Terrorist incident in Colorado Springs

[TrueMetis]

"Stand Your Ground" laws and the "castle doctrine" don't have anything to do with the proportionality that you are allowed to use in your response to a threat. They have to do with whether or not you have an obligation to retreat when confronted with a threat. The standard for the use of lethal force has to be met in either case. It's simply not true that it allows you to use lethal force "in response to decidedly non-lethal threats." 

Well maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this for example is the Californa penal code on the subject.

198.5.  

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Well maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this for example is the Californa penal code on the subject.

198.5.  

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

That's pretty much the standard for the use of lethal force everywhere in the United States. It has nothing to do with the castle doctrine or stand your ground laws. You have to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent either great bodily harm or death. "Great bodily harm" has always been part of the standard. 

[TrueMetis]

That's pretty much the standard for the use of lethal force everywhere in the United States. It has nothing to do with the castle doctrine or stand your ground laws. You have to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent either great bodily harm or death. "Great bodily harm" has always been part of the standard. 

My mistake then.

[Stubby]

Of course, the GOP blames the victims.

Adams County state Rep. JoAnn Windholz blames Planned Parenthood for the Nov. 27 shooting, at its Colorado Springs clinic, that left three dead and nine injured.  She is one of the few Colorado Republicans to issue a statement in the wake of the attack.

“Violence is never the answer, but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence. So Planned Parenthood: YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.”

And:

Pray Daily for the women who abort, their children, and the providers.

The GOP really has no empathy does it?

 

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, the GOP has empathy with unborn children. With actual living, breathing humans who have friends and family? Not so much.

[TerraPrime]

 

The GOP really has no empathy does it?

 

That's entirely consistent with their rhetorics on abortion. If you think abortion is the same as infanticide, then yes, there's great violence done inside the walls of PP.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Isn't the operative phrase in the California code "shall be presumed" though? If police and prosecutors conduct an investigation on the presumption that the user of deadly force was in fear of great bodily harm because that's what the law mandates, it seems it would give shooters a much wider latitude to use deadly force even on questionable grounds.

Well, yes, but there are two important distinctions to make here.

First, this is a factual presumption. It's not a change in the standard for when you can use lethal force. It's a change in how the law treats the analysis of the facts surrounding a use of lethal force incident. The law is not saying "it's not illegal for you to use lethal force against someone when you aren't facing deadly force or great bodily harm." That's still illegal. The law is saying, under certain circumstances that are considered to be highly charged and where there are already other indications that a person would be in fear of these things, we're not going to go out of our way to second guess the judgment of a homeowner who is facing an intruder who illegally, and with force, broke into their home. 

Second, it's a rebuttable presumption. If there's actual, solid evidence that the homeowner did NOT reasonably fear death or great bodily injury, the presumption can be overcome and the person can be prosecuted.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

 

That's entirely consistent with their rhetorics on abortion. If you think abortion is the same as infanticide, then yes, there's great violence done inside the walls of PP.

TP,

Peter Singer, hardly an Anti-abortion rights activist agrees with that position.  

[TerraPrime]

 

TP,

Peter Singer, hardly an Anti-abortion rights activist agrees with that position.  

My observation that pro-lifers who think abortion is the same as infanticide are going to see the abortion service provided by PP as a form of great violence is not invalidated by people like Peter Singer who also see infanticide as the same as abortion who also happen to be pro-choice.

[ChillyPolly]

My observation that pro-lifers who think abortion is the same as infanticide are going to see the abortion service provided by PP as a form of great violence is not invalidated by people like Peter Singer who also see infanticide as the same as abortion who also happen to be pro-choice.

I'm not sure that was the objection.  Your premise was:  if you think abortion is the same as infanticide, then you think PP is doing great violence.

Which leads to the following "valid" argument:

Premise #1:  If you think abortion = infanticide, you think PP is doing great violence.

Premise #2:  Peter Singer thinks PP is infanticide

Conclusion:  THEREFORE Peter Singer thinks PP is doing great violence.

Note that this is a valid argument, in the sense that if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.  Hence, if you disagree with the conclusion, it necessarily follows that one of the premises must be false.

However, the conclusion might not be false, depending on what we mean by "great violence".  Perhaps Peter Singer thinks infanticide is great violence, and that abortion is great violence, and that PP commits great violence, but believes it's okay to commit great violence.

 

But then we come to the following "valid" argument.

Premise #1:   If you believe PP is doing great violence, you believe that illegal violence against PP is justified.

Premise #2:   Peter Singer believes PP is doing great violence.

Conclusion:  THEREFORE, Peter singer thinks illegal violence against PP is justified.

Again, it is a "valid" argument ... the conclusion follows if the premises are true.

 

By now, at least, we are entering into problem territory.  The conclusion is false so one of the premises must be false.

 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'm not sure that was the objection.  Your premise was:  if you think abortion is the same as infanticide, then you think PP is doing great violence.

 

I think that's an inaccurate restatement of TP's premise. 

TP said that "pro-lifers" who think abortion is the same as infanticide are going to see the abortion service provided by Planned Parenthood as a great violence. 

So the premise has to include, as one of its axioms that infanticide and/or abortion are morally objectionable. That's pretty much part and parcel of being a "pro lifer." That's also going to be the premise that missing between your average pro-lifer and Peter Singer. 

[ChillyPolly]

I think that's an inaccurate restatement of TP's premise. 

TP said that "pro-lifers" who think abortion is the same as infanticide are going to see the abortion service provided by Planned Parenthood as a great violence. 

So the premise has to include, as one of its axioms that infanticide and/or abortion are morally objectionable. That's pretty much part and parcel of being a "pro lifer." That's also going to be the premise that missing between your average pro-lifer and Peter Singer. 

You are confusing his premise with his conclusion.  His premise was exactly as I stated:  "If you think abortion is the same as infanticide, then yes, there's great violence done inside the walls of PP."

But as I indicated, i don't necessarily have a problem with either the premise or the conclusion (to the first argument I listed).  It depends on what you mean by it, and what conclusions you are trying to reach.

Maybe you should let TP clarify what he meant or where he is trying to go with this.

 

[ChillyPolly]

So the premise has to include, as one of its axioms that infanticide and/or abortion are morally objectionable. That's pretty much part and parcel of being a "pro lifer." That's also going to be the premise that missing between your average pro-lifer and Peter Singer. 

BTW, I'm not sure where you are going with this distinction.  If the ultimate conclusion is supposed to be the Peter Singer is less likely to commit illegal violence because he is not morally opposed to "great violence"; then I don't agree that that follows.  But I suppose (if we look at the issue VERY narrowly), it could be that, for situational reasons, he is less likely to blow up abortion clinics; but MORE likely to slaughter various other people, like infants, civilians during wartime; his wife; and other people he might have a motive to kill.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

You are confusing his premise with his conclusion.  His premise was exactly as I stated:  "If you think abortion is the same as infanticide, then yes, there's great violence done inside the walls of PP."

But as I indicated, i don't necessarily have a problem with either the premise or the conclusion (to the first argument I listed).  It depends on what you mean by it, and what conclusions you are trying to reach.

Maybe you should let TP clarify what he meant or where he is trying to go with this.

 

I am not confusing anything. You are just making a mistake (intentionally, I suspect) by omitting an obvious hidden or embedded premise. All you are doing is creating a false dilemma. The "pro life" position on abortion doesn't rely on this kind of inferential chain of moral thinking anyway. Abortion is wrong for the same reason that infanticide is wrong. There is no need to create a moral inference between the two to get you from one to the other. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

BTW, I'm not sure where you are going with this distinction.  If the ultimate conclusion is supposed to be the Peter Singer is less likely to commit illegal violence because he is not morally opposed to "great violence"; then I don't agree that that follows.  But I suppose (if we look at the issue VERY narrowly), it could be that, for situational reasons, he is less likely to blow up abortion clinics; but MORE likely to slaughter various other people, like infants, civilians during wartime; and other people he might have a motive to kill.

I'm not going anywhere with it, nor do I need to be. It's a fact that exists on its own, without the need for direction to a larger purpose. 

[ChillyPolly]

I am not confusing anything. You are just making a mistake (intentionally, I suspect) by omitting an obvious hidden or embedded premise. All you are doing is creating a false dilemma. The "pro life" position on abortion doesn't rely on this kind of inferential chain of moral thinking anyway. Abortion is wrong for the same reason that infanticide is wrong. There is no need to create a moral inference between the two to get you from one to the other. 

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm not making any "mistake".  I am paying close attention to TP's words and asking him to clarify his argument.  

Since you claim his argument is leading to no particular conclusion (that you are "not going anywhere with it"), then you are not qualified to tell me what the hidden premise of his argument is.   if there's no conclusion, then the hidden premise does not matter.

[peterbound]

At officers funeral today.  Lots of people here  The family was better composed than i would have been had I been in the same situation.  

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm not making any "mistake".  I am paying close attention to TP's words and asking him to clarify his argument.  

Since you claim his argument is leading to no particular conclusion (that you are "not going anywhere with it"), then you are not qualified to tell me what the hidden premise of his argument is.   if there's no conclusion, then the hidden premise does not matter.

This is just dishonest.

I never claimed that TP's argument was leading to not particular conclusion. I didn't make any claims about where TP's argument was going at all. You asked me about a distinction that I was making. I answered you. For you to represent that I was making a claim about where TP's argument was going is either intentional dishonesty or a very, very obvious mistake. I suspect you know where my vote is. 

 

[ChillyPolly]

This is just dishonest.

I never claimed that TP's argument was leading to not particular conclusion. I didn't make any claims about where TP's argument was going at all.

Then you are not qualified to say what the hidden premise of that argument is.  How can one guess at a hidden premise, without knowing the intended conclusion?

And I guess there's no point to you calling me "dishonest" either.  Off topic nastiness, relevant to nothing. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Then you are not qualified to say what the hidden premise of that argument is.  How can one guess at a hidden premise, without knowing the intended conclusion?

And I guess there's no point to you calling me "dishonest" either.  Off topic nastiness, relevant to nothing. 

TP presented an argument. That argument had an embedded or hidden premise. The embedded or hidden premise was clear based on the actual argument presented, and based upon TP's prior post in which he was specifically referring to "Pro Life" individuals. The hidden premise was clear based upon the actual statement that TP made.

What you are seemingly asking for is for me to speculate on some extension of TP's argument, that it looks like you are trying (ineptly? dishonestly?) to draw out. I'm simply not addressing that all, and the embedded premise of TP's actual argument, that he presented, does not depend upon the extension that you are trying to draw out / disingenuously create.