Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back (Page 6)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2012-01-31 12:32 PM in reply to: #4020833 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 1:10 PM Start with no fault divorce when kids are involved and go from there. Are you suggesting eliminating no fault divorce, or encouraging it (in instances involving children)?
|
|
2012-01-31 12:39 PM in reply to: #4020906 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back Goosedog - Are you suggesting eliminating no fault divorce, or encouraging it (in instances involving children)?
Eliminate it. In my opinion, if you have children you should have to show cause for a divorce. |
2012-01-31 12:48 PM in reply to: #4020923 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 1:39 PM Goosedog - Are you suggesting eliminating no fault divorce, or encouraging it (in instances involving children)?
Eliminate it. In my opinion, if you have children you should have to show cause for a divorce. I agree with you completely on the role of fathers. However, I don't think the government can do much to fix the situation. I certainly think forcing parents to remain married, despite their own wishes, is counterproductive.
|
2012-01-31 12:51 PM in reply to: #4020525 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back Brock Samson - 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. PA governor Corbett signed a Castle doctrine law this past summer. My opinion now is that increased concealed carry by law abiding citizens I didn't always think that way. It's often said that you can't change someone's opinion, I use to be generally neutral on the 2nd amendment Of course being on the receiving end of a gun crime But it was on a thread here that those opinions of mine were challenged So people's opinions can in fact be changed through conversations such as these. No one I know who carries wants to have to use their gun in a self defense situation. The increase in carry permits is not the cause of the coarsening of the culture, Edited by dontracy 2012-01-31 12:54 PM |
2012-01-31 1:02 PM in reply to: #4020951 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back Goosedog - I agree with you completely on the role of fathers. However, I don't think the government can do much to fix the situation. I certainly think forcing parents to remain married, despite their own wishes, is counterproductive. Safe guess that I'm in the minority about this. I put that out there because in my opinion Economics is certainly part of it. I think though, the real problem is the breakdown of the family. In the meantime good people have the right to defend themselves,
|
2012-01-31 1:19 PM in reply to: #4020714 |
Veteran 459 Indiana | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back GoFaster - 2012-01-31 12:32 PM 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. I don't think that's the legal standard. The standard I have seen frequently quoted is that a reasonable person in this situation would believe they were in danger. This rules out off-the-wall "feelings" or distorted perceptions like someone who has an irrational fear of polka dots or something. It has to be a realistic threat. Edited by alath 2012-01-31 1:20 PM |
|
2012-01-31 1:25 PM in reply to: #4020833 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 1:10 PM ... Fix the family. .... Root cause? Until the bitter fruits of the sexual revolution are rolled back, Start with no fault divorce when kids are involved and go from there. It's all connected into one big enchilada. I agree with the assessment of the problem, but not its root causes. If by sexual revolution, you mean the disconnect between sexual activity and marriage, I think there is not really anything new under the sun. People have been having sex outside of marriage (both before and in the Newt-onian sense), and it did not lead to fatherlessness. And if you mean the disconnect between sexual activity and procreation, I would disagree even more strongly - have sex without having a kid, and the issue of a fatherless kid is moot. However, if by the sexual revolution you mean the idea that I should get to indulge my every pleasure without regard to others, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you. I think the problem is that we have so glorified the individual at the expense of the collective (I think we all know where I stand on the Ayn Rand idealization of the individual in society) that people do not consider how their actions affect others. Thus the man fathers a child that he leaves behind so he can chase more women. The woman rolls through a string of men without considering the impact on the children. The children feel disconnected from the start and have little incentive to meet social demands. And the cycle continues. I also think that if we appropriately educate our children about their sexuality and reproductive health that we would see fewer children born outside of commited relationships (marriage, civil union, or simple promises). Which is what I interprete the sexual revolution to really have been about - the ability to have recreational without procreational sexual activity. |
