While the Wiccan Rede sounds good, I personally feel that it only goes half-way.
I always thought that the Christian version of the ethic of reciprocity (the Golden Rule, that is) goes a bit too far in the wrong direction. It's certainly fair, in a state of ignorance, for me to base my treatment of you on how I would prefer to be treated in a similar circumstance. But we're all different. As our preferences differ, we hit all kinds of problems with trying to treat others as we would prefer to be treated.
I, for example, detest formality. I do not want to be called sir or mister and find it at least a bit annoying. But other people like that kind of thing very much. So I should sir and mister them, right? But I hate calling others sir and mister too, and I would not want to be asked to do things I find obnoxious. So I shouldn't sir and mister others. Except that I'd want my wishes respected in how I'm addressed and now we're in a loop. Obviously we can swap out forms of address for more weighty issues. The problem remains.
Given that, how should we decide what to do? Is an ordinary person on the street really harmed to any significant degree by not being called sir or mister? Probably not. It's hardly the same thing as running around screaming every racial slur that seems like it might fit, and even that would be less serious than attacking the person. In the big picture, stuff like this just falls on the level of irrelevance to me. The harm, if any, is not serious enough to worry much about. Do as thou wilt seems entirely fair here, whereas it would not be so fair with the racial slurs (which are after all specifically intended to be denigrating and offensive) and of course actual violence is right out.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or if you prefer "He who knows the good he ought to do and does it not, to him it is sin." If memory serves me right, Buddhism is somewhat similar to that. I just feel that it's far too easy to turn a blind eye and say that you didn't actually do the harming.
There are some quite good points in here. I do think that moral duty is often coterminous with moral rightness. Failure to do right can be a case of doing wrong, especially if the failure consequently inflicts harm on someone. It's been some time since I read the parable of the Good Samaritan (and boy did I freeze the room when I pointed out to a bunch of fundamentalists that the Samaritans were a detested religious group, not just an obscure racial category) but as I recall the story the Levites walked by the guy laying in the ditch in a bad way and did nothing to help him. We do have obligations to one another, which is a part of that interdependence we can never get away from. We're social animals, even callous asocial freaks like me that always pick the self-serve checkouts and shop at non-peak hours just to be away from people. Failure to to good, or to prevent bad, can be a moral failure in itself and can implicate one in consequent harm. I can agree with that.
I don't think it's always the case but will agree that it often is. The complicating factors are of course whether we can meaningfully alter the outcome for the better, whether our influence might make things worse, our own abilities and knowledge, and so forth. It's still under the Wiccan Rede to my eyes, since failing to prevent harm one can prevent makes one an accessory in its being inflicted.
Do you think that as a society our "morals" change? (It sounds like you do, so I'll ask the next question as well.) Why do morals change at such a large scale?
I do think morals change. Moral codes are largely attempts to manage society and society is just a big glob of people. (Well not exactly, large aggregates of people can exhibit characteristics that do not necessarily reduce well down to individual actors, but you get the idea.) Morals are a solution set to a series of problems involving the interactions of people. As these interactions change because people die off and are replaced, the people alive change, the environment changes, and knowledge increases new problems arise, new solutions are needed, and old solutions can become obsolete or maladaptive on a massive scale.
That's all a bit abstract, so let me sketch out a deliberately silly scenario. Suppose that praying to Jesus pushed the Earth straight into the Sun, maybe not all at once but over time and enough so that we could all be irradiated, suffocated, burned, and all the rest. I don't know about you, but I can't think of all that many people who want to be burned alive. Even people who have self-immolated don't seem to really be having fun. We quite reasonably would want to prevent that and so it would make good moral sense to prohibit praying to Jesus.
It's an absurd scenario, but we're trying to prevent a really horrific calamity. But it transpires later that we find out we were quite wrong about all of that business. It might have made sense, given our ignorance and mistaken notions in the past, to prohibit praying to Jesus. But given we are no longer so ignorant and have revised our understanding of matters, clearly it's no longer right to prohibit praying to Jesus on those grounds. We can dress this up how we want, but ultimately we once believed that one thing was wrong and now know that it's nowhere near so harmful as we thought. Our morals consequently must change.
Most people prior to the 1900s were amazingly ignorant about basic human sexuality. The matter was effectively never studied beyond having a fairly good idea what to do to terminate a pregnancy and deliver a baby. Much of this stuff was learned only by professionals on the job and handed down via folklore. The first serious and scientific studies of human sexuality took place in Germany in about the 1870s. Because they were ignorant, just like we were about the orbit of the Earth, of course they came up with all kinds of bizarre and silly ideas. But now we know better, so we can, and I think must, put those old errors behind us. Ben Franklin tamed lightning and took it straight from the hand of an angry God. Kinsey told us that far more people color outside the sexual lines of the times than anybody suspected. Fair enough. We were wrong and it's time to make a better system that incorporates our new knowledge. We may be wrong again, but we can repeat the process.
Leaving aside science, our society is so incredibly different from that in which people lived just a century ago that trying to comprehend their lives can be a bit like demanding that Ryleh sit down and follow the rules of geometry as we know them. The mores, the values, the priorities of a nomadic band are not those of settled pastoralists and agriculturalists. Those mores are not those of urbanists. Or those of a resource-poor tribal state, or those of a modern, pluralistic, cosmopolitan social democracy. We have fundamentally different life experiences, different survival strategies, different needs for different types of cooperation and non-cooperation. A system suited to running a small city-state is not a great system for running an empire. A system built to manage subsistence farmers isn't going to be so great for managing a city. A system built for a mostly agricultural society with poor, slow communications is not going to deal well with a modern, urban society with instantaneous, easy telecommunications. When we hit these mismatches, we're in for serious dysfunctions which are quite likely to be a major bother for everybody.
|
I can't tell you how nice it is to come home to a discussion of the morality of shooting trespassers. I'm not even kidding.
I spent most of last night and today in an argument on an atheist blog where multiple people railed against me and accused me of bigotry...all because I had the nerve to suggest that there are privileged people who are apathetic towards unprivileged people.
Sigh.....
I spent most of last night and today in an argument on an atheist blog where multiple people railed against me and accused me of bigotry...all because I had the nerve to suggest that there are privileged people who are apathetic towards unprivileged people.
Which blog (and are you Jagyr over there, too)? Sounds like some of my expereinces over at Greg Laden's -- and Pharyngula is just too daggone big to bother posting at -- so now I tend only to share comments at some of the smaller, friendlier ones (Why Evolution is True; Metamagician & the Hellfire Club; Butterflies & Wheels).
|
|
I spent most of last night and today in an argument on an atheist blog where multiple people railed against me and accused me of bigotry...all because I had the nerve to suggest that there are privileged people who are apathetic towards unprivileged people.Which blog (and are you Jagyr over there, too)? Sounds like some of my expereinces over at Greg Laden's -- and Pharyngula is just too daggone big to bother posting at -- so now I tend only to share comments at some of the smaller, friendlier ones (Why Evolution is True; Metamagician & the Hellfire Club; Butterflies & Wheels).
I don't read Greg Laden. I do read Pharyngula, but I don't bother commenting for the reason you said. This particular incident occurred (ironically) at the Friendly Atheist. I am known alternately as Jagyr and as Brandon, but I generally use a d20 to mark my posts.
I don't read Greg Laden. I do read Pharyngula, but I don't bother commenting for the reason you said. This particular incident occurred (ironically) at the Friendly Atheist. I am known alternately as Jagyr and as Brandon, but I generally use a d20 to mark my posts.
