What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

Why are you guys talking more about bin ladens death rather than the woman that was killed?

Or the Libya guys son who was killed with his children in an airstrike?
 
LogGrad98 said:
Completely inapplicable as stated.

If you walk in on some guy raping your daughter you are fully within the law to defend her in any way possible, including killing him.

HOWEVER, if you have knocked him down and tied him up and called the police...THEN while he lay there you put a gun to his head and blew his brains out, you are outside the law and will (and should) be prosecuted. That would be illegal.


In either case (as with OBL) I doubt anyone would say that he didn't deserve to die, but the way he died in both cases is very very different and fits differently within the law.

See, in the eyes of the law, and in the world of social and personal ethics, circumstances matter.

Same applies to OBL. That has been my and One Brow and Dutch's assertion from the get-go. You are of the opinion that no matter how he was killed, even if we poured honey all over him and let pigs feast on his body while he was still alive, then it is fine because he deserved to die.

I disagree. I think the way he was killed, the circumstances around it, are important to know, and determine whether it was right or wrong (or legal or illegal). Either way he deserved to die, but by international law, if the option was there, he also deserved a fair trial. You think otherwise, and that opinion is your prerogotive. But it would still be illegal to deny him a trial (again, if it was an option at the time) and would have been illegal to summarily execute him if it had been possible to take him and bring him to justice, as Obama said was the goal.

Just as if after I tied up the guy raping my daughter I cut him in various places and let my dogs eat him alive (pomeranians can be vicious little ******** =) it would be illegal. The guy might deserve that kind of death, but administering it that way, in those circumstances, would be illegal.
Click to expand...
Obama was "in the act" of planning attacks on this nation. While catching him in the act of raping your daughter is definitely a reason to kill him, does it compare to catching him after he murdered thousands of people, while he was attempting to murder thousands more? You said I had a point where I would treat him like less than human. Apparently you do too- legal or not.

LogGrad98 said:
Regardless of whether you agree with the law or not, it is still the law. Disagreeing with it does not make it right to break it. And it was not just an American issue. OBL killed people in other countries too. This is being watched very closely around the world, and depending on the details of the event, could have very real international repercussions.
Click to expand...
It won't have any repercussions whatsoever. Some people might complain, but nothing will come of this. If we can flat out invade Iraq with no good reason whatsoever (and I am not saying that was right, by any means), then we can certainly kill the ******* that attacked us, continued to attack us, and was actively planning more attacks at the time we killed him.

It is not our responsibility to take him alive at all costs. And it's not our responsibility to prove that we tried to take him alive at all costs either (which is what dutch seems to be suggesting we need to do).
 
babe said:
Declaring wars with arbitrary/ideological enemies, such as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Terror" are nutjob wars in the first place. In the second place we didn't follow the Constitutiion in declaring the wars, just sort of gave the President a nod, and a bunch of money to spend, without defining who the enemy was, or how the war should be defined, is idiocy of the highest rank. If we had "probable cause" we could get a US judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. Then if we could seize him even in hostile territory and get him out and give him a trial, the "host" country could be intimidated at peril with good relations with the US or worldwide public opinion for harboring a heinous criminal fugitive.

Spending trillions of dollars on catching a few heinous criminals has gotta rank as the worst case of cost-effective law enforcement in our history. It's not worth turning our backs on principles like due process, and many other basic safeguards of human rights.

Like Bush giving permission to fly a planeload of Bin Laden relatives out of the USA just two days after 9/11, the decision to kill him and dump the body at sea really is a statement that US officials can't afford to let some people "talk".
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. If we just leave them alone until they intrude into our country we get 9/11. I don't think we can afford appeasement any more than going on the offense.
 
Millsapa said:
Is that true?
Click to expand...

Which part?

As for defending your family/property I know the laws vary somewhat state to state. In Nevada they have a so-called "Defend Your Castle" law that states if anyone enters your house, or ****s with your property (including family) you are fully within your rights to shoot them dead.

Our house was broken into last year and it kind of freaked me out for a few days (since I had moved here ahead of my family I was alone for a month or so after the breakin). I talked to the cop who came to take my report the night of the breakin and asked what he thought I should do, as in barricade the door (I couldn't get it fixed that time of night) or go stay elsewhere or what. He said "hell if it were me I would sit in the dark with the door wide open holding a shotgun hoping they come back". He said the laws were so strongly on the side of the homeowner in Nevada that as long as you, in his words, "can drag him to within a few yards of a window" you could kill them.

As far as the execution part I described, I am pretty sure it would be considered murder in every state, in those circumstances. Might get off due to temp insanity or something, but having the guy tied up with the police on the way, then shooting him in the head is pretty cut and dried illegal.
 
Millsapa said:
Is that true?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so, lol. I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to kill someone if someone's life is in danger. I think there are other rules if someone breaks into your house too. But if you find your daughter getting raped and you shoot the guy, you may have some explaining to do before a judge. I guess it depends on where you live too.
 
SaltyDawg said:
No, I don't think so, lol. I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to kill someone if someone's life is in danger. I think there are other rules if someone breaks into your house too. But if you find your daughter getting raped and you shoot the guy, you may have some explaining to do before a judge. I guess it depends on where you live too.
Click to expand...

Her life is in danger if she is being raped.
 
Rape is considered serious bodily injury. Shooting the intruder would be justified in defending someone from death or serious bodily injury...or what they perceive to be death or serious bodily injury.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I agree with you on the Patriot Act. It needs to be repealed in its entirety now that Bin laden is dead. It was supposed to only be a temporary thing while we fought this ******** war on terror. They made certain parts of it permanent after the fact. Now that Bin Laden is dead, we need to repeal the whole damn thing.
Click to expand...

it should have never happened it the first place this time laws are thrown out the window for security reasons what reason will it be next time.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Obama was "in the act" of planning attacks on this nation. While catching him in the act of raping your daughter is definitely a reason to kill him, does it compare to catching him after he murdered thousands of people, while he was attempting to murder thousands more? You said I had a point where I would treat him like less than human. Apparently you do too- legal or not.
Click to expand...

if someone is planmning asn attack on america. just sitting unarmed with a pen and paper planning the an attack. you still dont have the right to shoot. because nobody is in immentent danger. the act of planning attacks doesnt put people in immenent danger
 
SaltyDawg said:
Okay, first off, I don't give a **** if some clowns in a country on the other side of the world think it would be "wonderful" to treat Bin Laden like a human being. **** Bin Laden, and **** those clowns too if they are going to hate me because I wanted Bin Laden dead.

Now that that is out of the way...
Click to expand...

maybe thats what caused 911

because some clown in a country on the other side of the world didnt like how you guys treated foreigners.

so actually you should give a **** what clowns in country s on the other side of the world think. now not all clowns will plan an attack. but some might.

and its not just some clowns. there are alot who hate the way usa is acting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top