You are completely offtopic but I'm still fuming over the fact that Comedy Central has no balls and I can't watch the new South Park because a handful of nutjobs threatened to throw bombs. I want to go create a website that depicts the Prophet Mohammad in all manner of compromising poses. Not because I don't respect Islam, but because I regard free speech as sacrosanct. Free speech > your right not to be offended.
Besides, I'm in the United States. If one of the whack jobs comes after me I can find out how effective the.45 ACP really is as a man stopper.....
Fucking spineless cowards. The Europeans have the backbone to stand up to this nonsense but we don't? When the hell did that happen?
That's nice. Fortunately, reality doesn't care what you think. Although, "forced" is probably the wrong phrase. "Overcome with urges that can't be ignored" would be a better one. But, I'm sure you don't see the difference. Do you also think paraplegics are just choosing not to walk?
Wow, nice straw man you've got there. Physical disability != lack of self control.
I'd say we're not at the point where we're mature enough as a society to start making decisions like that.
Well, we could always require every female who goes out alone to carry a loaded firearm. That would probably put a dent in the number of would-be rapists. I suspect you might have a problem with that though. Are you one of those that thinks the rape victim is morally superior to the woman with the dead would-be rapist at her feet?
I heard about that case, assuming you are referring to this one. Maybe it's just my blue state attitude but I think that guy overreacted. He knew that his neighbors weren't home. All that was at stake was property. Property that was likely insured.
I would not be willing to take a human life over property. I would intervene without hesitation if one of my neighbors was being murdered/raped/kidnapped/etc. But for property? No way. Even if I could get away with it in the legal sense I wouldn't do it. I don't want to live with having ended a human life over property. I've known people who have taken human lives and seen what it does to them. I don't care to experience that myself unless there's no other choice.
I don't think I could have voted for no-bill if I was on his grand jury. I went through the hassle of getting a carry permit in New York State -- no easy undertaking in this "may-issue" state. I've thought about this a great deal and I would not pull out my gun over property. It just isn't worth it. I carry a firearm to save my life, not to save property. Property can be replaced. Human lives can not.
For what crimes and what jurisdictions is a reaction of deadly force required?
In New York State you can respond to rape, robbery, kidnapping or the use of deadly force with deadly force. The exact law reads as follows, NYS Penal Law Section 35.15:
A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
That's New York State. Generally considered a "blue" or liberal state. More conservative states don't have the duty to retreat and go so far as to encourage you to "stand your ground". But even here in NYS you can use deadly force to halt the commission of a rape or kidnapping.
Oops..just read that article...it is punishable by death, but they apparently can plea it down.
One could argue that it's better to plea it down and learn what information they compromised. Hard to do that if you kill them. In this case the death penalty is a good incentive to ensure they cooperate. Tell us what you told the Chinese or we kill you.
so that householders aren't required to run from their premises in the case of intrusion
Move to the United States. In virtually all American states (even the left-leaning ones like New York or California) you aren't expected nor required to flee from your home in the face of a violent intrusion into it. I find it absolutely despicable that there exists systems of government that require people to flee from their homes in the face of violence.
Break into an occupied home in the United States and you have a decent chance of being shot. Perhaps this explains why the United States has a lower rate of "hot" burglaries (burglaries where the home is occupied) than many other countries?
But, as an intelligent, rational person I'm also aware that pedophilia is a disease, one that takes control of the person
That's bullshit rationalization. Human beings are one of the few (the only?) animals with the higher brain functions to override our primal instincts. I don't ascribe to the theory that someone is forced to molest children. That person made a choice and if caught will have to live with the consequences.
The problem is, that's not how you build a JUSTICE system, it's how you build a REVENGE system.
Why do you assume I was advocating vigilantism? I'd actually like to see rape made into a capital offense, as it used to be. Then the state could put these lowlifes out of our collective misery after according them due process of law as required by our Constitution.
For example, inciting a riot or encouraging criminal activity is not covered.
I fail to see how repeating information that is already in the public domain constitutes incitement to riot.
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Keep your kids away from him" <--- free speech
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Let's go burn his house down!" <--- not free speech
Err, because the result of a murder, is a dead victim
So what? The Federal Government makes it a capital offense to engage in espionage or treason. Do you take issue with that? If that's ok, then why not rape? Why not kidnapping?
The victims of those crimes (and third-party bystanders in many US jurisdictions) are entitled to respond with deadly force in the United States. As a society we've decided that those crimes are so egregious that their victims should be allowed to kill their attackers in the course of defending themselves. I honestly don't see why the state shouldn't have the same ability after according the individual due process of law.
in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.
Except that you are given no such assurance. The only assurance you are given is that the police will try to track down the person who hunted you down after the fact. The police in the United States have no legal duty to protect you. The Supreme Court has said as much.