2012-01-31 1:28 PM in reply to: #4020602 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back mr2tony - 2012-01-31 11:40 AM Brock Samson - 2012-01-31 10:20 AM 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) Agreed. The burden of proof is on the anti-gun crowd. Though Constitutional rights are, like statistical data, open to interpretation and judgment. Like the right to a free press -- many people believe the press often overstep their bounds and need to be reined in. Or the right to free speech, where many people believe that only popular speech should be allowed and things like burning of the flag should be deemed illegal. And, really, does TSA overstep an American's right to illegal search and seizure in the name of safety? Again, all open to interpretation.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. Well I disagree. If you're saying that the lay persons "view" or "opinion" of the extent of a Right may vary, I would agree. However, this is different from constitutional interpretation. The lay persons belief or view or opinion regarding the extent of a constitutional right is often incorrect; based upon a lack of actual legal knowledge and based upon supporting their own personal views on the issue. Typically, the state of the law, as in constitutional interpretation, is far more stable than the views, beliefs, or opinions of a lay person. This of course doesn't mean that Constitutional issues don't come up before the courts. (And the TSA hypo, it's not "illegal search and seizure", the right is against "unreasonable searches and seizures.") |
2012-01-31 1:29 PM in reply to: #4021002 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 11:02 AM Goosedog - I agree with you completely on the role of fathers. However, I don't think the government can do much to fix the situation. I certainly think forcing parents to remain married, despite their own wishes, is counterproductive. Safe guess that I'm in the minority about this. I put that out there because in my opinion Economics is certainly part of it. I think though, the real problem is the breakdown of the family. In the meantime good people have the right to defend themselves,
I don't know if any of you have read the freakonomics correlation between the legalization of abortion and a drop in crime. http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ Edited by Big Appa 2012-01-31 1:46 PM |
2012-01-31 1:39 PM in reply to: #4021099 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back Big Appa - 2012-01-31 2:29 PM I don't know if any of you have read the freakonomics coloration between the legalization of abortion and a drop in crime. http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ D'oh!
|
2012-01-31 1:46 PM in reply to: #4021132 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back Goosedog - 2012-01-31 11:39 AM Big Appa - 2012-01-31 2:29 PM I don't know if any of you have read the freakonomics coloration between the legalization of abortion and a drop in crime. http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ D'oh!
LOL I fixed it, thanks for pointing it out |
|
2012-01-31 1:57 PM in reply to: #4021099 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back Big Appa - I don't know if any of you have read the freakonomics correlation between the legalization of abortion and a drop in crime.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ Eugenics is a nasty, nasty, road to go down to solve the problem. |
2012-01-31 2:02 PM in reply to: #4021192 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 2:57 PM Big Appa - I don't know if any of you have read the freakonomics correlation between the legalization of abortion and a drop in crime.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ Eugenics is a nasty, nasty, road to go down to solve the problem. It is one of the more controversial correlations that Dubner draws, and he has said as much. But I would not characterize it as eugenics. If anything, given the predictions of Idiocracy, we tend to be practicing malgenics. |
2012-01-31 2:06 PM in reply to: #4021192 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 11:57 AM Big Appa - I don't know if any of you have read the freakonomics correlation between the legalization of abortion and a drop in crime.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ Eugenics is a nasty, nasty, road to go down to solve the problem. I don't know if I would call it Eugenics, all it did is look at the numbers of a crime drop and compared it all at many of the known factors at the point in time. I think it more spoke to the huge impact that family and good roll models makes on the path of a child. Just for the record the economists only found at 2% drop in crime associated with stricter gun laws. Edited by Big Appa 2012-01-31 2:09 PM |
