Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:19:08 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Regarding an asinine response

Deja vu.
Carl's method of "argument" is so close to Robert's that
I feel like I'm replying to the same person twice.

Please recall that Carl said my response was asinine.

Me:

>> Let's be clear about this. Carl is not talking about legal rights.
>> He is talking about moral rights. So we know that not all Christians
>> share his view, because some Christians believe we have no moral
>> rights (except the right to love god).

Carl objects:

>   As for what I wrote, I did
>   not write about moral rights, I wrote about laws that are not morally
>   right.  The two are completely different.

Well, they aren't completely different. But anyway, here is what
you said:

>Politicos,
> I've been silent for too long, some may think not long enough (Jimbo),
>and this issue is one issue that boggles my mind.  If someone is in your
>house and the person is there to steal, rape, or kill, I think that a
>citizen has the right to stop the person from carrying out the illegal
>activities.

I repeat the crucial bit:
"... I think that a citizen has the RIGHT to stop the person from
carrying out the illegal activities." [emphasis added]

So despite Carl's disavowal, he DID write about what people
have a right to do. Did he mean moral rights, or legal rights?
I assumed he could not possibly mean legal rights, since he
explicitly said that he doesn't know what legal rights
citizens have in such circumstances.

It's almost amusing, but not quite, that I am better able
to determine what Carl actually wrote than he is. Note again that
Carl called MY response asinine.

> And how do you know that an intruder will
> not rape Kerry's spouse?

I know because Kerry does not have a spouse. You would know
that too, if you paid attention, since she's told us.

>> How is a homeowner to know? Got me. How do I know that Carl does
>> not plan to steal my favorite t-shirt, the one that Dave gave me?
>> I guess I don't. So perhaps I have the right to use deadly force
>> against Carl, if only I can find him.
>
> You are avoiding the issue.  The issue is criminals who are in
> someone's home.

Let me explain, slowly, since you obviously don't understand.

The fact that you don't KNOW whether a given person is going
to harm you or your family could not possibly mean that you
have the right to kill that person pre-emptively. If it did,
then I would have the right to kill you (and you me) as a
pre-emptive measure, because neither of us KNOWS that the
other is not bent on murder and mayhem.

Was that clear enough?

>   I tried to bring out the fact that most criminals are also drug users.
>   While burglarizing a home the criminal could be "high" and the only
>   force that would stop the criminal would be pratically deadly force.
>   Most crimes today are drug related, so it has alot to do with it.

1. Please give evidence that "most criminals are also drug users."

2. Please give evidence that the only way to stop a drug user
   is with deadly force.

Prediction: Carl will give no evidence for either of these claims.

Me:

>>                                         Presumably, all of us
>> agree that SOME kinds of threats are NOT appropriately responded
>> to by deadly force. If someone cuts me off in the fast lane of
>> I 95, I shouldn't be legally permitted to blow her head off.

Carl:

> I was not writing about driving in the fast lane, I was writing about
> criminals in the house Jamie.  Now why do you mention this "fast
> lane" stuff when it has nothing to do with criminals in one's home?

Carl, look, this is really very simply, and it is all spelled
out for you in the paragraph above. But I will explain it again.

We all agree that SOME kinds of threats are not appropriately
responded to by deadly force. That is the point of the Fast Lane
example.
On the other hand, many of us (including me) agree that in
SOME circumstances, deadly force IS appropriate. So the question
is, why do you think homeowners are justified in killing
intruders in the relevant circumstances? What is it about
THOSE circumstances that makes deadly force a justified
response?

>> >Even more silly is the issue that
>> >criminals can sue a homeowner if they trip on a rug.  This is absurd!
>>
>> Indeed. So glad you raised it. We rely on Carl to raise the silliest
>> issues that anyone can think of. Let's appoint him Czar of the Absurd
>> (unless brni wants the job).
>
>  I think that this issue is silly because this type of case should be
>  thrown out of court.  It is sad that these cases are adjucated.

First, let's see evidence of adjudication of a case in which an
intruder sued a homeowner after tripping on his or her rug.

Second, if there ever has been such a case, which I doubt, then
what possible relevance could it have to the issue that Missy
and KAT raised?

> Is this the type of justice that the average person wants? No!
> But it is the justice given to us by Liberals who want to coddle
> the criminals.

>> Good job, Carl. We haven't had anyone accuse "Liberals" of coddling
>> since Jay left. Now, I assume, in his tradition, you will refuse
>> to provide any evidence that "Liberals" are guilty of the crime
>> of which you would convict them. God bless America. Or help us.

Carl replies by giving what appears to be his definition of
"Liberal coddling." Fascinating. But the question was whether
Carl can provide any EVIDENCE that Liberals are guilty of
what he calls "coddling." And of course, the answer is that
Carl CANNOT provide any such evidence.

>> Way to go, Carl. Without someone to reinforce our stereotypes, they
>> might tend to succumb to pressure from reality.

> What stereotype?  My comment was directed at "Liberals who want to
> coddle criminals, did I preceede the word "Liberal" with the
> word "all"?  I think not Jamie.

Ah. So, you don't mind Criminal Coddlers who are NOT Liberals?
What's that, you say you do? Then what was the word "Liberal"
doing there?

Imagine that someone wrote:

"To all the blacks who are too lazy to get a job, I write,
 we won't pay for your lifestyle anymore."

Or suppose someone wrote:

"To all the Christians out there who want to impose your
morality on the rest of us, I write, Keep you paws off."

It would be reasonable, I submit, to infer that these
someones were writing specifically about blacks or Christians,
that they meant to imply that it is especially blacks who
are lazy, or especially Christians who are intrusive.

Thus, I inferred that Carl implied that it is especially
Liberals who coddle criminals. If he did mean to imply
that, then I would like to see some evidence. If he did
not mean to imply that, then I wonder why he used the
word "Liberal" at all?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU