Quantcast

Is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence?

PiscesFish96 2011/12/10 23:57:00
It's my debate topic. I just want to see what others think. Personally I believe that it is morally permissible for the victims to use deadly force after being subjected to repeated domestic violence. I think it's similar, while actually being worse than, to it's morally permissible for you to resort to deadly force when any other type of violence is subjected on you. Domestic violence can also become deadly so by using the deadly force yourself you're merely protecting your right to life from someone who wishes to take that away from you. So just post your opinions, maybe some comment debates can ensue!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Vic~*PHAET*~ 2011/12/11 02:17:05
    Vic~*PHAET*~
    +7
    Coming from someone else who has done tournament debate for four years, captained for two, and participated in several events including Lincoln-Douglas, I have to say I'm slightly miffed with your posting this on a public forum. Disappointed, really. Were you one of my underclassmen, I'd be quite upset with your doing this.

    I'm moderately sceptical of the idea that you're merely looking to spark debate, because there are hundreds of things out there besides this which would spark intellectual conversation on a philosophical and moral level. To me, sharing a current topic on a public forum is the equivalent of going to Sparknotes because you don't want to read Tom Sawyer. And that leads me to conclude that you're actually interested in getting ideas for your case arguments.

    The topic was only released at the beginning of this month for January/February and I'm quite certain you've yet to complete the dual arguments that you need to.

    Forgive me if I am wrong and you have done your contentions, but I don't think highly of people who post their topics on sites and public boards. You won't get ahead in the NFL, NCFL, or PHSSL that way.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • JoLost 2012/01/05 04:48:18
    JoLost
    +1
    Murder is one of the most serious criminal charges a person can face. So when a defendant admits to shooting and killing her husband, is that the end of the story? Will she automatically be convicted for murder?

    Not necessarily, because context is very important in all criminal proceedings, especially homicide. Earlier this month, a New York woman was acquitted for the 2008 murder of her husband after convincing jurors that it was a matter of self defense.

    After 24 years of marriage to a retired New York police sergeant, the woman shot her husband one morning as he was shaving in the bathroom. There was no dispute that she had pulled the trigger. The issue to be decided was why she shot him.

    Prosecutors claimed that she was angry because she thought her husband had been having an affair. But testimony from the woman and her 2 grown children told a very different story.

    They exposed a long history of anger, violence and domestic abuse. The children described their father as unpredictable and prone to outbursts. To make matters worse, he was always armed.

    The woman testified that she was too frightened to leave her husband. Shortly before the murder, she said, he had threatened to kill her.

    After a nearly month-long trial, the jury acquitted her on charges of murder. She w...





    Murder is one of the most serious criminal charges a person can face. So when a defendant admits to shooting and killing her husband, is that the end of the story? Will she automatically be convicted for murder?

    Not necessarily, because context is very important in all criminal proceedings, especially homicide. Earlier this month, a New York woman was acquitted for the 2008 murder of her husband after convincing jurors that it was a matter of self defense.

    After 24 years of marriage to a retired New York police sergeant, the woman shot her husband one morning as he was shaving in the bathroom. There was no dispute that she had pulled the trigger. The issue to be decided was why she shot him.

    Prosecutors claimed that she was angry because she thought her husband had been having an affair. But testimony from the woman and her 2 grown children told a very different story.

    They exposed a long history of anger, violence and domestic abuse. The children described their father as unpredictable and prone to outbursts. To make matters worse, he was always armed.

    The woman testified that she was too frightened to leave her husband. Shortly before the murder, she said, he had threatened to kill her.

    After a nearly month-long trial, the jury acquitted her on charges of murder. She was, however, convicted of a related weapons charge and could face between 3 and 15 years in prison for using a gun in the slaying.

    While family and friends were relieved by the verdict, the woman's defense attorney noted that there was nothing to be joyful about. He said: "The only thing that could bring joy to this family is to bring them back to 17 years ago, before the first blow was struck."

