vigilantiesm (Where to draw the legal line)

AnomalousEntity said:
Slippery slope.
Your grasping at straws...going with emotion over scientific empirical data, and playing the "one scenario in a million" card to make your point

Face it...its not going to work against intelligent individuals.

It might work on the 6 o'clock news where the average level of education of the viewers is 6th grade...but it wont work here.
Click to expand...

with all respect this is the same method used by the a-human-right website; prefering emotive stories of 1930's germany or the mugger following you down that darkened alley to empirical data.
 
AnomalousEntity said:
Slippery slope.

We already discussed and proved (we didnt have to, formal logic experts have already proved) that Slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy in the short term.


Your grasping at straws...going with emotion over scientific empirical data, and playing the "one scenario in a million" card to make your point

Face it...its not going to work against intelligent individuals.

It might work on the 6 o'clock news where the average level of education of the viewers is 6th grade...but it wont work here.
Click to expand...
This is not a slippery slope arguement...in fact...it isn't even an arguement at all. I'm not trying to counter anything that Alphatroll said....I'm trying to find the barrier between two terms (as described by the law and as described by the individual). I'm describing a scene in parts to seek the barrier.

In this particular example, which is BTW not all that far-fetched, I'm not taking the matter to an extreme.

It's not like I continued the arguemtn with :: You get away with the murder, you get a few friends together, you form a mob, you linch local rapists, you take over the police stations with your mob, you take over America, you take over the WORLD!!! Therefore, Vigilantism leads to World Dominion and should be illegal::

Now...THAT would've been a slippery slope. An arguement unsing suppositions to take an event beyond it's reasoneable conclusion and to a massivly negative end in order to prove that the first event should never had occured.

Perhaps you should dust off your old logic book, crack it open and read it. You would not accuse me of the use of failed logic when I have not done so.

Perhaps you could present a better "Real life" example that would help put a finger on the barrier between self-defence vs. vigilantism ?

We're all eyes!

BTW

[quote:AE] Your grasping at straws...going with emotion over scientific empirical data, and playing the "one scenario in a million" card to make your point [/quote]

Scientific Empirical data? We're not talking about physics or theories regarding Black Holes here...we're discussing Law and Sociology. IF you're talking about the use of statistics to prove a point, I fail to see any part of this issue which touches that topic. There are no numbers being banied about, with the "One in a million" bit. Since when is individuals taking a beating beyond reasoneable force 1:1,000,000 ?
 
ris said:
with all respect this is the same method used by the a-human-right website; prefering emotive stories of 1930's germany or the mugger following you down that darkened alley to empirical data.
Click to expand...


I never said it was perfect...just somthing to think about.
 
It will be OK to bash a burglar
HAVE-a-go heroes who defend themselves against thugs and burglars are to be protected, Justice Secretary Jack Straw pledged yesterday.

People who use reasonable force should not fear prosecution, he said.

He is proposing reforms he says would protect people who ACTED “instinctively”, FEARED for their safety or the safety of others and used FORCE that was not “excessive or disproportionate”.

Mr Straw – who has helped catch muggers or burglars four times himself – said: “Law-abiding citizens should not be put off tackling criminals by fear of excessive investigation.”

But the Tories said the plans don’t go far enough.

Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert said: “There is no greater protection to householders confronted by burglars.”
Click to expand...

Source
 
How to Deal with an Intruder
Pistol.gif
 
Don`t fool yourself. They already did, and enough people have already died from tazing that they really need to be removed from cops' (and worse, rent-a-cops) hands.


But if you're worried enough to be protecting yourself against a tazer, why aren't you worried enough to protect yourself against getting shot? Don't forget, in the US ... tazers can be bought and carried by anyone, just like pepper spray/mace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top