Cool; I'll keep an eye out for you. As a courtesy, I do want to advise that you not post on atheist blogs under the name "Brandon" -- that was one of the nasty socks recently used by the now-infamous "Tom Johnson"/"You're Not Helping."
|
|
I don't read Greg Laden. I do read Pharyngula, but I don't bother commenting for the reason you said. This particular incident occurred (ironically) at the Friendly Atheist. I am known alternately as Jagyr and as Brandon, but I generally use a d20 to mark my posts.Cool; I'll keep an eye out for you. As a courtesy, I do want to advise that you not post on atheist blogs under the name "Brandon" -- that was one of the nasty socks recently used by the now-infamous "Tom Johnson"/"You're Not Helping."
F*** that guy, his Brandon was fake, I'm real, and I was here first. Nyah nyah nyah. :-p
But I did recently change everything over to Jagyr just to further define the line between my personal internet accounts and my semi-anonymous accounts. Besides which, having pseudonym-clad strangers insult me using my real name felt very odd.
F*** that guy, his Brandon was fake, I'm real, and I was here first.
"Why should I be the one to change it? Michael Bolton was a perfectly good name, until that ass clown started recording hits!"
Exactly.
"You know what? You guys can just call me Mike."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
When we hit these mismatches, we're in for serious dysfunctions which are quite likely to be a major bother for everybody.
Interesting post. Globalization is a real m___rf___r when it hits your part of the world. 500 years ago, my ancestors, the Scots, were still a largely tribal society. Culloden Moor changed all that--incredibly painfully. Right now Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering the pain of that transition from a tribal society to a modern nation-state.
I was about to start off with the "no cannibalism, no incest" one, but there are societies that practice this, albeit very ritualistically for the most part, each with their own bans.
Having done some study of cultures with institutionalized cannibalism, I've come to believe that these cultures did not commit cannibalism because they thought it was good (or at least neutral), but because they knew it was evil.
It's like conspicuous consumption, where a person demonstrates their wealth (and thus desirability) by wasting money. This is an evolved trait equivalent to the various prominent, but useless appendages sprouted by many animals.
Conspicuous evil, is another demonstration of power. A person or culture does it to demonstrate that they are unimpugnable. They consume their enemies in order to insult their enemies, and in order for cannibalism to be an insult, the cannibal has to know on some level that what he is doing is wrong. Governments don't condone torture because it's an effective means of interrogation, they do it because it makes them look badass.
As the saying goes, power corrupts. Which is not to say all evils are conspicuous evils, but some people will do evil to show that they can get away with it.
|
|
To you and TOZ: What is the basis for your belief that killing is always wrong?"First, do no harm."
Preventing harm does not excuse causing harm.
Yes, I am aware that all animals cause harm to survive. See my statement about reality preventing us from being moral, as it is the best answer I have at the moment, and I know how poor it is.
I find it interesting how similar Kirth and I view the subject.
Quick thoughts before I head off to the office:
Aristotle and Aquinas both argued that actions committed by animals are similar to actions committed by the mentally infirm--animals (as far as we know...) commit acts of violence as necessary to their survival, and those acts are either instinctual or learned processes derived from instinct; this is to say, animals are unreasoned aggressors.
Man differs because of his capacity to reason, his ability to weigh a situation and choose a course of action. Thus, animals may cause harm, but they are relatively unable to do otherwise, being motivated by instinct untempered by any ability to reason.
In the Western tradition, Soldiers have long been exonerated from the term 'murderer' so long as they have conducted themselves in accordance with the Just War theory.
|
Man, I'm glad I have no morals. Ethics, sure. But, you know, I won't think twice about putting a bullet or a five iron in someone's head if they try to hurt me. Won't even think about it much after. Unless they ruin my carpet, then I'll be even more pissed.
Here's my rule: don't want to die, don't try to kill me or mine (or even step a foot into my home without permission). Don't want the State of Texas to give you a hot shot, don't kill convenience store clerks while robbing them or old ladies for their welfare checks. And don't admit in open court you had an orgasm while ax murdering your ex husband's new girlfriend while robbing them.
