Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back (Page 5)

Yes, but I am asking those few, I don't get it. It is pretty out of place. This is not a question of self defence, or 2A rights, or poor me victim of my circumstances criminal actions. This is a question of why a couple of people are happy with a 15 year old being killed.... or should I say would be happier if there were a couple more.

Just a minor point that's bugging me.  People, including the authors of various articles are mixing their legal terms.  There is the "Castle Doctrine" and also in many cases a "Duty to retreat" doctrine.  The "Duty to retreat doctrine" is being slowly removed in many states in favor of a "stand your ground" doctrine.  The "Stand your ground" doctrine is/was prevelant in the Western prarie states and teh Pacific Northwest.  Additionally, one of the keys is that you can only use deadly force to meet reasonably perceived deadly force, typically.  Additionally, in most states you cannot use deadly force to protect personal property. (This is not the case in all states)

Everyone keeps talking about the Castle Doctrine, but what people seem to be talking about is the distinction between a duty to retreat and the right to stand your ground, and how those tie into the permissible use of deadly force.

Of course the U.S. "tradition" (it's actually a Constitutional Right) of gun ownership is directly traceable to a reaction to English rule in the colonies and the American colonial experience of a monarch depriving citizens of their weapons.  Weapons used for survival (hunting).  However the Crown viewed gun ownership and well armed colonials as a danger to the crown. (In the end a pretty accurate assesment by King George)

So I agree with you that the American and English experience, historically, on gun ownership is different, and both are well rooted in each cultures collective histories and experiences.

One thing we do need to do whenever we engage in talks about gun ownership and use is acknowledge that it is not simply a "choice" in the U.S., it is actually a "Right", that's with a capital R.  Important enough to our founding fathers that it be contained in the Bill of Rights.  But it is an important distinction.  Under current and long standing Constitutional interpretation individual citizens have a Constitutional Right to own firearms.  Thus I believe it is not the requirement of the pro-gun side to justify their position, rather I believe it is the requirement of the anti-gun side to justify the curtailment of a Constitutional Right.

Wholeheartedly disagree.  Because you feel in danger does not justify taking another person's life.

In his particular situation it may have been justified, but just because you feel a threat does not give you a defacto right to kill someone. 

Getting attacked by three people is not just a feeling.

I think that's the key problem.  People keep pointing to something written 250 years ago meant to protect against tyranny, and it's used today to advocate the "Right" to pack a submachine gun in your boxers.  If everyone still carried muskets, it likely wouldn't be such an issue.

yep, I think this goes to the statement ealryer about the bell curve.

You missed the point.  I said that in his situation it may have been justified.  But in other situations, just because an individual "feels" threatened does not justify shooting or killing someone. 

nope - I'm just picking on powerman's choice of words for when it is acceptable to kill or maim someone.

I agree with what you just said but the first line you quoted he felt in danger while he was being attacked then you said that just feeling a danger was not good enough but that is not what  Powerman was saying at all.

Yet this is not the kind of problem the framers were addressing when they wrote the second ammendment. The gentleman was not being deprived of his rights by any governmental authority. He was defending himself against some street hoodlums. That is a separate debate - should we have the right to arm ourselves against our fellow citizens?

IMHO yes.

You're correct.
Feeling you're in danger is not enough to take another life.

However, we do have a natural right to self defense,
even to the point of using deadly force.

That right requires responsibility. 
In the case of morally taking another human life,
that responsibility requires the use of reason applied to the situation.

For example, think of the Just War Theory.

Now think of it in terms of the situation this man was in.
According to what I've read,
he tried to deescalate the situation by giving up his wallet.
When he was further attacked,
I assume that he thought he might very well die unless he did something to stop the attack.

Thinking you're going to die is very different than feeling that you're in danger.
I've been on the wrong side of a couple of guns pointed at me,
and I know both what you might be feeling in the moment
and what you might be thinking. 

It seems that he made every reasonable effort to avoid having to take another life in order to protect his own. 

There is a line that needs to be drawn and understood,
and this man seems to be well on the side of the line that rests in a morally justifiable killing.

By contrast, I oppose the use of the death penalty in my state.
I've concluded that once a murderer is within the state penal system
the public at large is reasonably safe from further harm,
and that the use of the death penalty is therefore immoral in my opinion.
(I understand that others may disagree and have compelling reasons using prudential judgement) 

That was not the case with this situation.
This man had reason to believe that he was about to be murdered.
Therefore he had the natural right to use deadly force to stop the aggression. 

And this goes back to one of my earlier statements when Fred sucked me into this thread.  The fact that you feel the need to arm yourselves against your fellow citizens is the root cause issue - and in the decades to come, hopefully people much smarter and more visionary than I'll ever be will figure out how to fix some of the fundamental issues that plague society so you don't have to feel the need, even if it remains a Right, to carry arms.

When I talked about feeling in danger - it was a more general statement as opposed to directed at this situation.  I tried to separate the two, but seem to have blurred the lines a bit.

Let's not lawyer this to death...it was implied when I "feel" my life is in danger, I am within my legal rights to defend it where I live... which also extends to others I "feel" are about to loose theirs. As long as I meet the criteria set forth by the laws of where I live.

The man "felt" he was in danger... he felt the situation met the requirements to use deadly force. The authorities agreed.

.... after all what fun would the internet be if we could not pick apart word choice and ignore the point.

I simply chose to do it because even though you were referring to the incident, you made a wide sweeping statement.

Either way, I tend to stay away from these types of threads, so I'll exit the conversation.

He was being deprived of his right to his liberties and property. He was possibly being deprived of his right to live. The Framers most certainly had this in mind when they wrote the Consitution. How free is a man if his liberties are taken by a man, but not the government? The Supreme Court upheld the fact that it is a individual right and not one meant for militia service. And many other states and laws have overwhelmingly supported the individuals right to use deadly force to protect their life and the lives of others. It's pretty cut and dried. When the Framers were laying out individual liberties to be protected... this most certainly was adressed.

I doubt that I'm smarter than you, but what you're asking for is easy to do in this particular situation.

Fix the family.
End fatherlessness.

The boys who held guns on me and threatened to kill me
didn't have good fathers in their lives.
I could smell it on them.

Same kind of kids that I use to sit in a prison block with when I did prison ministry for a short while.
They thirst for fathers. 

But fatherhood is under attack.
That's the problem.

Root cause?
Inconvenient truth,
the sexual revolution.

Until the bitter fruits of the sexual revolution are rolled back,
people are going to die needlessly.

Start with no fault divorce when kids are involved and go from there.

It's all connected into one big enchilada.