2012-01-31 2:38 PM in reply to: #4020960 |
Master 3205 ann arbor, michigan | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 1:51 PM Brock Samson - 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. PA governor Corbett signed a Castle doctrine law this past summer. My opinion now is that increased concealed carry by law abiding citizens I didn't always think that way. It's often said that you can't change someone's opinion, I use to be generally neutral on the 2nd amendment Of course being on the receiving end of a gun crime But it was on a thread here that those opinions of mine were challenged So people's opinions can in fact be changed through conversations such as these. No one I know who carries wants to have to use their gun in a self defense situation. The increase in carry permits is not the cause of the coarsening of the culture, Is this poetry? I like it. |
2012-01-31 3:58 PM in reply to: #4019758 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back powerman - 2012-01-30 9:47 PM HoganBC - 2012-01-30 7:26 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-30 5:09 PM This story made me sad...he only killed one of the scumbags. After reading this entire thread and all the boo hoo's about how sad, I finally see came across a post I 100% agree with. Well done my friend. So both of you feel the best outcome for this situation would have been 3 full body bags with two 15 yos and a 16 yo? I can't speak for HoganBC, so here's my response. Violent criminals deserve no leniency. btw, to take it a step further, I'd also want the parents of these kids to be fined. Perhaps if parents took some ownership of what their children pulled, there'd be a little more thought going into both reproducing and parenting our society's children. |
|
2012-01-31 5:11 PM in reply to: #4021548 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-31 4:58 PM ... I can't speak for HoganBC, so here's my response. Violent criminals deserve no leniency. btw, to take it a step further, I'd also want the parents of these kids to be fined. Perhaps if parents took some ownership of what their children pulled, there'd be a little more thought going into both reproducing and parenting our society's children. Well, the kid who was wounded and the one who was uninjured had no criminal records. Unless they had been truant enough days to warrant a fine, what basis would you have to act? And the kid who died? He was already on probation - his mother called the PO from her workplace about the kid being truant to respond. It was apparently a half day at the school, so they could not make him go to school. They put a monitor on him, having determined that the violation (truancy) did not warrant a trip to the detention center. Are you saying the mother should not go to work? Many of the working parents I meet here have to be at their jobs before the kid has to leave for school - so all they can do is have good communication with the school. Or do you think the parents of kids with these sorts of behavior problems should stop working, and become another drag on our economy? |
2012-01-31 5:31 PM in reply to: #4021548 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-31 2:58 PM powerman - 2012-01-30 9:47 PM HoganBC - 2012-01-30 7:26 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-30 5:09 PM This story made me sad...he only killed one of the scumbags. After reading this entire thread and all the boo hoo's about how sad, I finally see came across a post I 100% agree with. Well done my friend. So both of you feel the best outcome for this situation would have been 3 full body bags with two 15 yos and a 16 yo? I can't speak for HoganBC, so here's my response. Violent criminals deserve no leniency. btw, to take it a step further, I'd also want the parents of these kids to be fined. Perhaps if parents took some ownership of what their children pulled, there'd be a little more thought going into both reproducing and parenting our society's children. So then you advocate capital punishment for every violent crime? This case met the criteria for justified self defense... it is prudent to not wait to see if you are going to die.... but the fact is robbery is not a capital offense. Assault and battery is not a capital offense. Even agrivated does not elevate it to a capital offense. So no matter who the person is or what age... every violent offender in the country should be put to death? Pretty extreme stance. No lenience and all.... |
2012-01-31 5:53 PM in reply to: #4020923 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back dontracy - 2012-01-31 1:39 PM Goosedog - Are you suggesting eliminating no fault divorce, or encouraging it (in instances involving children)?
Eliminate it. In my opinion, if you have children you should have to show cause for a divorce. That's absurd. So you believe it is better for two people to be in a dysfunctional relationship, miserable, fight, and subject the kids to that until they are adults? What kind of lesson does that impart? Or are you implying that people who are divorced cannot properly raise children? As a divorced father of two who is deeply involved in parenting and raising my kids I would find that insulting and untrue. |
2012-01-31 6:17 PM in reply to: #4019055 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2012-01-31 7:20 PM in reply to: #4021682 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back gearboy - 2012-01-31 6:11 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-31 4:58 PM ... I can't speak for HoganBC, so here's my response. Violent criminals deserve no leniency. btw, to take it a step further, I'd also want the parents of these kids to be fined. Perhaps if parents took some ownership of what their children pulled, there'd be a little more thought going into both reproducing and parenting our society's children. Well, the kid who was wounded and the one who was uninjured had no criminal records. Unless they had been truant enough days to warrant a fine, what basis would you have to act? And the kid who died? He was already on probation - his mother called the PO from her workplace about the kid being truant to respond. It was apparently a half day at the school, so they could not make him go to school. They put a monitor on him, having determined that the violation (truancy) did not warrant a trip to the detention center. Are you saying the mother should not go to work? Many of the working parents I meet here have to be at their jobs before the kid has to leave for school - so all they can do is have good communication with the school. Or do you think the parents of kids with these sorts of behavior problems should stop working, and become another drag on our economy? I know my opinion's probably not the most popular...it definitely sounds extreme. But, it's as if folks looking at the case are focusing too intently on the short-term. "What could the parents do that day..." to me, it takes 5,840 days to live 16 years. The parent may have been doing all they could that day, but I'm willing to bet that when your kid is out violently attacking and stealing from peaceful citizens, the overwhelming majority of those 5,840 days were not filled with good decisions by the parents/sperm/egg donors. I am willing to bet the overwhelming majority of parents (or in many cases out there, sperm and egg donors) do not do their very best to raise humans that can function peacefully within society. Responding to powerman, no. I don't believe formalized capital punishment is how you deal with every violent crime. In the case of self-defense though, mow them down. My liberal side believes you should have your firearm registered...and my conservative side says, "don't be a jerk, and you won't get shot." I believe violent criminals (when the crime is heinous enough) belong in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. I am willing to give a first offense, minor violent crime a smaller sentence, but definitely jail time. If it happens again, you're going away, and it aint gonna be fun. btw, if we are that concerned about the economy, I'd be more than happy to stick deadbeat parents and violent criminals in labor camps. I bet we could turn a profit from their labor...and if not, hellooooo solitary.
|
|
2012-01-31 7:20 PM in reply to: #4021764 |
Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back BrianRunsPhilly - That's absurd. So you believe it is better for two people to be in a dysfunctional relationship, miserable, fight, and subject the kids to that until they are adults? What kind of lesson does that impart? Or are you implying that people who are divorced cannot properly raise children? As a divorced father of two who is deeply involved in parenting and raising my kids I would find that insulting and untrue. Brian, I understand where you're coming from. You know when someone comes out against gay marriage, I agree with that charge. Marriage is such an important foundation to our civilization, It's important to me because I think one couple's divorce has an effect on other marriages. Further, I believe that children have a natural right to be raised by a mother and a father in a family. I believe that love is a decision and not a feeling. Having said all of that, I brought this up because the point was raised about what would stop incidents like what happened in Reading. BTW, you mentioned other incidents on the Schuylkill trail.
Edited by dontracy 2012-01-31 7:23 PM |
2012-01-31 8:12 PM in reply to: #4021903 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-31 6:20 PM Responding to powerman, no. I don't believe formalized capital punishment is how you deal with every violent crime. In the case of self-defense though, mow them down. My liberal side believes you should have your firearm registered...and my conservative side says, "don't be a jerk, and you won't get shot." I believe violent criminals (when the crime is heinous enough) belong in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. I am willing to give a first offense, minor violent crime a smaller sentence, but definitely jail time. If it happens again, you're going away, and it aint gonna be fun. btw, if we are that concerned about the economy, I'd be more than happy to stick deadbeat parents and violent criminals in labor camps. I bet we could turn a profit from their labor...and if not, hellooooo solitary.
Alright Bud, fair enough. That is a bit more reasoned than the other comment.... I get it. I'm not trying to defned their actions. |
2012-01-31 8:34 PM in reply to: #4019055 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2012-01-31 10:09 PM in reply to: #4019758 |
Veteran 698 | Subject: RE: Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back powerman - 2012-01-30 6:47 PM HoganBC - 2012-01-30 7:26 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2012-01-30 5:09 PM This story made me sad...he only killed one of the scumbags. After reading this entire thread and all the boo hoo's about how sad, I finally see came across a post I 100% agree with. Well done my friend. So both of you feel the best outcome for this situation would have been 3 full body bags with two 15 yos and a 16 yo?
And if they were 22 and 23, it would be cool? |
|