SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (4090)11/2/2006 5:53:11 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 10087
 
I agree.

It could be argued that an insane human attacker is not responsible for his behavior. The same argument could be made about a rabid dog, and certainly about a tumor. But that doesn't mean that you would not be justified in using deadly force against any of those threats. Certainly one would properly have much more concern about the welfare of the schizophrenic young man than that of a tumor or a wild dog, but such concern doesn't properly remove the right to self defence.



To: one_less who wrote (4090)11/2/2006 8:27:13 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
Its not just self defense with deadly force that gets discouraged. Also much less deadly self defense

From the Where the GIT's are going thread -

Message 22969440

"...and the Principal wants me to talk to Nicholas and tell him its never ok to hit..."

Message 22970207

Message 22971143

Also
Message 22970259