Civil Simian - Forums - What is self defense?

> 1 <

Author	Message
simian1 Administrators Rare Earth by Peter D. Ward, The Lucifer Priciple by Howard Bloom, The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris, Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Blind Watchmaker by R 52 posts http://www.thomasallanalbany.com Location: United States Carlsbad,Ca Occupation: Technician Age: 37	#51 10-14-2007 05:05 GMT
	Essentially being passive, unless you are attacked? I really don't think there is pre-emptive self defense. How can you prove something would have happened, if it never happens? If you stop it in the process, then that is self-defense, but I think pre-emption can't really be considered self defense.
	The pen is mightier than the sword, and the database is mightier than the pen!
thomas posts Location: Occupation: Age:	#89 02-13-2008 21:39 GMT
	It's possible self defense....

Mevy Skygazer 4 posts Location: United States Occupation: Age:	#104 10-10-2008 08:46 GMT
	Well, lets set out some scenarios. If someone has a holdstered gun, I would say they're not acting in an agressive way at all. I know this is a given, but I want to state it like a control in an experiment. Now, let's say they're holding their gun (What method is something else), but it is drawn, pointing at the ground, a harmless direction. From this, they could be an immediate threat, but they cannot shoot you with their gun pointing down. So this brings in other factors. At this point, I would say drawing your own gun would be defensive preparation, and not an act of agression. However, given the availability for someone to transition into becoming an immediate threat to you, by pointing the gun at you, any fast movements they make with their upper body would qualify as grounds for sound justification to take action against them. My reasoning for this is the difference in time between determining what they actually are doing, and the possability you will be shot before you can be certain of what they are doing. So, in this context, I believe justification for agressive defensive action is there when there is impending ability, and intent. Offset from your own ability to respond. In millitary envasion terms, it would be like millitary A obtains intercontinental cruise missles So, millitary B parks a some battleships or tanks within firing range of those launchers. These escalations are defensive. If the launcher makes a movement like it may fire, than an agressive action by millitary B in that situation is also defensive. However, taking an agressive action beforehand would be conflict resolving. This does branch into many other directions though aswell. Such as not allowing someone to prepare to defend themselves is an act of agression. Imagine we're back at those two people who have guns now. One has their gun drawn, and not pointing at the other, while the other has their weapon holdstered. If the person is not permitted to draw their weapon, that prevention can be considered an attack. This post was edited by Mevy (10-10-2008 09:00 GMT, 698 days ago)

simian1 Administrators Rare Earth by Peter D. Ward, The Lucifer Priciple by Howard Bloom, The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris, Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Blind Watchmaker by R 52 posts http://www.thomasallanalbany.com Location: United States Carlsbad,Ca Occupation: Technician Age: 37	#105 10-10-2008 19:50 GMT
	Quote Mevy : Well, lets set out some scenarios. If someone has a holdstered gun, I would say they're not acting in an agressive way at all. I know this is a given, but I want to state it like a control in an experiment. Just having the weapon at all is more threatening than one who doesn't. In other words, a gun is just an object, without intent, but no one would admit that a gun is as benign as a pack of gum in your pocket. There is an offensive gesture attached to the object that is "gun" to begin with, right? Now, let's say they're holding their gun (What method is something else), but it is drawn, pointing at the ground, a harmless direction. From this, they could be an immediate threat, but they cannot shoot you with their gun pointing down. So this brings in other factors. Agreed. At this point, I would say drawing your own gun would be defensive preparation, and not an act of agression. However, given the availability for someone to transition into becoming an immediate threat to you, by pointing the gun at you, any fast movements they make with their upper body would qualify as grounds for sound justification to take action against them. The gun is offensive in itself, but, the situation would have leading details I would be interested in hearing you define, such as, did the two people by chance end up in a dual position? What is their conflict? Is it generic? Just say, two strangers in the mood to shoot someone for no reason? It could happen I guess. My reasoning for this is the difference in time between determining what they actually are doing, and the possability you will be shot before you can be certain of what they are doing. So, in this context, I believe justification for agressive defensive action is there when there is impending ability, and intent. Offset from your own ability to respond. See, I don't think this individual idea carries over into ideas of state. In millitary envasion terms, it would be like millitary A obtains intercontinental cruise missles So, millitary B parks a some battleships or tanks within firing range of those launchers. These escalations are defensive. If the launcher makes a movement like it may fire, than an agressive action by millitary B in that situation is also defensive. However, taking an agressive action beforehand would be conflict resolving. I can't really argue that, you could be right or wrong considering the specific circumstances, but, I don't think there can be a universal ideology when dealing with such complex situations. This does branch into many other directions though aswell. Such as not allowing someone to prepare to defend themselves is an act of agression. Imagine we're back at those two people who have guns now. One has their gun drawn, and not pointing at the other, while the other has their weapon holdstered. If the person is not permitted to draw their weapon, that prevention can be considered an attack. That is true. It's a bit of Zeno's paradox. It's an infinitive immeasurable. At what measurable point is a gun considered drawn? How can we calculate who reached that specific point first, and if we can't, how can there be any kind of moral stand at all? Thanks
	The pen is mightier than the sword, and the database is mightier than the pen!
Peracles Skygazer 3 posts Location: United States Escondido, CA Occupation: Writer Age: 27	#107 10-10-2008 23:12 GMT
	To determine, whether or not, a person is more apt to attack with a drawn weapon, rather a concealed one is a moot point. For whether they do, or do not attack, they still had the weapon, and were prepared to except the reprecussions from owning a device.

Mevy Skygazer 4 posts Location: United States Occupation: Age:	#108 10-11-2008 04:28 GMT
	My only counter arguments this reguarding possession of a weapon as an agressive act, reguards natural possession of weapons. Such as teeth, ineffective as they are, used well they could quickly and easily inflict leathal injuries. All people, armed or not, are capable of injuring or harming another person or people's. I find weapons to be socially mute, and events such as conflict to be social situations. Though I am a larger proponant for objective truths. Adding social points to this senario. For the sake of defense, I would say one person wants to shoot the other, for an unknown reason. The other person, wishes to defend themselves. Both people are not aware of the other's intent. If one conveyed clear and able intent to shoot the other, it would be defensive for the recipiant of this bullet to attack the other. For the calculation of who reached what point first, in most cases it is purely to the people involved to determine what state the other person is in. I would like to, and will address Zeno's Paradox in a later post, or as stated earlier, in an essay reguarding sameness and difference.

simian1 Administrators Rare Earth by Peter D. Ward, The Lucifer Priciple by Howard Bloom, The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris, Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Blind Watchmaker by R 52 posts http://www.thomasallanalbany.com Location: United States Carlsbad,Ca Occupation: Technician Age: 37	#109 10-11-2008 16:31 GMT
	Yes, natural weapons are something to think about. Let me do so....
	The pen is mightier than the sword, and the database is mightier than the pen!

> 1 <

simian1

thomas

Mevy

simian1

Peracles

Mevy

simian1