The police exist for exactly this reason, and the occasional (and even occasionally systemic) abuses aside, they do a reasonable job of it.
Tell that to all the rape/murder victims out there. The sad reality of the situation is that you are the one who is ultimately responsible for your own well being. The police sure as hell aren't.
Why don't you move if you don't consider the United States a "civilized country"?
BTW, I've read your journals. This may sound harsh, but do you suppose the fact that your house was broken into has anything to do with the type of company that you keep?
Surveillance is the careful watching of someone, especially by an organization such as the police or the army
The moment you put information like this into the hands of the public and tag it "rapist", you're coming dangerously close to inciting people to vigilantism.
So, such information should be withheld from the public because we can't trust that they won't abuse it?
it's entirely possible that a private person with access to this information could misidentify the criminal and harm an innocent person.
If someone does that they'll be held accountable for it. That's why we have a criminal justice system.
but I can't defend my own rights by sacrificing somebody else's
Your attacker forfeited his rights when he decided to force himself upon you. In all 50 states you would have been well within your rights to shoot him dead on the spot.
He's entitled to the same legal and ethical protections I am
That's why we have due process of law.
There's a simple and time-honored tradition this society has of dealing with malefactors -- imprisonment.
If you support the death penalty as I do then I would argue that it should apply to rapists as well as murderers. If you don't then we won't see eye to eye on this -- but I've never understood why murder is regarded as a capital offense but rape is not.
The Constitution doesn't say that your rights can't be taken away. It says that they can't be taken away without due process of law. Otherwise prisons and laws that prohibit felons from owning guns or voting would be unconstitutional.
Especially since, historically, the downfall of democracy has started with a well-intentioned attack on a minority perceived as a threat by taking away their personal freedoms and/or citizenship.
Hyperbole much? Tracking sex offenders does not make the United States the 2nd coming of the Wiemar Republic.
You're bringing unrelated material into the discussion
*shrug*, you are the one who said that tracking people "in this fashion" for a "personal agenda" is wrong.
This is about answering whether it's okay for a private citizen or group of citizens, to excercise police-like surveillance over another individual, or group of individuals.
Yes. The information is all in the public sphere. All this site is doing is collecting it and providing a centralized place to distribute it. I presume you've heard of the first amendment?
Anytime a person is tracked electronically like this by someone with a personal agenda, it's wrong
So being tracked electronically for other purposes is ok? It's wrong to track down a serial rapist but it's acceptable for Choicepoint to track my every living move? It's acceptable for my credit card company to build profiles of my purchases and sell them to marketing companies but not acceptable for a citizen to track a convicted criminal?
I do, however, have 2 lines running to my house; it's apparently a Tennessee requirement.
That doesn't mean there's actually two copper pairs available on the outside plant. My employer is out in the middle of nowhere -- we have 25 pairs coming into our building from the pole. Only using eight of them, six for POTS lines and two for a T-1. When we had the T-1 provisioned it took them 12 weeks to make it happen -- they didn't have two free pairs on their plant and wound up having to multiplex some of the POTS lines to free them up.
By and large though is a non-issue in urban/suburban areas.
No they won't. POTS landlines are a dying product. Do you really think that your local ILEC has a shortage of free copper pairs in the local loop? Not likely, unless you live on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere.
Huh? I know there are a handful of US States that have experimented with this but they are in the minority. Most US States and the Federal Government still run their own prisons.
I don't happen to think there should be any limit on the weapons that law abiding citizens are allowed to own. Criminals are another matter of course, but then the Constitution already provides for taking away their rights after due process of law.
It's not a "Bill of Needs", it's a "Bill of Rights".
for anything legal
Target shooting isn't legal? Home defense isn't legal?
So by making things like machine guns and grenades illegal
Grenades are already illegal. Machine guns require registration with the ATF and the payment of a tax stamp to the Federal Government. You really should research these matters before you posit opinions on them.
Yeah but you don't need a m16 to hunt deer either.
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. Even if it was, the M16 fires a round (5.56x45mm NATO /.223 Remington) that is well suited for hunting varmint. Ever hunted woodchucks?
Some gun control is necessary
Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
But letting people own whatever kinds of guns and ammo they want is even worst.
Why? You make a claim but you fail to back it up with any sort of argument.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh*
You are completely offtopic but I'm still fuming over the fact that Comedy Central has no balls and I can't watch the new South Park because a handful of nutjobs threatened to throw bombs. I want to go create a website that depicts the Prophet Mohammad in all manner of compromising poses. Not because I don't respect Islam, but because I regard free speech as sacrosanct. Free speech > your right not to be offended.
Besides, I'm in the United States. If one of the whack jobs comes after me I can find out how effective the .45 ACP really is as a man stopper.....
Fucking spineless cowards. The Europeans have the backbone to stand up to this nonsense but we don't? When the hell did that happen?
That's nice. Fortunately, reality doesn't care what you think. Although, "forced" is probably the wrong phrase. "Overcome with urges that can't be ignored" would be a better one. But, I'm sure you don't see the difference. Do you also think paraplegics are just choosing not to walk?
Wow, nice straw man you've got there. Physical disability != lack of self control.
I'd say we're not at the point where we're mature enough as a society to start making decisions like that.
Well, we could always require every female who goes out alone to carry a loaded firearm. That would probably put a dent in the number of would-be rapists. I suspect you might have a problem with that though. Are you one of those that thinks the rape victim is morally superior to the woman with the dead would-be rapist at her feet?
I heard about that case, assuming you are referring to this one. Maybe it's just my blue state attitude but I think that guy overreacted. He knew that his neighbors weren't home. All that was at stake was property. Property that was likely insured.
I would not be willing to take a human life over property. I would intervene without hesitation if one of my neighbors was being murdered/raped/kidnapped/etc. But for property? No way. Even if I could get away with it in the legal sense I wouldn't do it. I don't want to live with having ended a human life over property. I've known people who have taken human lives and seen what it does to them. I don't care to experience that myself unless there's no other choice.
I don't think I could have voted for no-bill if I was on his grand jury. I went through the hassle of getting a carry permit in New York State -- no easy undertaking in this "may-issue" state. I've thought about this a great deal and I would not pull out my gun over property. It just isn't worth it. I carry a firearm to save my life, not to save property. Property can be replaced. Human lives can not.
For what crimes and what jurisdictions is a reaction of deadly force required?
In New York State you can respond to rape, robbery, kidnapping or the use of deadly force with deadly force. The exact law reads as follows, NYS Penal Law Section 35.15:
A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
That's New York State. Generally considered a "blue" or liberal state. More conservative states don't have the duty to retreat and go so far as to encourage you to "stand your ground". But even here in NYS you can use deadly force to halt the commission of a rape or kidnapping.
Oops..just read that article...it is punishable by death, but they apparently can plea it down.
One could argue that it's better to plea it down and learn what information they compromised. Hard to do that if you kill them. In this case the death penalty is a good incentive to ensure they cooperate. Tell us what you told the Chinese or we kill you.
so that householders aren't required to run from their premises in the case of intrusion
Move to the United States. In virtually all American states (even the left-leaning ones like New York or California) you aren't expected nor required to flee from your home in the face of a violent intrusion into it. I find it absolutely despicable that there exists systems of government that require people to flee from their homes in the face of violence.
Break into an occupied home in the United States and you have a decent chance of being shot. Perhaps this explains why the United States has a lower rate of "hot" burglaries (burglaries where the home is occupied) than many other countries?
But, as an intelligent, rational person I'm also aware that pedophilia is a disease, one that takes control of the person
That's bullshit rationalization. Human beings are one of the few (the only?) animals with the higher brain functions to override our primal instincts. I don't ascribe to the theory that someone is forced to molest children. That person made a choice and if caught will have to live with the consequences.
The problem is, that's not how you build a JUSTICE system, it's how you build a REVENGE system.
Why do you assume I was advocating vigilantism? I'd actually like to see rape made into a capital offense, as it used to be. Then the state could put these lowlifes out of our collective misery after according them due process of law as required by our Constitution.
For example, inciting a riot or encouraging criminal activity is not covered.
I fail to see how repeating information that is already in the public domain constitutes incitement to riot.
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Keep your kids away from him" <--- free speech
"John Q. Rapist moved into the neighborhood at 123 Main St. Let's go burn his house down!" <--- not free speech
Err, because the result of a murder, is a dead victim
So what? The Federal Government makes it a capital offense to engage in espionage or treason. Do you take issue with that? If that's ok, then why not rape? Why not kidnapping?
The victims of those crimes (and third-party bystanders in many US jurisdictions) are entitled to respond with deadly force in the United States. As a society we've decided that those crimes are so egregious that their victims should be allowed to kill their attackers in the course of defending themselves. I honestly don't see why the state shouldn't have the same ability after according the individual due process of law.
in return for being assured that nobody else can randomly hunt you down to satisfy a grudge, either.
Except that you are given no such assurance. The only assurance you are given is that the police will try to track down the person who hunted you down after the fact. The police in the United States have no legal duty to protect you. The Supreme Court has said as much.
The police exist for exactly this reason, and the occasional (and even occasionally systemic) abuses aside, they do a reasonable job of it.