Seriously, I don't care. Some people refuse to play nice and want to kill and rape? Screw them. I don't feel sorry for myself because of my bad decisions in life, so I am surely not going to feel sorry for someone else who makes even worse decisions.
Anyone who shoots a tresspasser in the head, at least without having a reasonble fear for their own safety, is probably going to jail for a good long time -- and rightfully so.
OK I have actually suffered a home invasion at 2am while in the house alone, and I nearly did kill the guy, I had the knife in my hand. As far as I'm concerned if you kick in my door at 2 in the morning you deserve everything I deal to you.
|
OK I have actually suffered a home invasion at 2am while in the house alone, and I nearly did kill the guy, I had the knife in my hand. As far as I'm concerned if you kick in my door at 2 in the morning you deserve everything I deal to you.
Exactly (emphasis mine)! I couldn't agree more...
So what if the intruder doesn't have a weapon (not sure how many people would invade someone's home unarmed, but I'm sure it has happened)? Besides, HOW am I supposed to know this (especially at 2 a.m. having just been rather rudely awakened)? What's that? Check his hands (in the dark, half asleep, at 2 a.m.)??
You go on ahead and make sure he's totally unarmed before you take action (make sure you check his trousers too, and while you're at it, just go ahead and show em' where your television set is)...
Me? I'm going to assume that since he's in MY home, he means to do me or mine harm...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Hey folks, IANAL, but if somebody ever DID break into your home and you killed them, public statements like these would NOT look good for your defense.
Unless you're a Texan, of course.
Kirth or HD does Texas have the conceal/carry rules as we do?
|
|
OK I have actually suffered a home invasion at 2am while in the house alone, and I nearly did kill the guy, I had the knife in my hand. As far as I'm concerned if you kick in my door at 2 in the morning you deserve everything I deal to you.Exactly (emphasis mine)! I couldn't agree more...
So what if the intruder doesn't have a weapon (not sure how many people would invade someone's home unarmed, but I'm sure it has happened)? Besides, HOW am I supposed to know this (especially at 2 a.m. having just been rather rudely awakened)? What's that? Check his hands (in the dark, half asleep, at 2 a.m.)??
You go on ahead and make sure he's totally unarmed before you take action (make sure you check his trousers too, and while you're at it, just go ahead and show em' where your television set is)...
Me? I'm going to assume that since he's in MY home, he means to do me or mine harm...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I'd just like to point out that even here in the UK, which I know is widely held in some circles of Americ to prohibit this, this would be allowable for precisely the reasons DigitalElf gives: Someone has broken in (act of violence), you can't tell whether they're armed or not and you have a really good reason to believe they are armed (because what moron breaks into an occupied house without a weapon in case there's trouble).
If the guy was running away, you chased him down the street, knocked him to the ground and then stabbed him 37 times (one of the rare cases of a prosecution being mounted) you might have a problem here. I'm not sure about Texas but as he'd probably have been shot on the property given the UK doesn't have the permsisive gun laws of the Lone Star State, it may not have occurred.
That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in America. The god most American say they believe in just is not interesting enough to deny.
…or it is a case of chasing after the True Scottsman.
…or most atheists were closet atheists from fear of being treated like second class citizens.
…or most atheists were content to let others to their own beliefs.
“I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion — for who can read to the bottom of hearts? — but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks”
Let's put this in context as Moff loves to do. This is 30 years before the Civil War, so I am sure I could scare up some quotes of people who are convinced slavery is the very foundation of republican institutions.
Protestantism came to America to make America Protestant.
I am no expert in history, but I disagree. I think Protestantism came to America to escape religious persecution. Now that it feels safely enshrined in the majority, it seeks to grasp at the very authority is was so fearful of 400 years ago.
To know or worship that god does not require that a church exist because that god is known through the providential establishment of a free people.
Or did Protestantism just move the goalpost once more. We did not find him on Mount Olympus. We did not find him in the heavens. Is it really so surprising we did not find him in church?
