Unbeliveable BULLS&!T

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

it is still better to run than to attack them or blow them away. If you can't run, then using force may be called for

And even then, it probably ought to be appropriate force. Yes, they could escalate to bricks, boulders, sticks of dynamite, or flying cows.

But respond to the rocks, and think about how you'll react to the next level, or if the danger is serious enough for you to escalate >1< level. You can't just lob flaming horses back at them because they could have escalated to cows.

No one here is defending these idiots. Just because we don't agree with considering blowing them away as a valid defense against rocks doesn't mean that it's an acceptable thing to do. It isn't.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Schroeder 0]

ok... very quietly... and calmly...... and quietly... and in small text if I could make that happen:

is anyone else here seeing the stances of people in regards to justifiable reaction to threat as a parallel to their stance on the Iraq situation?

[billvon 2,991]

>I know I can't dissuade your opinion on this, but I can tell you that
> running is a very viable option.

Hmm! I agree there. (Did you mean to say that?) I've faced three situations so far where people have been threatening me. I could run from two; worked well. The third one I couldn't get away from (he had his arm around my neck) and fortunately I had enough experience with tae kwon do at that point that I could take him down pretty easily. One he was down I once again ran (or, in this case, disappeared into the crowd.) Again, it worked.

>Vigilante justice would be running far enough away to still be able to
> follow them home, then after a few days, sneaking into each one's
> house and carving a big smile in the neck of each with a rusty Kbar.

Vigilante justice is doing anything beyond what you _need_ to do to defend yourself. If you're in the open, and you can run, that's what you need to do. If you can get in your car and drive away, then that's a good defense - even if they dent your very expensive car. If they throw rocks at you and your car, and break the windshield, and you beat the crap out of them "just in case they throw rocks at someone else" then you have taken justice into your own hands - and become a vigilante.

In all three cases, they are in the wrong, and should end up in jail. In the last case, you are just as wrong as they are, and should also end up in jail.

[mnischalke 0]

A punch with the right angle and the right amount of pressure, can easily kill. People do die in fist fights. It does happen.

We are talking rocks here. The potential for loss of life is much greater in this situation.

Please don't think of me as indifferent toward killing someone who is assaulting me. But, again, if I see a life on the line--mine or someone else's--I will not sit idly by and accept that fate passively.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

is anyone else here seeing the stances of people in regards to justifiable reaction to threat as a parallel to their stance on the Iraq situation?

Well, I would shoot someone who was threatening my life (I wouldn't call throwing small rocks at me threatening my life though). And I'm not in favor or our having gone to war in Iraq...so...no.

[PhillyKev 0]

The simple fact of the matter is she was able to evade this situation so there's really no argument. Use of deadly force was not justified. It is only justified when there exists no other option. Not my opinion...that's the law.

[Schroeder 0]

Yes, people do die in fights, but typically that becomes a manslaughter charge, or something similar, but what I'm talking about is all the fights that go on around the world every day compared to the actual # that result in death.

This whole thing reaks of the "well they *may have a pointy rock, and it *may be thrown with the right velocity such that it *might hit me in a place where it *may kill me. So, I'm justified in using deadly force to eliminate a threat." And that good sir, is why we ain't gonna understand eachother, as has been demonstrated in about 14 billion previous war threads.

[mnischalke 0]

I think the only time I have ever mentioned something about "blowing away" these fucks was in reference to treason. Not as self-defense! TREASON. What they did was an act of treason. They assaulted a uniformed member of the United States military. As a citizen of this country, that is treason. Period. Nobody is ever gonna charge them for it, because we live in a society of disrespect that caters to the criminal, but hey, technically, yeah, TREASON.

Again, just to clarify, I would respond to their assault in kind if at all, while constantly looking for the back door out of there, but if I felt my life was in jeopardy, I would defend myself with deadly force.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

It was on the web, so it must be true
While throwing rocks at uniformed service personnel is bullshit, and is closer to assaulting a police officer who is performing his duty than it is to taking a pool cue to Bubba, it's a stretch to put it into treason. He is a representative of the government, but it's not an absolute situation.

And anyway, usually court is involved in a conviction of treason.

Wendy W.

Not every assault on a military person is treason, even if it's small-minded and because they're in the military.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnischalke 0]

Ha, you don't even know where I stand on the war! I never said if I personally agree with what we are doing over there. That is no longer the question. We are there. There is no turning back. I am 100% behind the United States Military. That's all that matters. Their job is hard enough without a bunch of seditious fucks calling them fucking baby killers and murderers.

Get on the fucking bandwagon or make petitions. I don't care. Don't flip dumpsters, burn cars or injure bystanders under the guise of calling for peace. Don't defend those who do. Don't be disrespectful to those who wear the uniform and protect the glory of this country and the freedoms you so wantonly enjoy. (not you personally, of course) That's all I ask.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies...

Thanks for making my point for me. Military personnel in uniform are not cops, sorry. They are agents of the government of the United States of America. A group assaulting a military person is levying war. Don't think USA-Iraq here. Think American citizens against the government. That is what treason applies to. That is why it applies here. The "adhering to their enemies" part could also be applied here, but, I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I will let you contemplate what that means in relation to what these protesters were actually doing.

have a great weekend!

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[ChileRelleno 0]

If I see anyone pulling this kind of crap on a serviceman/woman I'm gonna get very nasty... That goes for flag burning also...

