CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
But....................... If you catch some kids running AWAY from your house after they broke in, you can't draw your .44 Magnum and shoot them in the back.
If you catch a robber in your store with a knife, it seems a little excessive to take his knife away and stab him with it 17 times..
In the video the robber also displayed a gun. The citizen is justified in defending himself and others against the robbers unlawful use of deadly force, which is why he isn't facing criminal charges.. Whether it took 17 stabs to stop the threat is unknown, which is why the robber is suing. Civil lawsuits can be brought for just about anything.
In fact, one of the easiest ways to mess with someone's life is to sue them. All you need is a cause of action, such as being stabbed.
Generally, the plaintiff's lawyer works on contingency (No charge without a win, and the fee and expenses come out of the settlement or judgment.)
The defendant has to pay his/her lawyer, often up front, so even if the defendant wins, the plaintiff has still inflicted (usually significant) financial damage.
I love guns, always have. Don't have anything against knives, I own a few of then, also. I don't like the fact that some depend on them to do what we train certain people to do. I'm not against self defense, I'm against taking the law into ones own hands, THAT'S illegal. Or WAS.
When someone is using or threatening to use deadly force illegally, and police will not get there in time, what argument do you have against a citizen stepping in to defend the threatened parties?
When someone is using or threatening to use deadly force illegally, and police will not get there in time, what argument do you have against a citizen stepping in to defend the threatened parties?
The fact that nine out of ten times who the aggressor and who the threatened party is are matters of opinion. Just because the law is black and white, people like you wrongly assume that life must also be black and white. Here is just one scenario from a potential million: a man kidnaps your daughter, you catch him and pull a gun on him, but a citizen steps in and defends the threatened party by shooting you in the head.
That's exactly how police officers make the same kind of mistake. It's in the nature of the action. Your argument includes me justifiably stopping a kidnapper with force, but that I shouldn't lest I appear the aggressor. Your saying that the citizen shouldn't have stopped the obvious robber because another citizen may try, in turn, to stop him. Well, putting yourself in the position to do what's right comes with risks; including being mistaken for the unjustified aggressor (as cops often are).
While there are often fuzzy situations, there are also often clear situations.
None. There are situations where we have to do what we have to do. No argument there. It's just that, today, there seems to be little resistance to using that deadly force, even WITH the cops. The "Dodge City" syndrome is alive and well. Everyone carries a gun, everyone's ready to use it ...TOO ready! It didn't work well in Dodge, Tombstone, San Antone, eventually, we'll realize it isn't working here.
I'm not saying this guy, in this situation, is at fault. If he was at right, more power to him. I was generalizing, I wasn't there. I'm happy if he did the right thing. I'm just saying, America is out of control, it's Dodge City all over again! We have enough ATTITUDE in this country to destroy humanity as we know it. Certainly the America I once knew!
I would like to ask a Question: "Make America Great Again". "Again" means there was a time when we were great. I would like to know when THAT time was! I lived through what I thought was it's greatest time, a matter of opinion. I see no similarity to what most of those wearing "The Hat" want to return to, and what I saw as America's greatness. What do they want? A gun or knife in every hand, I guess. No Government, the Poor dying, the workers working for whatever the capitalists want to pay them, health care commensurate with your ability to earn and THAT commensurate with your ability to pay for the education needed, and THAT on your CEO's calculations on whether he can get cheaper labor in another country!
We will not solve our problems with vigilantism. I'm just saying this guy has every right to defend himself, So much of this does NOT make America great again. But, I digress...........
I have no arguments with that, OR that "the-son-of-a-bitch -had-it-coming-to-him"! I don't even think that he should be sued. Stiil, I'm not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, but I still believe two wrongs do not make a right. Americans (most) used to believe this and live by it ... back when we were "great". Today, it's more like .... I have my rights! I agree with that, also, but, we have (many of U.S.), lost our respect! Only MY PERSONAL rights count, others don't!
JFK said: " ... the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." Harper Lee was right ... in his mind, but wrong for humanity.
Armed robber breaks into a home shot dead by armed homeowner and the dead armed robber's family sues the armed homeowner. Where does the madness end when criminals have rights when committing a crime. Armed Robbery is not a crime under federal law ?
Armed criminals try to pull off an armored car heist and shot dead do the families of the armed criminals have a right to sue the armored car company.
Once Democrats get to supporting armed criminals the US has reached the point of supporting tyranny and a rogue regime.
Armed Robbery is a crime between private parties that's good to know.
Typically, though I suppose a private party could rob a public building. The criminal offense would usually be the same.
Armed Robbery is not a crime under federal law
That's correct. It's a crime under state law. If you doubt this, find the federal law and I will be proved incorrect.
Armed Criminals cannot be shot committing a criminal offense
I don't know what makes you say that. They can be shot, and even if the shot is justified, the shooter may be sued in civil court by an offended party, such as the surviving criminal or his family. Police get sued all the time.
Justified shootings should be settled by the government and identified as to who is the criminal and who is not
That's going to happen anyway. The citizen in this article was not arrested because the police decided he committed no criminal offense. The robber still feels there was a civil offense so he is suing.
Not to hard to see the warped mind of your's
Even though I am correct about everything I've said? Weird. Your incredulity is not evidence for your position. Go find some and then get back to me.
You were correct in your finding of federal offenses. However, no federal crime occurred in the case discussed. As for the rest, you do not understand the difference between criminal and civil. The illiteracy is yours.
Do you know that a person can be sued when no criminal offense even occurred? That's because a private party can sue you for just about anything. As for crime, the citizen broke no criminal statute, which is why the Chief of Police supported him in his statement
Armed robber enters a home and shot dead that is between private parties? Wasn't it you that said robbery was a state crime and not a federal crime. So was it a crime or difference between two parties.
Armed robber enters a home and shot dead that is between private parties?
The robber committed a criminal offense as a private party against another private party. Due to the criminal breach, the State brings charges. Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, the victim can sue the robber (his estate) for damages. Also, regardless of criminal charges, the family of the dead robber can sue for their loss. These lawsuits are not criminal cases, but civil. OJ won in
criminal court and lost in civil court.
Wasn't it you that said robbery was a state crime and not a federal crime
Yeah. The state would bring the criminal charge against the robber. The robber is bringing civil charges against the citizen. The federal government isn't doing anything.
So was it a crime or difference between two parties
Read your own source. These crimes are only applicable " on U.S. federal property or on an Indian reservation". Crimes also become a federal matter when they cross state lines. These are not applicable to this case nor to 99.9% of crimes committed. Good job finding something real though
I picked Ohio as a random example. You seem to think that an act is not a crime if there is no applicable federal law. But federal law is not applicable to most crimes, state law is. Ohio, for example, will try you for rape if you commit rape in Ohio.
Committing multiple rapes across multiple states will not get the feds involved ? Are you kidding yourself cuz you might think you know something when you don't. But really i enjoy you CD lawyers and the wealth of misinformation you provide.
If you go on a rape rampage and rape across the country, you will likely have the Feds after you. When they catch you, you will likely be subject to the separate crimes of the various acts of rape in the various states and subject to convictions from each. Do you know what "extraditable" means?
Sometimes local and state authorities will notify federal authorities, but often times federal agents are where they need to be (on federal land). Read your source again. Some crimes are Federal due to their nature (guns with drugs), but most crimes are federal only due to geography (federal land or cross borders).
Sometimes a local case is trumped by an ongoing federal investigation, in which case a stereotypical movie scene plays out wherein the Feds say "we'll take it from here boys" followed by a chorus of groans from the locals.
What are the certain type of robberies that fall under federal jurisdiction and what is this federal land you are referring to and the boundaries of that federal land are where.
Robberies are a federal issue if on Federal land or, according to your source, reservations. Yellowstone is an example of Federal land. Some buildings are federal land. I'll let you check a map for details.
Neither do I. I don't really know why you want the definition other than to reduce your ignorance, in which case you can look it up.
to the local CD lawyer who is fully versed in the laws defining what Armed Robbery is
You know who else is fully versed? The legal codes found via google. The applicable state code in this case is California state code. There is no applicable Federal code.
Most banks in the US are federally chartered and most accounts are guaranteed by the federal government. Consequently, if one of these banks is robbed, it's a federal crime.
Armed Robbery is to be determined by which agency state or federal ? How can anyone know and to make the assumption that is just clearly not true. Unless this website is full of knowledgeable want to be lawyers.
Who determines what you say and are you fully versed on all laws in all states. You CD lawyers need to start a law firm and get off the net. I have never seen such knowledge as i have today.
I have some more CD legal knowledge to lay on you.. Listen up.. There's a federal crime called Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution.. Even IF the charges one faces are STATE, the feds CAN intervene if there's a notion, even a random thought that the perp MIGHT cross a state line while fleeing..
A state bank can't be a federal bank when the funds in the state bank are protected by the feds. Your terminology shows a conflicted statement and a lack of understanding of your meaning.
Listen up... The FDIC insures the accounts in a federally chartered bank. The STATE banking insurance agency, whatever they're called, insures the accounts in a state chartered bank..
The criminal deserved all he got and so what if he was stabbed 17 times ? in the heat of battle one loses the head and is on automatic pilot .
The fucker deserved all he got , I find the excessive force law most societies have is ridiculous , I bet the bastard will think twice before he chances his hand again
This article does not appear to be an instance of vigilantism. Do you suppose the citizen would have bashed crook for trying to buy coffee with counterfeit bills? No. The citizen was not seeking justice for a crime, he was protecting people from a threat.
The number of times the man stabbed is irrelevant if the threat had not been stopped. The right number of stabs is however many it takes to stop the threat. Neither I nor you can say if 17 was too many. You might ask why he didn't stop at 10, and I can ask why he didn't continue to 20. The answer depends how long the citizen perceived the threat to persist.
I think it'll turn on whether a threat ACTUALLY did exist
The legal test cannot be on what was actually the case. If it were, all people who ever had force used against them could say they weren't going to do anything.
The test is whether the person using forced perceived a threat to be present, and whether it was reasonable for him to have that perception. You have to ask if a reasonable person in his situation would have perceived a threat.
I wanna expand on my last answer.. You've said that Michael Slager, the cop who shot Walter Scott in the back while he was running away was guilty of murder..
During that incident, Slager MAY have, at one point in time, BEEN under threat, and would have been justified in shooting Scott.. But, when he shot him, he wasn't under any threat at all.. That's why it's murder.
In the present incident, using force to STOP the robbery was lawful.. But, once the guy WASN'T robbing any more, and posed no threat, stabbing him 17 times is just like the cop shooting Walter Scott in the back..
I appreciate this line of argument as it captures some relevant principles.
Once the citizen stopped the robbery, he was being assaulted by a man with a knife and a gun. He was stabbed in the neck by his attacker. Though the robbery was foiled, the subsequent threat persisted.
the robbery was foiled, the subsequent threat persisted
Hello again, A:
Very true.. The question in my mind then is, did the stabber stab the robber 17 times WHILE a physical altercation was going on, or did it occur AFTER the guy was subdued and the stabber was laying on top of him..
IF it occurred WHILE a guy was DEFENDING himself, it would NOT be excessive.. But, I don't think that's how it happened or it wouldn't even BE an issue. Is that how you think it happened?
If a cop uses excessive force to stop a threat or make an arrest, the injured parties have the right to sue for damages, even if they were wrong in the first place. This criminal is no different. Even if he deserved to be stabbed a few more times, he can sue for damages.
In this instance the robber didn't break into the man's house, the crook was holding up a Starbucks by knife point, the man came up and bashed the crooked on the head with a chair. The crook then turned and in a scuffle managed to stab the guy in the neck. Once the knife was taken away the man then repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly stabbed the crook multiple times. The mother of the crook wants to say that was excessive. I call bull crap on that, he tried to kill the man instead of simply fleeing and got owned for it. Pretty much everyone under the sun doesn't give a crap what the crook is whining about, he gambled on trying to rob someone and lost. I doubt very much that the crook will get anything but if that guy needs some money to open a good defense then I hope he opens a GoFundMe or something.
I doubt very much that the crook will get anything
I don't know if I doubt, but I hope the crook doesn't get anything. It's important that his right to sue exists. It's sad that the system may reward him when it shouldn't.
When one is faced with danger it is necessary to act instantly without thinking and so our brains have evolved to do just that. For example, when we see something resembling a snake or spider we immediately jump away from the stimulus before our conscious brain is even aware that we have seen the spider or snake. We have hard-wired responses that have evolved over millions of years in order to keep us alive.
For this reason, if you get stabbed in the neck you won't think through what to do and act appropriately, you'll act instinctively. This causes an immediate response, in this case a fight response. There's no conscious thought behind their actions, merely the instinctive drive to destroy that which is threatening their life.
There's no conscious thought behind their actions, merely the instinctive drive to destroy that which is threatening their life.
Hello W:
You don't know that to be true.. It MAY be true, or maybe the stabber always wanted to stab somebody and found his chance..
I dunno what's true. What I do know, is that those elements WILL be part of the trial, if there is one.. After stabbing a guy 17 times, I dunno if "I acted INSTINCTIVELY" will work..
"After stabbing a guy 17 times, I dunno if "I acted INSTINCTIVELY" will work.."
Regardless of whether it works in court or not, and I think it will work in this case due to their having been stabbed in the neck, the fact of the matter is that they will not have had full control of their actions. Also, when one thinks about two people rolling on the floor fighting for a knife and gun, one would imagine a lot of stabbing and slashing is necessary to win the tussle. In addition, the stab wounds couldn't have been that severe if the robber survived 17 of them.
I appreciate that we cannot know the details of the case, but I can see how it could be necessary to stab a gunman 17 times to subdue them. I also know that when one's life is threatened instinct takes over and that it's possible to stab someone 17 times in a matter of seconds. Think about the fact that a single round in boxing lasts only 3 minutes and yet so much happens.
Regardless of whether it works in court or not, and I think it will work in this case due to their having been stabbed in the neck,
Hello again, W:
Lemme ask you this.. You know I hate Nazis. What if the robber had a HUGE Swastika on his forehead, and I was the stabber.. Would you believe that I had full control of my actions while stabbing him 17 times, or would you believe I ENJOYED stabbing that sonofabitch?
As long as your life was genuinely in danger, as it was in the example, I would be inclined to believe you weren't in full control of your actions. As aforementioned, the brain circuits that protect us from immediate danger aren't under our conscious control.
I've gotten into fights where I enjoyed beating up the aggressor, but it didn't change the fact that it was self-defense. As for your proud declaration of your enjoyment of the violence, it probably would affect the court decision.
After stabbing a guy 17 times, I dunno if "I acted INSTINCTIVELY" will work..
That would be a stretch.
"Your honor, the first stab was necessary to protect my life. The next 9 stabs were instinctive. (You know how it is when you are scared, or you get on a roll.) The last 7 stabs were Shave and a Haircut: Two Bits as a way to wrap it all up, and help bring closure."