Putting it as directly as I can, I believe we may be living at a time when we are watching Protestantism, at least the kind of Protestantism we have in America, come to an end. It is dying of its own success. Protestantism became identified with the republican presumption in liberty as an end reinforced by belief in the common sense of the individual.
Or did the enlightenment help people realize they did not need an imaginary father figure threatening eternal punishment to help them decide right from wrong?
The church’s primary function, therefore, is to legitimate and sustain the presumption that America represents what all people would want to be if they had the benefit of American education and money.
I must be misunderstanding him here because it sounds awfully arrogant.
That project is the attempt to produce a people who believe that they should have no story except the story that they choose when they had no story.
Things start to get worse here as this concept is not shortened in compassion for the reader.
I then point out the only difficulty with such an account of responsibility is it makes marriage unintelligible. How could you ever know what you were doing when you promised lifelong monogamous fidelity? I then observe that is why the church insists that your vows be witnessed by the church: because the church believes it has the duty to hold you responsible to promises you made when you did not know what you were doing.
Um…no. The church has a duty to hold me responsible for my contracts? It is not a secular authority. And Moff…come on…this is exactly the kind of control I am talking about. Don't you think you are responsible for your agreements?
To me, this sounds frightening like the author is subtly suggesting the church should have more authority.
And if the story that you should have no story but the story you choose when you had no story makes marriage unintelligible, try having children. You never get the ones you want. Of course Americans try to get the ones they want by only having children when they are “ready” — a utopian desire that wreaks havoc on children so born, to the extent they come to believe they can only be loved if they fulfill their parents’ desires.
Right, because children never felt the need to live up to their parent's expectations previously. Base assertions! I just recently learned that phrase. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use it.
Of course the problem with the story that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story is that story is a story that you have not chosen.
And I thought I had difficulty communicating some times.
As a result they must learn to live with decisions they made when they thought they knew what they were doing but later realized they did not know what they were doing.
Um…yes. Everyone makes mistakes. When new information is presented, we must re-evaluate our world view to incorporate this new information.
How we perceive the Bible has changed. Creationism was taken as fact. Is the author seriously suggesting we go back to that story?
Of course they have a remedy when it comes to marriage. It is called divorce. They also have a remedy for children. It is called abortion.
You forgot same sex marriage. I mean, if you are going to fling stones.
The story that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story obviously has implications for how faith is understood. The story that you should have no story except the story you choose when you had no story produces people who say things such as, “I believe Jesus is Lord — but that is just my personal opinion.” The grammar of this kind of avowal obviously reveals a superficial person.
More base assertions. Could it be the person recognizes they can not prove Jesus is Lord? No? Best we just insult this sort of moderation.
But such people are the kind many think crucial to sustain democracy. For such a people are necessary in order to avoid the conflicts that otherwise might undermine the order, which is confused with peace, necessary to sustain a society that shares no goods in common other than the belief that there are no goods in common.
Is the author honestly suggesting Christianity become like jihadist Islam? Moff, I thought this was exactly the kind of thing you were against.
That is why we are called into the church, as well as why we are called “Christian.” A church so formed cannot help but be a challenge to a social order built on the contrary presumption that I get to make my life up.
Yes! Yes. Give up control. Give it to the church.
The American desire to use medicine in an attempt to get out of life alive is but the domestic form of American foreign policy.
I am sorry. I am having a hard time taking this guy seriously anymore. When did the advancement of medicine become a bad thing? Srsly.
Freedom names the attempt to live as though we will not die.
If death is so great, you first. He only continues to enforce my theory of jihadist Christians. Heaven awaits! It is your destiny! Destroy the infidels! Christ demands it.
I love America and I love being an American. The energy of Americans, the ability to hew out lives often in unforgiving land, the natural generosity of Americans, I cherish.
Wait. I am confused. I thought making up our own life = bad. Make up your mind Mr. Authorman.
I cannot avoid the reality that American Christianity has been less than it should have been just to the extent that the church has failed to make clear that America’s god is not the God we worship as Christians.
Aaaaand we are back to the assertion that things were so much better back in the imagined good ole days. Before the Civil War maybe, when everyone was Christian, let the church decide what they should do with their life like forcibly converting the native population, for their own good, because we are undeniably right. Right? Otherwise, you are just a superficial Christian.
Yep. Passed in '94, and, amazingly, violent crime went down dramatically until 2005 (when it shot through the roof for some reason).
I live in AZ (surprising, I know, but I've been here since the early 90s), and we recently changed the laws so a permit is no longer required to carry concealed weapons. It's obviously too soon to know if the change will have any effect on crime stats, but there has been no real public notice taken. Personally, I think it's fine, and pretty clearly in line with the 2nd.
OK I have actually suffered a home invasion at 2am while in the house alone, and I nearly did kill the guy, I had the knife in my hand. As far as I'm concerned if you kick in my door at 2 in the morning you deserve everything I deal to you.
Of course. Because you have a reasonable fear for your own safety. Have I not made the "self-defense is justified" part clear? Or are people just skimming?
What I was taking exception to was Houston saying he'd be happy to shoot someone in the head for, say, breaking into his car.
|
|
Yep. Passed in '94, and, amazingly, violent crime went down dramatically until 2005 (when it shot through the roof for some reason).I live in AZ (surprising, I know, but I've been here since the early 90s), and we recently changed the laws so a permit is no longer required to carry concealed weapons. It's obviously too soon to know if the change will have any effect on crime stats, but there has been no real public notice taken. Personally, I think it's fine, and pretty clearly in line with the 2nd.
I thought y'all had open carry there?
The biggest effect it's had in Texas is on muggings and "road rage" incidents. Especially after an incident in Dallas where there was a minor traffic accident and the person who was rear ended (apparently the guy was a muscle head who was having an episode of 'roid rage) grabbed a tire iron and threatened an accountant type. The accountant pulled out a 9mm and told the dude to stop, dude kept advancing with the tire iron, and the accountant shot and killed him. There were several witnesses (this was on Central Expressway during rush hour; people from Dallas will understand that mess) and the accountant was exonerated by the grand jury.
People have been somewhat nicer (or at least less aggressive) on the roads since that story went public.
I thought y'all had open carry there?
We do. You can carry openly. You can carry concealed, no permit needed. I'm fine with either. The Constitution is the Constitution, after all. If you don't like it, amend it.
The biggest effect it's had in Texas is on muggings and "road rage" incidents. Especially after an incident in Dallas where there was a minor traffic accident and the person who was rear ended (apparently the guy was a muscle head who was having an episode of 'roid rage) grabbed a tire iron and threatened an accountant type. The accountant pulled out a 9mm and told the dude to stop, dude kept advancing with the tire iron, and the accountant shot and killed him. There were several witnesses (this was on Central Expressway during rush hour; people from Dallas will understand that mess) and the accountant was exonerated by the grand jury.People have been somewhat nicer (or at least less aggressive) on the roads since that story went public.
Clearly self-defense. Good for the grand jury (and the "accountant").
As I've said, I have no problem with the use of deadly force in self-defense. I am uncomfortable with the use of deadly force strictly in defense of property -- I believe that often leads to needless escalation, and ultimately more victims rather than fewer.
|
|
Hey folks, IANAL, but if somebody ever DID break into your home and you killed them, public statements like these would NOT look good for your defense.
In Texas, if they broke in to your house, there is no need for a "defense". You'll get no-billed.
They're really big on "if you were doing something you weren't supposed to be doing, oh well, you got what was coming to you" down here. If you take the border region out of the equation (seriously, that whole situation is ridiculous), Texas has a relatively low violent crime rate compared to the rest of the country. Car theft is probably the biggest problem here, due to the proximity to Mexico. Houston is routinely in the top three (and usually #1) for auto thefts in the country. But (at least until '05) Houston was generally near the bottom for violent crime out of major cities. We had a bad spot in 88-91 when there was a drug turf war between the locals and gangs from L.A. trying to go national, but that blew over pretty quickly.
Hey folks, IANAL, but if somebody ever DID break into your home and you killed them, public statements like these would NOT look good for your defense.In Texas, if they broke in to your house, there is no need for a "defense". You'll get no-billed.
They're really big on "if you were doing something you weren't supposed to be doing, oh well, you got what was coming to you" down here. If you take the border region out of the equation (seriously, that whole situation is ridiculous), Texas has a relatively low violent crime rate compared to the rest of the country. Car theft is probably the biggest problem here, due to the proximity to Mexico. Houston is routinely in the top three (and usually #1) for auto thefts in the country. But (at least until '05) Houston was generally near the bottom for violent crime out of major cities. We had a bad spot in 88-91 when there was a drug turf war between the locals and gangs from L.A. trying to go national, but that blew over pretty quickly.
I think we (AZ) give you a run for your money for the "#1 in car thefts" title. Of course, there are probably half a dozen ways to measure that (per capita, by dollar value, absolute terms, etc.).
amazingly, violent crime went down dramatically until 2005 (when it shot through the roof for some reason).
"For some reason..." I don't want to say that gangsta Katrina refugees would be "some reason," but if you look at last known address for those apprehended for violent crime in late 2005-'06, there's a suspicious coincidence of "LA" as opposed to "TX."
|
|
I thought y'all had open carry there?
We do. You can carry openly. You can carry concealed, no permit needed. I'm fine with either. The Constitution is the Constitution, after all. If you don't like it, amend it.
The biggest effect it's had in Texas is on muggings and "road rage" incidents. Especially after an incident in Dallas where there was a minor traffic accident and the person who was rear ended (apparently the guy was a muscle head who was having an episode of 'roid rage) grabbed a tire iron and threatened an accountant type. The accountant pulled out a 9mm and told the dude to stop, dude kept advancing with the tire iron, and the accountant shot and killed him. There were several witnesses (this was on Central Expressway during rush hour; people from Dallas will understand that mess) and the accountant was exonerated by the grand jury.People have been somewhat nicer (or at least less aggressive) on the roads since that story went public.
Clearly self-defense. Good for the grand jury (and the "accountant").
As I've said, I have no problem with the use of deadly force in self-defense. I am uncomfortable with the use of deadly force strictly in defense of property -- I believe that often leads to needless escalation, and ultimately more victims rather than fewer.
I can only go by what I see here in Texas, and that is that our laws tend to cut down on the violence. Most criminals want to take the path of least resistance, so they tend to not be so bold here knowing that just about anyone can kill them when they're committing a crime and not have to fade it.
The only times violence seems to flare up are when drug wars kick off (see: Rio Grande Valley; Houston in 88-91 when the gangs from Los Angeles started expanding nationally) or a criminal element used to having strict controls on self defense are added to the mix (see: 2005). But, even the latter chill out considerably when they realize they're not in NOLA anymore and Texas doesn't play. And the former were taken out of the equation by local gangs who are much more business minded than violence minded, and by the changes in the Federal criminal statutes.
|
|
I think we (AZ) give you a run for your money for the "#1 in car thefts" title. Of course, there are probably half a dozen ways to measure that (per capita, by dollar value, absolute terms, etc.).Hey folks, IANAL, but if somebody ever DID break into your home and you killed them, public statements like these would NOT look good for your defense.In Texas, if they broke in to your house, there is no need for a "defense". You'll get no-billed.
They're really big on "if you were doing something you weren't supposed to be doing, oh well, you got what was coming to you" down here. If you take the border region out of the equation (seriously, that whole situation is ridiculous), Texas has a relatively low violent crime rate compared to the rest of the country. Car theft is probably the biggest problem here, due to the proximity to Mexico. Houston is routinely in the top three (and usually #1) for auto thefts in the country. But (at least until '05) Houston was generally near the bottom for violent crime out of major cities. We had a bad spot in 88-91 when there was a drug turf war between the locals and gangs from L.A. trying to go national, but that blew over pretty quickly.
San Diego, Phoenix and Houston take turns alternating as the "car theft capitol of the nation". Easier to run a chop shop where Lojack means nothing (i.e. Mexico).
|
|
amazingly, violent crime went down dramatically until 2005 (when it shot through the roof for some reason)."For some reason..." I don't want to say that gangsta Katrina refugees would be "some reason," but if you look at last known address for those apprehended for violent crime in late 2005-'06, there's a suspicious coincidence of "LA" as opposed to "TX."
They've actually chilled out considerably, and it wasn't due to law enforcement so much. The local gangs "politely" told the newcomers to chill the eff out, they were screwing up business. And, I think the criminal element from Nola eventually realized what the non-criminal element from Nola did: there was far more opportunity in Houston to make a living than there was in Nola before Katrina. And there was no need to be violent about it; Houston gangs have a "it's a huge pie" attitude towards the drug trade, so territorial pissings are at a minimum here.
...violent crime in late 2005-'06...They've actually chilled out considerably.
Yep. Note the dates. :)
they knew I wasn't going to stand for no shenanigans...
"Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun! But his shenanigans are cruel and tragic."
"Which makes them not really shananigans at all.""I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says 'Shenanigans'!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they knew I wasn't going to stand for no shenanigans..."Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun! But his shenanigans are cruel and tragic."
"Which makes them not really shananigans at all."
"I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next guy who says 'Shenanigans'!"
"Hey Farva what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy s#*# on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?"
"You mean Shenanigans?""OOOOOOOOOOOOOO."
"OOOOOOOOOOOOOO."
"Hey, let's pop some Viagras and issue tickets with raging, mega-huge boners."
"You know, Farva, only you can make a dark man blush. And no, we're not doing it."
I'm a Baaad boy.
*hangs head in shame*
I can't leave you three alone for anything. All sorts of shenanigans ensue...
I have a raging brainer right now.
Amberzombie will be along shortly to help you out with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Yep. Passed in '94, and, amazingly, violent crime went down dramatically until 2005 (when it shot through the roof for some reason).I live in AZ (surprising, I know, but I've been here since the early 90s), and we recently changed the laws so a permit is no longer required to carry concealed weapons. It's obviously too soon to know if the change will have any effect on crime stats, but there has been no real public notice taken. Personally, I think it's fine, and pretty clearly in line with the 2nd.
Awesome. Vermont, iirc, does the same, but has a licensing program in place for reciprocity purposes (i.e., so you can get a Vermont license that will be valid in other states if you travel).
|
|
Awesome. Vermont, iirc, does the same, but has a licensing program in place for reciprocity purposes (i.e., so you can get a Vermont license that will be valid in other states if you travel).Yep. Passed in '94, and, amazingly, violent crime went down dramatically until 2005 (when it shot through the roof for some reason).I live in AZ (surprising, I know, but I've been here since the early 90s), and we recently changed the laws so a permit is no longer required to carry concealed weapons. It's obviously too soon to know if the change will have any effect on crime stats, but there has been no real public notice taken. Personally, I think it's fine, and pretty clearly in line with the 2nd.
I live in Vermont, and I think that's the way it is, though I'm not sure - not enough people take advantage of it in my area to make me notice.
Because, you know, Jesus armed his disciples with AK-47s and LAWS rockets; it says so right there in Luke 22:51...
|
|
Because, you know, Jesus armed his disciples with AK-47s and LAWS rockets; it says so right there in Luke 22:51...
Tsk tsk tsk apparently someone doesn't know his Biblical History