Call me a vigilante, call me a patriot and then call me a bailbonds man

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868

[themaninblack 0]

i would like to point out that in israel the jews consider hucking rocks at tanks and troops to be a shooting offense. huck rocks at me, huck lead at YOU. hucking rocks being so simple is often regarded as angry but relatively trivial, certainly not an attempt/assault on your life. wrong. as a child my cousin threw what he claimed was battery acid at me. i ducked. fast. then ran. he pursued. still packing the "acid". i, being a savvy tool user, picked up a rock and took him the fuck out from 50 feet with a granite punch to the cranium. damn near killed him actually. one rock, one shot, one asshole dropped. you bet i got my ass beat for that by parental units later, but point being, all it takes is one rock. if id been that lady in uniform i might have tried drawing my weapon at least... over several potentially deadly situations ive learned that conflict can be neatly avoided simply....someone shows you a knife, draw a bigger knife and smile at them. i have also used a remington 870 express and a razor sharp fake japanese katana to make my point at times in the past when threatened by individuals either mentally disturbed or done up on crack or crystal. not once has my potential opponent taken me up on it when i upped the stakes in such a fashion, and to this day ive never actually had to USE any weapon to defend myself....merely displaying and grinning was sufficient.

evolution WILL be served, one way or another!!!! im not jumping, im imitating a reluctant meteor.

[billvon 2,991]

>They are agents of the government of the United States of America.
> A group assaulting a military person is levying war.

That's absurd. I was once in a bar when an active duty SEAL started a fight with another drunk. Had the US just declared war on the drunk? Another skydiver tried to stop the SEAL and they started scuffling. Was the skydiver declaring war on the US?

Common sense can go a long way in determining what's a bar fight, what's someone throwing rocks - and what treason or war mean.

[JeffGordon 0]

Quote

Assaulting a homosexual because of their homosexuality is also considered a hate crime, and unless it's really severe, it's not usually prosecuted that way. I'm not trying to say they're the same, but they're not that different either

Actually I think they are the same. A hate crime is a hate crime is a hate crime. Burning a cross or assaulting a homosexual or solder are only variations of degree. Anyone who would assault a homosexual (because of his homosexuality) would work a a death camp in a culture (like nazi germany) that used death camps

(edited to add quote cause this was in reply to a post several post back)

[wmw999 2,447]

Actually, I feel the same way to a great degree, but really didn't want it to get sidetracked into a discussion of whether homosexuality was the same as being a soldier. And don't think that couldn't happen these days .
It's the hate that's the same, not the subject.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

That's absurd.

Of course. Thanks Bill for reaffirming my insanity.

Quote

I was once in a bar when an active duty SEAL started a fight with another drunk. Had the US just declared war on the drunk? Another skydiver tried to stop the SEAL and they started scuffling. Was the skydiver declaring war on the US?

Thanks for reaffirming your insanity.

Quote

Common sense can go a long way in determining what's a bar fight, what's someone throwing rocks - and what treason or war mean.

And thanks for bringing us back to reality. The original post does not speak of barfights in peacetime. It is about assaulting military personnel during war. There is precedent for this from the Civil War, World War I and II, but nothing really since. It seems treason is a lost high crime.

I can tell you, right now, if those kids were brought up on charges of treason in federal court, and were tried within the next week, they would be found guilty by a jury of their peers. Mark my words. They might not be sentenced to death, but they would have to find a new country--that is the way it used to work, anyway.

Edited to include funny faces so no one takes me too seriously and God forbid no one thinks this is a personal attack on Bill. I like Bill. Bill has good arguments and most of the time, no matter what you think, I appreciate where he's coming from. I personally think Bill should have two screennames so when we get into these little, quite controversial threads he can be a commoner like me and not a greenie, but again, I could quite possibly be loco.

peace and vegetable grease,

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

If she was in uniform at the grocery store, she prolly didn't have a firearm on her person. I know I never had one on out in the "real" world--except for that trip to a civie airport 2 miles from the Capital building with an M16 that they barely asked questions about.

I do agree that wars were waged for thousands of years with only sticks and stones. Even today, I do believe there's an old ryhme kids recite: "sticks and stones may break my bones..." Maybe I have gone out on a limb since the beginning of this thread. Maybe these little fuckers were tossing pebbles like little girls. I got a feeling that wasn't the case. Nonetheless, you don't do that. You don't call someone shopping for groceries a fucking babykiller or a fucking murderer--especially someone who protects your freedoms and least of all a woman. question: Where would we be without either? answer: We wouldn't.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Let's get sidetracked for a moment. Name one crime against another person that isn't a hate crime. Crime is crime. To label something as something else just because you're gay, black, green, purple or a space alien (have I mentioned how much I like space aliens recently?) is simply redundant and possibly (if not probably) double jeopardy.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[PhillyKev 0]

Hate crimes are defined by motive. If a white guy injures a black guy in the process of robbing him, or they get in a fight over a traffic incident, it's not a hate crime. If a white guy attacks a black guy because he's black, it is. Charging and punishing people based on motive is a common part of the legal system.

For example. If you go to a peace demonstration specifically to shoot a protestor...that's 1st degree murder. If you happen to run into a protest, get in an argument and pissed off at one and shoot them, that's only 2nd degree murder. If you shoot a protestor for throwing rocks at you when you could have easily gotten in your car and left, that would be manslaughter