Difficult Civil Rights Question

[BigV]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.

Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.

You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."

Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

The definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear. When a conviction happens is clear too. And when appeals are exhausted.

These are all distinct events.

Originally Posted by BigV

The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.

Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.

You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."

Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.

Not "win" simply safe.
As a previous security associate, your attitude would have made me a very dead individual.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Not "win" simply safe.

"win" in the context of the analogy of seeing a bet in a poker game and raising it, thereby "winning" by forcing the other out of the hand. Not to be confused with any other context.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As a previous security associate, your attitude would have made me a very dead individual.

What? What do you know about my attitude? You should explain this better.

Originally Posted by BigV

"win" in the context of the analogy of seeing a bet in a poker game and raising it, thereby "winning" by forcing the other out of the hand. Not to be confused with any other context.


What? What do you know about my attitude? You should explain this better.

Perhaps I read it wrong... for reasons I have gone into in another thread, I am not "myself" right now... but, it seems that you advocate a wait-and-see approach when informed that you are going to be harmed.
I don't believe that one has the right to do that when others count on them.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Perhaps I read it wrong... for reasons I have gone into in another thread, I am not "myself" right now... but, it seems that you advocate a wait-and-see approach when informed that you are going to be harmed.
I don't believe that one has the right to do that when others count on them.

Fair enough. Thanks. And you're right--I do have a deep and wide wait and see streak. I've been informed of an intent to harm before, and the bark has always exceeded the bite. I have moderated my responses accordingly.