One or two. They were not nice.
I avoid wicker chairs where possible. I don't like the marks it leaves on my skin when I stand up. :know:

It is rather simple Tarjak. Perhaps if I type slowly you will get it...

Self defense is an action taken by a person to protect himself or herself from an attacker. Now - if you believe that a person is responsible for the outcome of choosing to pull a gun and squeeze the trigger and killing another person - as you put it - in a way that "no justification can change" (your words) - you are stating that there is absolutely no justification for killing for any reason - including self defense. While I believe that killing in self defense should generally be the "last option" - your claim that there is no justification that eases the responsibility of the act - removes the "last option". Ergo, while you can claim to believe in "self defense" - you position ends up gutting the entire premise - that you have the right to save your own life at the expense of those who would take it from you via criminal attack. You in essence make "self defense" equal to "murder" - and I highly doubt that you would claim that you or anyone else has the right to murder another person. Maybe this will help:

"He took my pencil so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He looked at me funny so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was stealing my truck so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was raping my wife/daughter so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was raping me so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was killing my wife/daughter so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was killing me so I shot him" + no justification = Murder

No matter what you combine it with..... + no justification = Murder

Or would you claim you have the right to defend yourself as long as you do so in a way that does not take another life - ever? If that is the case, then you have the right to fight against your attacker until they kill you, but don't fight too hard or else + no justification = Murder.

Neither position is compatible with believing in the right to self defense. Simply put - self defense is in essence the position that the defender has more rights than the attacker - because the attacker abrogates his/her rights by the very action and intent of violating the rights of the defender.

You boxed yourself into a corner when you said "no justification". If you can't see the flaw in holding to that statement while attempting to say you believe in self defense, then you really should just continue as you have in the last few posts and keep on trying to learn from the "tribesman's school of ass-hattery" instead of actually trying to debate.

So saying that there is "no justication" for pulling a trigger is seen by many as an extreme view. So what did you just make yourself there?

I am not in the least bit insulted - just was pointing out the irony of it all. However, my views are "extreme" by what definition? Yours or General Society? Given that society here in the US where I live finds my views on this subject generally acceptable, your claim of "extremist" is simply false.

I don't recall every "cheering on" anyone. I did post a thank you to Mr. Gerlach on behalf of the future victims that now will not have to undergo that ordeal from the deceased. That is hardly "cheering on". In fact, I pointed out some grave concerns over how the law in Washington State was written.....

But then, you would have to understand how to debate a subject to understand how I could look at both sides and see problems on each....

Looks like we're getting personal.

I honestly don't understand why you accept people have different opinions but you cannot accept that not everyone thinks like you.

Hmph. We give medals to people who kill other people. The more they kill, the more prestigious the medal.

I'll wade back into this argument; I don't hold the life of a car thief in high regard, and I don't apologize for that. If he wants my respect and he wants me to value his life, don't steal my car. Simple. Human being, pft, that's overrated.

Message received loud and clear.

As I said earlier. Everyone has a right to have a different opinion. They also have the right to be in error. :arrgh!:

Personal attacks aside, you have yet again missed my point. My first point is that I'm not trying to have a debate with anyone. I'm attempting to make clear a comment which you have seized upon as a debate because you don't agree with it and you have repeatedly attempted to put words in my mouth that I have not said.

My second point is that responsibility for your actions can lie nowhere else but with you. Otherwise you are using the child's defence of "he made me do it."

Who decided take out his gun?

Who decided where to aim the gun?

Who decided to pull the trigger?

Who's responsible for that dead body being dead?

Not one word I've written has anything to do with self defence. Every word I've written is about the choices made by someone. Why those choices were made is a very separate issue. The fact remains that no-one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions and he is therefore responsible for the outcomes.

Cheering = encouraging
Thanking someone does nothing to discourage and could be considered encouraging.

Clearly we work with different logic patterns.

Understood.

I think that they're rewarded more for bravery, rather than how many people they kill :hmmm: i
I mean, Keith Payne got the Victoria Cross for saving lives in Vietnam.

I disagree, as I value all human life, and would only consider killing in self-defense. And personally, I'd leave the 'This guy wasn't a human being' stuff to murderers, rapists, terrorists, and dictators. But I think we can agree to disagree, and respect each other's opinions, at the very least. After all, we've all lived different lives, so of course we're going to disagree a lot.