    Source: LA Times, "Jury accepts battered-wife defense, acquits N.Y. woman of murder,"

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.c...
    (more)
  • Smelt JoLost 2012/01/26 23:25:50
    Smelt
    +1
    No, just because someone admits to killing their husband or wife doesn't mean they will be convicted of murder. If there's solid evidence that the accused only killed the abuser to protect themselves (self-defense) under imminent threat to their life, they can't be convicted of murder. I think there's more laws involved with if they used weapons but I don't really know about that. The main problem with cases of self-defense is that it's really hard to prove that the act was self-defense. For that reason, it hardly ever works for defense.
  • JoLost Smelt 2012/01/27 08:42:29 (edited)
    JoLost
    +1
    What? Did you fail to read the end of the first paragraph and the whole second paragraph?

    "Will she automatically be convicted for murder?

    Not necessarily, because CONTEXT is very important in all criminal proceedings, especially homicide. Earlier this month, a New York woman was acquitted for the 2008 murder of her husband after convincing jurors that it was a matter of self defense. context is very important in all criminal proceedings".

    I agree . And I disagree, there are many prejudices that are introduced or omitted in the judicial process that influence the outcomes and not everyone who murders in self defense, whether in an abusive "domestic" relationship or "stranger" accosting is weighed on the event solely, but many other factors that may or may not be related to the event, such as personal history... which covers a broad spectrum of traits and behaviors prior to the action or event that necessitated "Self Defense" both of the victim and the perpetrator.

    Not everyone found to have "Murdered" in self defense, (justifiable homicide is still murder). Whether by self admission of killing their domestic partner or through the collective evidential processing is penalized beyond the court proceedings deliberating the application.


    When "Self defense" is claimed the burden of ...

    What? Did you fail to read the end of the first paragraph and the whole second paragraph?

    "Will she automatically be convicted for murder?

    Not necessarily, because CONTEXT is very important in all criminal proceedings, especially homicide. Earlier this month, a New York woman was acquitted for the 2008 murder of her husband after convincing jurors that it was a matter of self defense. context is very important in all criminal proceedings".

    I agree . And I disagree, there are many prejudices that are introduced or omitted in the judicial process that influence the outcomes and not everyone who murders in self defense, whether in an abusive "domestic" relationship or "stranger" accosting is weighed on the event solely, but many other factors that may or may not be related to the event, such as personal history... which covers a broad spectrum of traits and behaviors prior to the action or event that necessitated "Self Defense" both of the victim and the perpetrator.

    Not everyone found to have "Murdered" in self defense, (justifiable homicide is still murder). Whether by self admission of killing their domestic partner or through the collective evidential processing is penalized beyond the court proceedings deliberating the application.


    When "Self defense" is claimed the burden of proof is passed to the prosecution to prove it was not..

    And in the fore-posted example, the woman was in fear of a possible and pending threat of violence and the act of "self defense" was implemented on the mere threat and fear of her life being harmed in the near future. (a pre-emptive act of self defense with the use of deadly force).
    (more)
  • Smelt JoLost 2012/01/31 23:55:00
    Smelt
    +1
    I read all of your post twice before I commented on it.

    That's what I'm saying though. Context is very important and you probably took my comment word for word and neglected to actually find my message behind it. I was only using self-defense as an example. And if the woman wasn't under an imminent threat of being killed then I'm not sure it really counts as self-defense. Of course it could also depend on where this took place because I've seen varying definitions of self-defense in different places.
  • JoLost Smelt 2012/02/01 00:54:31 (edited)
    JoLost
    +1
    . "Context is very important and you probably took my comment word for word and neglected to actually find my message behind it. "

    Reading between the lines, I found nothing implied or inferred and as unfortunate as it is, I still cant read minds....not even yours.
    And in the case referenced in my posts, her actions were found to have been an morally as established by law an "act of murder in self defense" by the presiding judiciary.
  • Smelt JoLost 2012/02/06 22:33:02
    Smelt
    +1
    I don't know what you're attacking my comments for seeing as I'm agreeing with you. Also, context is very important but in the posed question, it doesn't refer to context. Then there's the fact that self-defense or battered-wife defense doesn't work all the time now. It used to before and I've seen research on it but it doesn't always work anymore. I'd like to point out that I didn't say it never works as the example you gave obviously says that it works at times.

