I should’ve said that it means you have great kids.
Nobody ever wrote a fairy tale called Ugly and The Beast.
2 Likes
So if he’s scum, would your feelings change? Or if it’s when your kids are grow and no longer technically children?
I mean obviously, I doubt (and hope not!) your children will be, but what if they really sucked? Like became a rapist or a wifebeater or something. You’d kill billions of innocent children to protect your own child, just because they were your own child?
I can’t and don’t want to imagine my kid ever being in a situation where I’d have to save them (you know, I just don’t want to think about them being in danger), but IF my son, say, raped a woman, I gotta think I’d have a hard time protecting him over an innocent child.
Yes, because I’ve failed as a parent. I mean I know there are some situations where parents do everything right and still have a bad apple, but I’d still feel like a failure in the only thing that really matters.
Yes.
Now, if they were a rapist or child molester or something of that nature - no I’d have to let the consequences fall on them.
1 Like
If I consider all of your words that I have read, I believe that you would find a way to rise to the occasion if your number ever gets called concerning your family.
1 Like
I don’t think you would because the premise is utterly implausible. How does this even play out? Some evil mastermind kidnaps your kid and tells you to go out and shoot a billion children? I believe you would protect your kid under plausible conditions but walking up to a child you don’t know and who has done you no wrong, and blowing that kid’s head off (let’s not forget you’ll have to do that a billion times) would not be that easy. These kinds of questions are fun to think about but if we want there to be a serious side to them we should at least stick to what’s plausible.
Are you Sicilian?
1 Like
I’m thinking more so I’d press a button or use a genie and have to make the choice.
Of course it’s not plausible.
You know how long it would take to shoot just even 1 billion people in the head?
Longer than I’d live 1000s of times.
The math doesn’t even add up.
1 Like
No, but I’m not averse to using the Sicilian Defense.
2 Likes
Besides three wishes, he’ll also let you bang his wife.
1 Like
Thank you. I like to think I would too, although I suppose no one truly knows until they find themselves in that situation. I was somewhat trying to lighten things as I quizzed Bauber on what he’d do if his kid(s) ever turned out “bad,” which, while I did for the sake of discussion, was also probably kinda dick-ish.
Daniel Penny’s trial is now underway.
Just saw this gem… Lol at “tHe PiGs” cringe
Officials alleged Brown punched Hood in the head and Hood’s son took out a gun, shooting Brown in the back, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
The teen continued shooting as Brown ran from the store, with both the teen and his mother following Brown into the parking lot.
Prosecutors reportedly said Hood told her soon to keep shooting Brown and kill him.
After the teen stopped shooting at Brown, his mother allegedly told him to shoot Brown’s girlfriend, who authorities said encouraged Brown during the earlier altercation. Prosecutors also reportedly said Hood tried to grab the gun herself before her son shoved her off and the two fled the scene.
So the above is somehow considered self defense and the charges were dropped but Penny is a cold blooded killer.
Brown made a physical attack and was stopped via escalating force. This is literally defense.
Penny perceived a threat and intervened.
For the record, I agree with proactive defense. In application of defense law, too many liberal areas seem to want you to die before you decide it’s time to defend your life. It’s stupid.
But the difference is reaction to an active scene of violence and reaction to a perception of potential violence, and this does create a grey area.
Also for the record, I’m fine with the Joe Horn legal outcome in Texas many years ago. Cliff notes: Horns neighbors house was robbed while they were out of town and horn shot the robbers in the back as they were running away with stolen goods. It was considered defense.
He was shot while fleeing. He was basically executed when they caught him. Had this been the police, the city would have burned.
I get it. He still committed an assault and was met with defense. It’s a bit of a grey area but even fleeing he could be a perceived threat. Creating space to draw a weapon, for example.
Maybe there would be a shitstorm if it were the police, but then more police shootings go unnoticed than viral so there’s that.
In any case, it’s an unnecessary whataboutism. The comparison is between two different scenarios. One involved a physical attack, one involved the potential for a physical attack.
It isn’t. When we were issued weapons whenever we were activated for in state duty, a JAG officer would tell us the circumstances when lethal force was justified. We learned this at MP school as well. You have to justify every shot you fire as these situations are fluid and the use of force continuum can change during an incident. Arguably, a civilian might get some leeway but chasing down a person and killing him is very black and white. In my opinion, charges were dropped not because they believed there were no laws broken but because of the optics. And optics is what both cases have in common.
Fortunately JAG officers are not an authority outside of their limited scope.
A lot of people agree with your stance.
Thankfully for those of us who don’t believe we should have to get shot in the face before we can choose to defend ourselves, many laws and court decisions support “stand your ground” defense laws more liberally.
It seems like this is a jab at me but the problem is, in this case (not the imaginary case you somehow have decided to litigate) there was only one armed party.
Stand your ground doesn’t mean pursue and kill.
Keep in mind this was Chicago, not Texas. I’m not saying that Texas laws or interpretations of laws is wrong but that Chicago is very strict when it comes to firearm use. It’s out of character for a city like that to essentially look the other way.
But this is what we see with regard to the law. Zimmerman wasn’t initially charged with a crime, then he was for political reasons, and was then found not guilty. The justice system in some places is very selective when it comes to who they choose to make an example of.
It’s a discussion of the overall sentiment that a weapon should be exposed and used as a threat before responding with deadly force. I have no idea what self defense camp you fall in.
It’s impossible to know if someone is armed unless you let them pull the gun first, and then you’re significantly disadvantaged.
I don’t know what a JAG officer might think, but I’ve been robbed at gunpoint. By the time the pistol is out, you’re too late and at their mercy. Even if you have a missile launcher in your jacket. Doesn’t matter. You lose.
A perceived threat is key. And you end the threat. If it turns out the guy wasn’t armed then he shouldn’t have been playing stupid games anyways.
This can be referenced as fucking around and finding out. And violence is a threat.
Of course you risk charges and a grand jury with every trigger pull, so prudence should be exercised, but a threat is a threat none the less. It’s ok if you disagree but this is how laws are written in many regions, supported by court cases.
What did the Chicago legal system determine?
Usually the evidence and circumstance dictate charges, even in gun friendly areas. I agree Zimmerman was political, however. Fortunately he was proven not guilty after a jury interpreted the scenario against applicable law.
In any case, your original point was comparing two different scenarios. One with confirmed violence, one with perceived potential violence.
To each their own, but I’m ok with both scenarios given available details. It’s good to see an area like Chicago exercise some common sense.
1 Like