this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
-18 points (43.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44149 readers
1812 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tbf, "self defense," while technically being "violence," is the only time violence is actually acceptable. She should buy a gun if she's being stalked by anyone, but of course just buying one isn't enough. Also needed is practice to learn how to shoot (preferably with an instructor if you can afford it, but you can learn most of that stuff from the right sources online actually like Jerry Miculek's videos on it, if that's your only option), carry permit if your state needs it, and learning the laws regarding use of force in your area. Also buy/carry OC spray if it's legal (for instance it isn't legal in NYC) in case he ends up being a threat, but not a deadly threat.
Practicing nonviolence is a worthy pursuit and I'm also a proponent of it, but to go so far as to forego self defense in the name of pacifism is just foolish in my personal opinion. The advice isn't just "shoot him next time you see him," (that's called murder lol), it's "just in case he tries to kill you, be prepared with an Uno reverse card."
The only difference is the immediacy. If exploitative strategies by healthcare companies directly caused harm to you or a loved one, it could very much be interpreted as self-defence to kill their CEO.
Unfortunately not, it would be interpreted as retribution (at least by the courts). Immediacy means something like "guy with knife threatening to stab you right now," BUT if you pull your gun to do so and he starts walking away that's it, it's over, if you shoot him at that point you'll be argued to be the aggressor and will lose your case. As such, having a claim denied and then traveling to wherever this guy is and likely planning for months is called "premeditation," not "self defense."
You may disagree, but that's the court's opinion.
I didn't think we were talking about the law. I thought we were talking about personal moral considerations, which don't have much to do with the law or courts.
Those are all laws.
Wasn't the opinion in George Zimmerman case.
True, sometimes juries fail, personally I wouldn't bet on it and would err on the side of caution but that's your own choice to make I suppose.
(It also helps if you're the "right" color shooting the "right" color in the "right" state/county... but... otherwise it helps to have your ducks in a row.)
I genuinely laughed. Politician style or hospitality industry style? I've so many questions!
It was not about self defense, they were saying 'go and shoot that fucker in the face'
Yeah ya can't do that lol, that's murder.
Thats what I said, seemed like an unpopular opinion...
I'd believe it, some people on here advocate for killing people all the time, so long as they're a "CEO, accused-nazi, liberal, landlord, government employee they don't like, etc."