    I mentioned that laws differ in different states and even countries, and I say countries because the posed question doesn't specify the location therefore we're forced to apply it universally.
  • JoLost Smelt 2012/02/06 22:52:31
    JoLost
    +1
    I am not attacking. ???

    Clarification of my understanding of your posts, nothing more, nothing less.... I applied the following comment in a previous post that addresses a universal moral application to homicide in self defense... "It is legally permissible in many countries and in many religions, even encouraged."

    And in closing... "No matter where in the world, in an act of self defense, and at the hands of the victim, the aggressor is killed or dies as a result of that action of and in self defense, It is my opinion a morally acceptable end result and a justifiable homicide. Even if the victim that acted in self defense is later determined to be criminally culpable and adjudicated accordingly to the laws of that place in the world".
  • Smelt JoLost 2012/02/17 03:22:18
    Smelt
    +1
    If it's a moral application to homicide in self-defense then why does it have the word 'legally' in it. Are you saying that the laws are based on morality? If they are based on morality then why would it be morally permissible for a victim to use deadly force against their abuser if it's against the law? Then there's the fact that you would be claiming you believe every law is moral and is that really true everywhere because if it's a universal application then all the legal systems in the world have laws backed by morality so how are they all so different and how is it that one thing is allowed in one place while it's not allowed in another country? A good example is that gum is a part of our everyday lives but gum is outlawed in Singapore and anyone caught using it has to pay a heavy fine. Would you call that a law backed by morality?
  • JoLost 2012/01/03 14:26:05
    JoLost
    +2
    Morally.... Such a broad range of definitions and applications for a single word.

    Whose morals?

    The people of the democratic republic of the United States as established and defined through the rule of law? The people of faith of any one of a thousand + religions as established by the individual religious doctrine. Or any one of the 7 billion individuals of the world population that ascribe that their personal creeds and ideology supersede the majority consensus?

    Why must a pattern of repetitious violence be present before a lethal remedy in defense is "morally" acceptable in a "domestic" environment (Spousal/familial abuse) but "repetitious violence" not a requirement of lethal force in other types of single threats of bodily harm?

    Me, I ascribe to the "morality" of the laws. If its legally sanctioned. Its morally permissible even if it is not morally correct.
  • Smelt 2011/12/31 21:43:00
    Smelt
    +3
    correction in your argument: the abuser might not wish to take away the victim's life and it doesn't fit into the definition of domestic violence either so is it morally right to take someone else's life just to make sure you're not abused? is it morally right to MURDER someone else to stop them from abusing you? I'm not saying it's not right to do SOMETHING about the abuse being inflicted on you but are you willing to go as far as murdering someone? and doesn't the abuser have a right to life just as you do?
  • debategoddess 2011/12/21 00:09:11
    debategoddess
    +2
    it is NOT morally permissible to use deadly force as a response to repeated domestic violence.

    i don't know what sick twisted world you guys live in to think it's OK to kill someone.
    it is 'JUST' to kill an abuser when he/she is ABUSING you
    but not when it is a pending threat. it is never MORAL to kill someone . NEVER
  • freyalemon debateg... 2012/01/08 00:46:48
    freyalemon
    +2
    Never?
    Considering how many times the legal system has failed to protect a person after they have sought help with getting away from an abusive relationship, it's reasonable to think that the person abusing you will continue to abuse or harm you even if you try to get help. Moreover, if there's a good chance that the abuser is going to severely harm you, it's reasonable to kill them before a fight, when one probably won't have the high-ground... take 'em by surprise and all that.
    As for it never being moral to kill someone (NEVER), what if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler (Godwin's, sorry) during his reign? Would that be immoral? Or if killing one person would save 1,000?
  • Smelt debateg... 2012/01/26 23:37:14
    Smelt
    +1
    It's never moral to kill someone? Not even when they're planning to kill you?
  • TKramar debateg... 2012/01/30 00:48:20
    TKramar
    +1
    The State exercises the death penalty now. And it is reasonable to use deadly force to defend your own life. Whether it's "moral" or not is unimportant, and taking the time to consider the morality of it is illogical.
  • Smelt TKramar 2012/01/31 23:58:10
    Smelt
    +1
    Yes but that's what the question's asking. It's asking if the action is morally permissible.
  • TKramar Smelt 2012/02/01 00:03:01
    TKramar
    +1
    It depends on your own system of morality. Only you can say, for yourself, if it's moral or not.
  • The beast 2011/12/20 20:12:02
    The beast
    +3
    Hello, this happens to be my LD DEBATE topic as well! I happen to agree with some of the comments. Maybe if it happened once and you had to act on your feet because possibly they were going to kill you then defend yourself. But if it is in fact repeated sneak ou while the spouse is at work and go to the authorities. GET HELP!
  • Just MEH....Piwan 2011/12/11 18:00:21
    Just MEH....Piwan
    +1
    Permissible or not, i would do it if I have to defend myself. And one thing is for sure...they will NEVER be able to bother you again!
  • Linnster 2011/12/11 15:23:38
    Linnster
    +1
    Yes, if it's the first time it happens and you believe you're in imminent danger. But, your question sets the tone as "repeated" violence and, under those circumstances, the answer is "no." If a person is repeatedly abused, they should leave.
  • jubil8 BN-0 PON 2011/12/11 12:27:57
    jubil8 BN-0 PON
    +2
    I don't care whether it's morally permissible or not. It should be viewed as justifiable homicide imo or self-defense -- i.e., it should be legally permissible.
  • JoLost jubil8 ... 2012/01/27 09:10:23
    JoLost
    It is legally permissible in many countries and in many religions, even encouraged.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2011/12/11 10:18:07
  • TKramar 2011/12/11 09:56:17
    TKramar
    +2
    Every physical confrontation has the possibility, however slim, to end in death or serious injury.
  • Doc. J 2011/12/11 08:59:47
  • wolfshadow 2011/12/11 06:54:08
    wolfshadow
    +2
    No... Get out.

    Unless your confronted with deadly force, their is no justification for using deadly force.
  • JoLost wolfshadow 2012/01/03 14:49:43 (edited)
    JoLost
    +1
    Define deadly force....

    A single blow to the human body can cause death.



    Vulnerable points of the body

    The head is, of course, the command centre of the body, housing the brain and most of the major sense organs, including the eyes, nose, ears and mouth, all of which are sensitive to pain and easily damaged. Blows to the head can easily render a person unconscious and if excessively powerful can cause brain damage or even kill. Deaths in combat rarely occur from being struck with a single blow and tend to result from the cumulative effects of severe beatings, often coupled with extreme exhaustion, as in the case of professional boxers. The effectiveness of knock-out punches results from the impact of the fist causing the brain to move inside the skull. This causes the individual to black out. The point or side of the jaw are the areas most boxers aim to hit since impacts here facilitate the shaking movement of the head that leads to the knock-out effect. Knock-outs occur occasionally in other sports, such as semi-contact karate when the odd accidental or uncontrolled blow lands — again usually to the jaw. Basically, every case of a knockout blow causes concussion and minor brain damage, so experimenting by knocking out partners in training cannot be recommended.
    The implicatio...
    Define deadly force....

    A single blow to the human body can cause death.

    single blows  vulnerable points

    Vulnerable points of the body

    The head is, of course, the command centre of the body, housing the brain and most of the major sense organs, including the eyes, nose, ears and mouth, all of which are sensitive to pain and easily damaged. Blows to the head can easily render a person unconscious and if excessively powerful can cause brain damage or even kill. Deaths in combat rarely occur from being struck with a single blow and tend to result from the cumulative effects of severe beatings, often coupled with extreme exhaustion, as in the case of professional boxers. The effectiveness of knock-out punches results from the impact of the fist causing the brain to move inside the skull. This causes the individual to black out. The point or side of the jaw are the areas most boxers aim to hit since impacts here facilitate the shaking movement of the head that leads to the knock-out effect. Knock-outs occur occasionally in other sports, such as semi-contact karate when the odd accidental or uncontrolled blow lands — again usually to the jaw. Basically, every case of a knockout blow causes concussion and minor brain damage, so experimenting by knocking out partners in training cannot be recommended.
    The implications of the effectiveness of the punch to the jaw for ju-jitsu students concerned to develop their ability to protect themselves are obvious. In addition to being a very quick and effective method for incapacitating an attacker, it is also a target that is relatively easy to hit and one that is safe, from the point of view of applying ju-jitsu for self-defense. Moreover, it is safe in terms of the amount of damage that such a blow will inflict on an assailant; whilst a knock-out punch to the jaw does no one any good, an equally hard blow delivered to the temple or windpipe, for instance, could quite easily kill the person.
    A blow to the eye or eyes by someone trained to hit can cause severe tearing of the skin as well as permanent eye damage, perhaps even partial or total blindness. The potential seriousness of attacking the eyes should not be underestimated; a complete loss of vision can result from eye damage incurred whilst fighting. Many boxers are forced to retire because the retina has become detached — caused by taking one punch too many — and many fights are stopped because of cuts on or near the eye since such cuts may constitute a great hazard to a fighter's health. Punching someone in the eye, especially without gloves, is an extremely vicious and dangerous form of attack, only for use in dire emergencies. The knock-out blow to the jaw must be preferred every time. Strikes to the eyes are designed for life-and-death struggles, where neither the well-being of the assailant, nor the legal consequences of any damage inflicted were of any concern to the person being attacked.
    (more)
  • wolfshadow JoLost 2012/01/04 02:45:17
    wolfshadow
    +2
    Texas Penal Code.... (The law)


    38.01.
    (3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or
    known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
    use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
  • JoLost wolfshadow 2012/01/04 20:05:15
    JoLost
    +1
    And if an attempt to assault me occurs I will defend my self.

    The Self Defense Laws Of Texas



    The Texas Constitution
    Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
    Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

    "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

    Self Defense Statutes
    (Texas Penal Code)

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

    (b) The use of force against another is not justified:

    (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

    (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

    (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

    (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

    (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent...





























































    And if an attempt to assault me occurs I will defend my self.

    The Self Defense Laws Of Texas



    The Texas Constitution
    Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
    Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

    "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

    Self Defense Statutes
    (Texas Penal Code)

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

    (b) The use of force against another is not justified:

    (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

    (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

    (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

    (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

    (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

    (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

    (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

    (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

    (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

    (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

    (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
    Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Deadly Force in Defense of Person

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

    Defense of Another Person

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

    Deadly Force to Protect Property

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

    Protection of the Property of Others

    "A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

    "Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

    Reasonable Belief

    "It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

    "In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

    Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

    "Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."

    "A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

    Self Defense Definitions

    "Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

    "Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."

    "Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."

    "Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."
    (more)
  • wolfshadow JoLost 2012/01/05 03:10:37
    wolfshadow
    +1
    And no where is deadly force justified unless used to counter deadly force.
  • JoLost wolfshadow 2012/01/05 04:36:41 (edited)
    JoLost
    +1
    No. In the constitution in and of itself the right to bear arms in defense of person and property is the justification, deadly force is justifiable.

    More Texas Law:

    Protection of the Property of Others

    "A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

    "Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

    Morally speaking...

    I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

    Deadly force is an acceptable means of removing threat to person and property regardless of the intent the perpetrator may have.