Tell that to all the rape/murder victims out there. The sad reality of the situation is that you are the one who is ultimately responsible for your own well being. The police sure as hell aren't.
Why don't you move if you don't consider the United States a "civilized country"?
BTW, I've read your journals. This may sound harsh, but do you suppose the fact that your house was broken into has anything to do with the type of company that you keep?
Which is still a form of surveillance.
Surveillance is the careful watching of someone, especially by an organization such as the police or the army
The moment you put information like this into the hands of the public and tag it "rapist", you're coming dangerously close to inciting people to vigilantism.
So, such information should be withheld from the public because we can't trust that they won't abuse it?
it's entirely possible that a private person with access to this information could misidentify the criminal and harm an innocent person.
If someone does that they'll be held accountable for it. That's why we have a criminal justice system.
but I can't defend my own rights by sacrificing somebody else's
Your attacker forfeited his rights when he decided to force himself upon you. In all 50 states you would have been well within your rights to shoot him dead on the spot.
He's entitled to the same legal and ethical protections I am
That's why we have due process of law.
There's a simple and time-honored tradition this society has of dealing with malefactors -- imprisonment.
If you support the death penalty as I do then I would argue that it should apply to rapists as well as murderers. If you don't then we won't see eye to eye on this -- but I've never understood why murder is regarded as a capital offense but rape is not.
It's not a right if it can be taken away.
The Constitution doesn't say that your rights can't be taken away. It says that they can't be taken away without due process of law. Otherwise prisons and laws that prohibit felons from owning guns or voting would be unconstitutional.
Especially since, historically, the downfall of democracy has started with a well-intentioned attack on a minority perceived as a threat by taking away their personal freedoms and/or citizenship.
Hyperbole much? Tracking sex offenders does not make the United States the 2nd coming of the Wiemar Republic.
You're bringing unrelated material into the discussion
*shrug*, you are the one who said that tracking people "in this fashion" for a "personal agenda" is wrong.
This is about answering whether it's okay for a private citizen or group of citizens, to excercise police-like surveillance over another individual, or group of individuals.
Yes. The information is all in the public sphere. All this site is doing is collecting it and providing a centralized place to distribute it. I presume you've heard of the first amendment?
He had to change into a white woman. Everyone knows that the police frame rich black men for crimes they didn't commit.
Anytime a person is tracked electronically like this by someone with a personal agenda, it's wrong
So being tracked electronically for other purposes is ok? It's wrong to track down a serial rapist but it's acceptable for Choicepoint to track my every living move? It's acceptable for my credit card company to build profiles of my purchases and sell them to marketing companies but not acceptable for a citizen to track a convicted criminal?
The things we choose to get outraged about....
If somebody has made a habit of maliciously assaulting people at leisure, tracking them down is a service to mankind.
Putting them out of our collective misery would be an even bigger service to mankind but some people frown on such notions.....
I do, however, have 2 lines running to my house; it's apparently a Tennessee requirement.
That doesn't mean there's actually two copper pairs available on the outside plant. My employer is out in the middle of nowhere -- we have 25 pairs coming into our building from the pole. Only using eight of them, six for POTS lines and two for a T-1. When we had the T-1 provisioned it took them 12 weeks to make it happen -- they didn't have two free pairs on their plant and wound up having to multiplex some of the POTS lines to free them up.
By and large though is a non-issue in urban/suburban areas.
No they won't. POTS landlines are a dying product. Do you really think that your local ILEC has a shortage of free copper pairs in the local loop? Not likely, unless you live on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere.
Once the US moved to a privatize prison system
Huh? I know there are a handful of US States that have experimented with this but they are in the minority. Most US States and the Federal Government still run their own prisons.
I don't happen to think there should be any limit on the weapons that law abiding citizens are allowed to own. Criminals are another matter of course, but then the Constitution already provides for taking away their rights after due process of law.
No person needs military grade weapons
It's not a "Bill of Needs", it's a "Bill of Rights".
for anything legal
Target shooting isn't legal? Home defense isn't legal?
So by making things like machine guns and grenades illegal
Grenades are already illegal. Machine guns require registration with the ATF and the payment of a tax stamp to the Federal Government. You really should research these matters before you posit opinions on them.
Yeah but you don't need a m16 to hunt deer either.
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. Even if it was, the M16 fires a round (5.56x45mm NATO / .223 Remington) that is well suited for hunting varmint. Ever hunted woodchucks?
Some gun control is necessary
Gun control is hitting what you aim at.
But letting people own whatever kinds of guns and ammo they want is even worst.
Why? You make a claim but you fail to back it up with any sort of argument.
If he had opted to run her over instead of shoot her, would you be advocating in favor of banning cars?
Get over it. This is an American site. This story is about an American law. This discussion is about American gun-control.