But I do agree with you that putting him on trial was unnecessary. The morality of his actions is debatable, but the legality isn't. It would've been better if the thief was arrested rather than shot, but I can hardly condemn Mr. Gherlach for defending his property. Hopefully we'll see a rapid drop of car thefts in the area.

The school of ass-hattery?
You need a simple lesson from the school.:yep:
You are failing to understand English.
You are changing the articles to make what was written into something else.
You are mixing actions to blend them into other things.
You are taking specifics then generalising them, you are then taking the generalisations and oversimplifying them, your oversimplified generalisations bear no resemblance to the specifics you started with.
In other words, the basis of your position has been made completely rubbish by yourself.

There is your problem.

Self defence is self defence.
Self defence may or may not involve killing someone.
Killing someone may or may not be self defence.
Property is not the self.
Objecting to someone killing another over a car is not a rejection of self defence.
Claiming that it is is bollox of an extremist nature.:know:

@tarjak
one or two ocelots is not all ocelots, it is certainly not all cats, there may be a nice one out there somewhere.
See, not all chairs are nice:03:
So is it 4 legs bad, or is it 4 legs good?
Maybe its 4 legs not so bad or not so good depending on the specifics.

Both and neither depending on your point of view.

And thanks for being logical. I didn't think I was being overly obtuse.

What are your school fees? Most of the lessons appear to be free.

No, you were very clear.
What you encountered there with Haplo is fairly common, someone takes a rather extreme(depending on perspective) view.
Someone objects to that view.
To justify the extreme view in light of the opposing view the person takes the opposing view and changes it into an extreme view.

Killing in war is no less senseless than killing in the street. Medals though are usually for merit though getting notches on your belt can add to the objective of winning a war and there may be perceived merit in that.

But we have very different rules for war as opposed to behaviour in your average suburban street.

I don't hold the thief in high regard either. But his life is not valued lower than a vehicle by your own legal system. If it was, you would have different penalties than those in place now. Would a court that put criminals to death for car theft be preferable?

Being human may be overrated but it's all we've got.

Killing is killing, whether its some poor Schmoe who has been drafted by his government and would rather be anywhere else than at the end of your bayonet, or if its a lazy, drug-addicted scumbag who will be happy to punch your teeth out or stab you in the groin if you slow him down from stealing your property. I agree, killing in war is not exactly the same as killing a criminal who is stealing your property. But it's not all that different. We are always at war with criminals, but they are willing to disregard all rules of conduct while we are tying our hands with excessive rules. The only reason self-defense has been brought up in this case is because the property owner could be considered in trouble for fighting back against criminals. That's it--we all know it is not self-defense, and some of us (me for example) beleive its a travesty that he has to even go there to protect himself. He should be able to say "Guy was stealing my $30,000 car and I stopped him with a bullet", and there should be nothing to say except "good shot!". :-?

Now, as I stated earlier, you may have a different belief about the value of this criminal's life, and you are entitled to believe that. You are entitled to act on this belief, allow a criminal to get away with stopping him, and relying on law enforcement and insurance to take care of this for you. But you are not allowed to tell me what I can believe, and the law in many places backs up a property owner who uses deadly force to stop the theft of his property. So, there are many who feel the same as me. :hmm2:

Like I said, depends on where you live. In some states, the rules say yes, you can shoot a car thief or burglar. People who don't like this should find a state/region where criminals have more freedom.

Well, here's how I value an automobile that cost $20,000, $30,000 etc. That represents days and days of my work, showing up on time, getting the job done, avoiding mistakes, listening to PIA customers or bosses, being accountable for my work, thousands of hours of my time and life....and not being able to enjoy many of the things in life I would be able to enjoy if I was unemployed--screwing around all day, every day, doing what I like, no pressure, plenty of time to watch TV or surf the web, play games, listen to music, visit friends and family, smell the roses--all of this is severely limited by the time I have left after working.

So, yeah, that car is worth a LOT more to me than some car thief's life. Sorry, but I do have a right to this opinion, and it's no more right or wrong than yours. That's the way many people feel.

Death penalty for car thieves? Why not? Or, maybe I can compromise with you, how about 30 years in prison, no early release? :cool:

And it is here that you continue to make the error. You claim no one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions. Yet Mr. Gerlach was deemed to have justifiably acted in self defense. So a jury of 12 peers found by preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Gerlach was forced into a decision by Mr. Kaluza-Graham.

You can claim it wasn't right, but both the law and society have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - and your entitled to be wrong. You are choosing to do both simultaneously.

Using your logic, a pharmacist does nothing to discourage the abuse of prescription medicine by choosing to dispense such medication, so they "could be considered" to be encouraging it. :o Not actively discouraging something is not the same as encouraging it.

When was the last time you actively discouraged someone from going out and having a few drinks before driving home? If you are not actively discouraging it - then you "could be encouraging" it using your line of reasoning.

Think about that for a moment. If you know your friend is going to go to a party and have a few drinks, but you don't intentionally call him up and remind him not to drink and drive - God help you if he gets in a car wreck and kills someone. After all - if the victim's family finds out - you could be sued for contributing (via your ENCOURAGEMENT) to his choice to drink and drive. Pretty ridiculous premise, yes? But that is the train of thought you are using when you say if your not discouraging someone then you could be viewed as encouraging them.

Note - there is a difference between encouragement and tacit approval. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Well we can at least agree on that....

The American justice system is something I will never understand.

Tarjak or Tribesman made a good point by saying: If citizen can shoot someone who is stealing his car, then why car theft isn't punishable by death in court?

I think this is the main point of this.

Is life really so cheap over there?

Yes, the life of a common criminal is pretty damned cheap. If the criminal has such disrespect for himself or his peers, that he feels the need to deprive another man of the fruits of his labor because he is too lazy to cultivate his own fruit tree, then yes, he is going to be met with the ultimate resistance to his endeavors. So this particular crook actually committed suicide when he decided to steal this man's car. If the victim hadn't killed him, a Police officer surely would have.
Would you fellows feel this sorry for this criminal if a cop had shot him dead instead?

One thing you must admit, this career criminal was instantly cured of his recidivism and all it cost was the price of one 9mm round of ammo, saving the taxpayers of the state of Washington the great cost of prosecution and incarceration of a suicidal fool.

It's from the funny picture thread but it fits so nicely here:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...3632636664.jpg

I wonder why we don't drown in violent crime as we don't kill our suspects...:hmm2:

So, I steal a berry from you, you can shoot me? Right? Same freaking thing.
Self defence does not = Thief running on a car from the scene (Who pointed gun at the dude, which was never found.) Hard science...

Self Defence = I came you with a Samurai sword with clear intent to hit you and cause harm.

It's not rocket science.... or is it?!

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. :salute: I wish we had the same here. But there are differences between our two countries and the laws to punish criminals is not causing crime. it is a cultural difference and I don't think there's a hell of a lot we can do about it, except make it worse, which we seem to be bent on doing.

Yes, there is a cultural difference and solutions from Europe don't necessarily work in the States and vice versa. But I find it still a bit over the top to kill someone for steeling ones car. I mean I would be mad as hell if someone stole my car but I wouldn't shoot to kill. If someone attacked me however I would probably use a gun on him (if it were allowed here to walk around with guns). This would also be the only way to make this count as self defence. As long as someone isn't attacking someone directly there is no way any court here would rule it as self defence.

Thats one of the saddest commentaries on America I've read. You make it sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave is actually the land of the imprisoned and the home of the fearful.

We don't have. We just are mentally ill and have some of our essential priorities hopelessly messed up. In Germanyx you can beat a innocent on the streets to death because you are bored, and get away with that if you are a migrant by serving two years in prison. Even less.

But if you make a mistake - indeed a mistake - in your tax declaration , that can earn you prison time in excess of that.

I pretty much agree with all you said in reply to TarJak:
^ Yep, this.

People speaking low of the value of property just cannot value the value of money, I think. Which today maybe is no surprise, since almost nobody knows anymore what money really is. I also don't think that human life has an absolute value that always automatically tends to be infinite.

Funny, we had a comparable discussion long time ago, you and me, must be ten years, more or less. I have dramatically changed some basic views of mine since then, it seems - while you were right form beginning on. :up: