• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What Would You Do? Slain Reporter and Cameraman

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Isn't it just....wow.

Notice the insult, including with the rant that had nothing to do with my post. Anarchy, libertarianism, or foreign policy.
...but you said something about our troops, you anti-American filth! What's the term that means intentionally attaching a false meaning to something unrelated? I can't remember.

It comes off as an ignorant homophobic father telling his closeted gay son to avert his eyes or he'll "catch the gay." "Don't look at the gays, son. You'll catch their disease."
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Notice the insult, including with the rant that had nothing to do with my post. Anarchy, libertarianism, or foreign policy.
I use anarchy, libertarian, and objectivist exactly as you have purported to use "statist" in describing me and my positions: as an objective description of you and your positions. Why would you find that insulting in the least?

Foreign policy figured quite directly into your post about those who favor having troops "kill foreigners" (as you so pejoratively put it).

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Oh wow by magic morals change when the government is involved....
No magic, just practicality. And it isn't "government" it is warfare.

There is a marked difference between a person on the streets, in peacetime, determining whether he is justified in acting in self-defense, and person on the field of battle, confronting a member of the opposing forces.

If you were willing, we could discuss those differences rationally in a separate, appropriate thread. But the fact is, anyone not so steep in drinking his own bath water as to beyond reason and logic already understands the difference. He also understands the difference between the morality of government (or militia) officials making decisions about war, and the morality of individual service-members following lawful orders on the field of battle.

Charles
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
...but you said something about our troops, you anti-American filth! What's the term that means intentionally attaching a false meaning to something unrelated? I can't remember.

It comes off as an ignorant homophobic father telling his closeted gay son to avert his eyes or he'll "catch the gay." "Don't look at the gays, son. You'll catch their disease."
LOL.

Notice how the analogy isn't addressed by the attacker. Except to say its different. I will never buy that moral/morality changes because the action is "war" an engagement by the state or an individual. All which is a nonsequitur to my post.

Although my point was the individuals who believe its ok to defend against a foreign threat to their country yet not do it at home to domestic threat. It was not meant as an attack yet a simple observation of what appears to be a logical disconnect.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
He waited two years for the perfect moment to exact his unjustified revenge. I would suspect he had many other opportunities, but waited until he had a perfect condition to attack. I suspect that had there been witnesses he would have waited a little longer.

That said if I saw three people shot, I can conclude that I would be next on the list. Outside that I cannot say for sure if I would have used deadly force when he pulled the gun.
 

boundlessdyad

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
72
Location
maryland
There really is no way to say what one would do unless they were actually in that situation. When GFZ's don't carry the weight of law I still carry if I have a need to go there. Flame me if you will. I am more concerned for my safety than I am for obeying a rule that is not a law. I would like to think that I would have shot this bastard as soon as I knew he was intent on executing innocents. I cannot say for sure if I would have known whether or not it was a prank until after his first shot was fired. Once the first shot was fired I just can't see not doing something. Once you become aware that it is real and not a prank how do you sleep at night just standing by watching people be executed?

Obviously if you are unarmed and do not have a tactical advantage you may have to watch and do nothing for self preservation.

There are no easy choices here.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,430
Location
White Oak Plantation
... argued that no crime is committed until an actual, material harm is inflicted.

In retrospect, knowing he had murderous intents, it is easier to think we'd know what we'd do. But with a TV camera, very realistic looking airsoft or stage guns, etc, how does one know that the gunman isn't an actor? Or a jokester of some kind? Yes, stupid joke if is. But who wants to find out after the fact that he killed an innocent, harmless (if very stupid) man when he wasn't even pointing the gun at you? ...
You got that right. Even you addressed the issue.

You (the non-involved party) do not shoot unless you know a harm is committed...no? yes?

Or, will you rely upon the "reasonable man standard" and engage the target no matter the facts of the matter...and hope for the best.

Tough choice to be sure. Cops have less ambiguity in their decision making process in this type of situation.
 
Top