    Texas is some "where".
  • wolfshadow JoLost 2012/01/05 04:42:54
    wolfshadow
    +1
    The right to bear arms has NOTHING to do with the USE of DEADLY FORCE. The use of DEADLY FORCE can only be use to counter someone who is using deadly force. If you use it when not necessary you are subject to arrest and prosecution. If you kill someone and you are not justified in your use of force you will be charged with murder. Texas has a new castle doctrine which protects a person in their home during an intrusion, that has NOTHING to do with domestic violence.
  • JoLost wolfshadow 2012/01/05 04:45:37
    JoLost
    +1
    Again you are completely wrong.... The use of deadly force is an acceptable counter to violence against a person. Domestically or otherwise and is morally acceptable...(Here in the US and in my home).
  • JoLost wolfshadow 2012/01/04 20:17:38
    JoLost
    +1
    And a "single blow" is a manner known to be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

    Under Texas law a person commits murder if he "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual." Id., Sec. 19.02(a)(1). Criminal attempt is committed if a person, acting with the specific intent to commit a particular offense, performs an act "amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended." Id., Sec. 15.01(a) (Supp.1985).
  • mg's haven~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2011/12/11 06:19:51
    mg's haven~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I'm of the mind being a punching bag or pin cushion make friends around me uneasy and thats unacceptable to me so they must be hurting too just watching it I couldnt put them in a position they'd have to either stand up for me while i sit there and do nothing or they leave me because they lost respect for me because i "sold out" to fear. (as powerful as it is fear comes from within not outside a person)
  • wtw 2011/12/11 04:43:59 (edited)
    wtw
    +2
    I think it is absolutely wrong but OK!
  • Vic~*PHAET*~ 2011/12/11 02:17:05
    Vic~*PHAET*~
    +7
    Coming from someone else who has done tournament debate for four years, captained for two, and participated in several events including Lincoln-Douglas, I have to say I'm slightly miffed with your posting this on a public forum. Disappointed, really. Were you one of my underclassmen, I'd be quite upset with your doing this.

    I'm moderately sceptical of the idea that you're merely looking to spark debate, because there are hundreds of things out there besides this which would spark intellectual conversation on a philosophical and moral level. To me, sharing a current topic on a public forum is the equivalent of going to Sparknotes because you don't want to read Tom Sawyer. And that leads me to conclude that you're actually interested in getting ideas for your case arguments.

    The topic was only released at the beginning of this month for January/February and I'm quite certain you've yet to complete the dual arguments that you need to.

    Forgive me if I am wrong and you have done your contentions, but I don't think highly of people who post their topics on sites and public boards. You won't get ahead in the NFL, NCFL, or PHSSL that way.
  • PiscesF... Vic~*PH... 2011/12/11 04:31:17
    PiscesFish96
    Not only has my team prepared cases on both sides, but I won't even be debating this topic as I will be in Cross-X debate from January until the end of the year. I was merely seeing what the public's opinion on my would-be topic was, as I won't be debating it in a formal way. Along with that, had I been asking them to supply my own case with ideas I would ask for much more than what I did and for more detailed arguments.
  • Vic~*PH... PiscesF... 2011/12/11 04:43:39
  • Smelt Vic~*PH... 2012/01/31 23:44:56
    Smelt
    I'm not really trying to criticize anyone here but everyone's talking about the posted question and not really about if the person who posted this is a jerk because he's using other people's ideas. Also, in case no one's noticed, the ideas on here aren't about to do much good in anyone's case because they're not very deep ideas. People commenting on the post aren't all debaters who have to analyze the topics to write their cases. However, the good thing about it is that you can see which way most people are leaning.

    Again, I'm not trying to criticize anyone but it gets very aggravating when people start talking about something completely different than what the issue is. Also, when I say that the ideas people put on here aren't very deep, I'm not saying they're stupid ideas. In fact, they help us a lot to see what most people think of something.
  • Sandy 2011/12/11 01:48:17
    Sandy
    +1
    I would think if you have done everything else... then yes. What choice do you have when you are dealing with a mentally ill person.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/30 12:12:58

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals