Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:46:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Regarding an asinine response

> 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:

     I still see a difference between the two, let me clarify myself.  All
     laws are not just, or shall I *say*, according to Jamie we can talk on
     this list, that not all laws result in just outcomes?  That might not
     really clarify this matter, how about this; when the laws are executed
     the criminals are sometimes victorious over their victims and to most
     people this is unjust.

> >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.

     Jamie, exxxcuuuuse me!  Hmmm.  I guess then that I should have
     written that I think that homeowners should have the legal right
     to stop intruders from conducting illegal activities in their home.

> 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.

    Jamie, quit trying to be cute :-)

>
> > 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.

    I knew that Kerry did not have a spouse, but instead of berating
    you I went along because I took it as an example.

>
> >> 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.

    You are right, one does not KNOW if a given person is going
    to harm him/her and his/her family.  Yet, when a criminal is
    illegally in your home and wielding a weapon the chances for
    potential harm is great.  The issue is not simply about killing
    the intruder.  It is about using force to prevent an intruder from
    causing harm and if the situation warrants it killing them.  I did
    not advocate killing someone for picking up silverware.  You seem to
    think that I advocate killing a criminal in the home regardless of his
    actions.

> 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."

   I do not have my little fact book handy, but most crimes today are
   drug related.  The world is round Jamie but I do not have any articles
   to cite, want proof?

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

   I did not write that deadly force is the only way to stop a drug
   user.  What I wrote is that some drug users are so high when
   committing a crime that sometimes the only way to stop them is
   to almost kill them.

> 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?

   And you ridicule me?  I must have not read the "fast lane"
   example thoroughly to pick up all the info you just gave in the
   last paragraph.  I thought you were just trying to be funny.
   Sorry for not reading so much into that "fast lane" bit Jamie.

> >> >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.

   Geez, only heard of some cases cited in a newspaper over the years.  I'll
   run out to the Library tonight and spend a few hours researching this.
   I'll just hold off on all the stuff I have to do around the house.

> 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?

  Yes I did use the word "Liberal" and I meant liberals who coddle
  criminals.  A conservative would not be soft on criminals or crime.
  By the way, few people are liberal, or conservative, on every issue.
  Most people will be a liberal on some issues and a conservative on
  others.  So maybe I should have used the word "people" instead of
  "Liberals".


Perhaps I should explain that my post was not my treatise on deadly force.
It was merely a response that was off the cuff.  Many times after thinking
something through one may form different points of view, but I had to defend
what I wrote because that is what Jamie attacked.  So that is it as far as I
am concerned.  I probably will continue to react and post without first giving
an issue too much thought and I will not give up time on my home to find
citations for Jamie.

> Jamie


Carl--------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU