It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+23 more 
posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Here's some wisdom from a scholar that could qualify for the squirrel statement of the year blue ribbon award.

The claim is that somebody using a gun for self defense against an "alleged" criminal is bad and illegal because it could deny the criminal the right to a fair trial if the criminal was to be killed.

The brains just keep shrinking don't they.

I hear rattles when some people move their heads.

HuffPro: Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial

first the quote:

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.



and some background:

I have no idea what to make of this. The Huffington Post is arguing that Americans have no legal right to shoot a violent attacker because it violates the criminal’s right to a fair trial. I feel confident in saying this is by far the dumbest attempt to subvert our gun ownership rights ever and that’s saying a lot considering how insanely stupid gun grabbers are.

Justin Curmi is a dyslexic guy with a degree in philosophy. According to his bio he is, “A blogger that seeks to engage people in thought and conversation through presenting new views to matters, new or old.” Writing for The HuffPo, he presented one hell of a view concerning our right to not be murdered by a maniac killer.


Squirrels are Jumpity






edit on Apr-28-2016 by xuenchen because: link fix



+4 more 
posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Great! Lets disarm all de police!



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
If this became a law wouldn't it also make defending yourself at all, illegal? Your hands can kill someone so you can't use them to defend youself because if you do, the person attacking you might not be able to stand trial for attacking you... Makes sense to me, we have to be able to prosecute these guys weather you are dead or alive, we can't if they are dead.....



........DOT..............



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Your link is broken.


+5 more 
posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
But the silver lining is that it would make the criminals' actions even more illegal because then they could deprive you of your chance to have your day in court and get justice for what they do to you ... right? Right? *crickets*



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Must be from Massachusetts.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

fixed.

my error.




posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I don't hate guns, but i personally would prefer to have real criminals in a cage, you kill someone, life in a cage, you rape or abuse someone, here's your shiny new cage for life, oh and i would also make sure they stay alive for a very long time, so they can wake up everyday and remember what they did, now thats torture.

edit on 28-4-2016 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
This snowflake is extra special.

There is an underlying theme though,
disarming and pacifying the populace.
Makes for easy communist undertakings.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
My dads best friend killed a guy in a self defense fist fight, the guy fell and hit his head on a curb, he got 6 years in jail served 4, (this is Denmark).

I lived on a small island, and my dad and the friend who was released from prison came over to visit me, he was a very calm and nice guy.

During some drinking and grill, we talked about it, i directly asked him if he felt it fair to go to prison for what he had done in self defense?

He said yes, i killed a man, if i hadn't got any punishment i'm not sure i could live with it.

I was a little surprised, but also partly agree.


edit on 28-4-2016 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
How about I use "enemy combatant" defense.

Seems to work for the US Government at federal level...


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

LOL - in bend-over and take all my sh!t world this lawyer may have a point, however, the reality is that the criminal who breaks into private property to steal / rape / kill from innocents forgoes his constitutional rights at that very moment and consequently gets a fair trial when he reaches the pearly gates.

I pity this fool.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
I don't hate guns, but i personally would prefer to have real criminals in a cage, you kill someone, life in a cage, you rape or abuse someone, here's your shiny new cage for life, oh and i would also make sure they stay alive for a very long time, so they can wake up everyday and remember what they did, now thats torture.



I think most people would agree with your latter point. However, PREVENTING a crime from happening in the first place should always take precedence over ensuring "justice" is served. You murder or forcibly rape someone and get away with it? Yes, spend the rest of your life in jail, but if the victim successfully fights the rapist off and he dies as a result? That is even better.

To many people are caught up in the mentality that the justice system NEEDS to have its day and that is wrong. Preventing a victimization should ALWAYS take precedence over ensuring the perp gets a day in court, no two ways about it. Yes, there are cases where a perp may not be doing something of their own volition, lets say in the case of a schizo off his meds. Ok, fair enough, you could argue that it's "not his fault" - but consider this: He's still going to attack someone right? If true, then already, SOMEONE is going to be hurt, whether the victim fights back or not, it is already established that someone is going to be hurt, and so there is an equal amount of rights loss going around. The perp doesn't have more of a right to be victim free than his assault/murder victim, but Progressives like the yahoo that wrote this article are assuming they are. Quite literally, he is putting perpetrator rights ahead of the victims rights.

So you could argue the exact same thing in reverse if you absolutely had to. If a victim fights back, the justice system still has it's day because the person will be cleared for defending themselves. There is no net loss of justice. Either a victim can fight back and be cleared by the justice system, or the perp can kill the victim and face justice - either way, the justice system still has it's day



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Terminal1
How about I use "enemy combatant" defense.

Seems to work for the US Government at federal level...

Nice! I like this statement.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
I don't hate guns, but i personally would prefer to have real criminals in a cage, you kill someone, life in a cage, you rape or abuse someone, here's your shiny new cage for life, oh and i would also make sure they stay alive for a very long time, so they can wake up everyday and remember what they did, now thats torture.


It's great to see criminals get theirs and all, but your right to derive pleasure from seeing criminals be punished for a long time shouldn't take precedence over my right to keep my life if it comes right down to it.

If some home invader comes into my house to try to rape me, maybe worse, I am not going to be thinking, "Gosh, I could defend myself with potentially lethal force, but dukeofjive would really like to see this guy in a cage ... so I think I'll just bend over and take it and hope he doesn't hurt me too badly ..."

Nope, I think I'd be doing whatever I needed to to ensure my survival as best I could, even up to killing the bastard.
edit on 28-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.If defending my life against an attacker and killing him in the process makes me an outlaw too,so be it.One of us two is getting that fair trial-and it ain't gonna be the mofo who attacked me.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Violent criminals get more than a fair trial these days. Being how we play catch and release, when they finally do kill someone they usually have 10-20 prior felonies, which if they had been sentenced properly, would not be out on the streets in the first place to go and kill someone.

As far as the article, complete utter nonsense. I don't wish harm on anyone but part of me wishes this liberal would get attack within inches of his life and see how he feels then.


iTruthSeeker
edit on 28-4-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
If there was ever a idea worthy of a face palm, this is it.

Someone's right to step upon your rights and retain their own. The current world.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
I suppose it depends on one's definition of criminal; some people seem to think being black in a hoodie is a crime. I'm of the opinion though that anyone breaking into your house is fair game.




a reply to: TinfoilTP
The 1950s is calling, McCarthy.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join