By your argument, abuse of free speech is not something that should be allowed outside of the school environment. It is no one's place to infringe on those rights, regardless of the age of the people affected.
SirCmpwn wrote:
By your argument, abuse of free speech is not something that should be allowed outside of the school environment. It is no one's place to infringe on those rights, regardless of the age of the people affected.
And by your argument, bullying should be completely ignored when confrontations are not violent, because the first amendment protects speech, not children. Hopefully that was not your argument. Please don't interpret my statements for me. Clearly there is no point getting through to you, you haven't contributed a unique idea to the debate since page one.
My point was that there is a difference between free speech and harassment. One or two wayward insults isn't a crime, but harassment is behavior that is intended to disturb or upset (in this circumstance) school atmosphere, and that is most definitely a transgression the school system can handle, because often if left alone, someone gets hurt.
JoeYoung wrote:
Clearly there is no point getting through to you, you haven't contributed a unique idea to the debate since page one.
If the "debate" has degraded to the point of personal hits, then it is no longer a debate I'm interested in having.
SirCmpwn wrote:
JoeYoung wrote:
Clearly there is no point getting through to you, you haven't contributed a unique idea to the debate since page one.
If the "debate" has degraded to the point of personal hits, then it is no longer a debate I'm interested in having.
God forbid any personal hits. It's a fairly true statement.
Whether or not any personal attacks have occurred, let's try not to escalate and continue this discussion into an argument, as it's properly setup to become one now.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
SirCmpwn wrote:
To address other points, I am very, very protective of my rights.
Your rights end when they intersect with my own(otherwise everyone would have the "right" to hurt anyone else as they please). Bullying is just such an intersection of rights, where one person's "right" to free speech infringes on another person's right to well-being.
DShiznit wrote:
SirCmpwn wrote:
To address other points, I am very, very protective of my rights.
Your rights end when they intersect with my own(otherwise everyone would have the "right" to hurt anyone else as they please).
Aside from that, you are correct; I can't waltz on the street and fling derogatory terms in peoples direction. I have the right to free speech, however just as I am protected by the law to do I am also breaking the same law, again because of the Fighting Words Doctrine.
Continuing to add on to DShiznit's post, one is free to express as much of the First Amendment in his or her private residence or where it is safe to do so (in another private residence) as long as the act isn't in viewed as hate in any of the residents or people who may catch brief words of the conversation (such as neighbors in a thinly walled complex).
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
comicIDIOT wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
SirCmpwn wrote:
To address other points, I am very, very protective of my rights.
Your rights end when they intersect with my own(otherwise everyone would have the "right" to hurt anyone else as they please).
I'd feel bad about it, true, but it's not going to stop me from exercising my right to defend my rightful property.
One thing I overlooked above was that I'd probably be criticized for beating an unarmed petty thief (they'd likely flee at the flick of a light), but one yielding a weapon I'm sure I'd have more authority to protect my assets as well as my life if I feel threatened - who wouldn't during a burglary?
One thing I overlooked above was that I'd probably be criticized for beating an unarmed petty thief (they'd likely flee at the flick of a light), but one yielding a weapon I'm sure I'd have more authority to protect my assets as well as my life if I feel threatened - who wouldn't during a burglary?
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
comicIDIOT wrote:
I'd feel bad about it, true, but it's not going to stop me from exercising my right to defend my rightful property.
One thing I overlooked above was that I'd probably be criticized for beating an unarmed petty thief (they'd likely flee at the flick of a light), but one yielding a weapon I'm sure I'd have more authority to protect my assets as well as my life if I feel threatened - who wouldn't during a burglary?
Then give him your stuff and he won't be a threat. Your stuff is not worth someone's life. If he's actually endangering your life, that's a different story, and very much not the one you initially proposed. One thing I overlooked above was that I'd probably be criticized for beating an unarmed petty thief (they'd likely flee at the flick of a light), but one yielding a weapon I'm sure I'd have more authority to protect my assets as well as my life if I feel threatened - who wouldn't during a burglary?
Hence, why I stated it's one thing I overlooked and changed my words to be less broad. Where as, my first statement could be interpreted to mean any type of burglary and my second refers to two different circumstances.
Referring to feeling threatened, I was confusing feeling invaded with feeling threaded there at the end. While I might not be threatened by a petty thief, I'd feel invaded in any count of theft.
Referring to feeling threatened, I was confusing feeling invaded with feeling threaded there at the end. While I might not be threatened by a petty thief, I'd feel invaded in any count of theft.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate data from incomplete data
comicIDIOT wrote:
Hence, why I stated it's one thing I overlooked and changed my words to be less broad. Where as, my first statement could be interpreted to mean any type of burglary and my second refers to two different circumstances.
Referring to feeling threatened, I was confusing feeling invaded with feeling threaded there at the end. While I might not be threatened by a petty thief, I'd feel invaded in any count of theft.
Feeling threatened is not the same as actually being in mortal danger. You're still either scoping down until you're morally justified in saying stuff > life, or you're trying to justify a very very broad statement.
Referring to feeling threatened, I was confusing feeling invaded with feeling threaded there at the end. While I might not be threatened by a petty thief, I'd feel invaded in any count of theft.
You said:
Quote:
... one yielding a weapon I'm sure I'd have more authority to protect my assets as well as my life if I feel threatened
So if a burglar breaks in with a knife, and demands your TV, it's very clear that you would feel threatened. However, you still have no right to kill or permanently damage this person. Give him your TV, and he's not gonna stab you. Now, let's say he's going to stab you no matter what because he's a serial killer. Now you protect yourself in self defense. Self defense does not (read: should not) extend to your stuff. I don't care how much you like your TV, it's not worth someone's life.
There are some obvious grey areas here, but I don't think you have the right to whack someone over the head with a club just because you feel threatened by them.
merthsoft wrote:
comicIDIOT wrote:
Hence, why I stated it's one thing I overlooked and changed my words to be less broad. Where as, my first statement could be interpreted to mean any type of burglary and my second refers to two different circumstances.
Referring to feeling threatened, I was confusing feeling invaded with feeling threaded there at the end. While I might not be threatened by a petty thief, I'd feel invaded in any count of theft.
Feeling threatened is not the same as actually being in mortal danger. You're still either scoping down until you're morally justified in saying stuff > life, or you're trying to justify a very very broad statement.
Referring to feeling threatened, I was confusing feeling invaded with feeling threaded there at the end. While I might not be threatened by a petty thief, I'd feel invaded in any count of theft.
You said:
Quote:
... one yielding a weapon I'm sure I'd have more authority to protect my assets as well as my life if I feel threatened
So if a burglar breaks in with a knife, and demands your TV, it's very clear that you would feel threatened. However, you still have no right to kill or permanently damage this person. Give him your TV, and he's not gonna stab you. Now, let's say he's going to stab you no matter what because he's a serial killer. Now you protect yourself in self defense. Self defense does not (read: should not) extend to your stuff. I don't care how much you like your TV, it's not worth someone's life.
There are some obvious grey areas here, but I don't think you have the right to whack someone over the head with a club just because you feel threatened by them.
Those are interesting points. I for one think you should definitely have the legal right to attack a burglar in defense of your property, armed or otherwise, or there would be no disincentive to not burglarize in a community with ineffective law enforcement. Whether it's right morally is a whole different issue. That said we are veering a bit off topic here.
Quote:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Of course, this is the Texas penal code. If you try to shoot the guy, please don't aim to kill him. Much easier to confirm he's B&E if he's alive and the police don't feel compelled to take action if you simply shot him in the leg or the butt on your property since it would appear you weren't trying to kill him, whether he lives or dies from loss of blood.
It's very malleable, though. If you don't have a gun but kill your thief with a well placed smack to the head, with a pipe or something, you could still find protection from the Texas Penal Code.
Couldn't tell you about other states.
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement