The difference between being coerced and coercing

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
To wit, someone raising a gun and pointing it at you is not an attack; it is a threat (whose severity can range from none, as when you know the gun is empty and it is wielded by a friend who is simply fooling around, to extremely grave, as when your wife flicks the gun back and forth between your chest and her own head, immediately after finding you in bed with her sister). However, grave though the threat may be in the second case, and much as you might be *willing* to employ force to extract yourself from the amazingly bad situation, until she pulls the trigger, she has not initiated an attack against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when does the attack start? When the gun is fired? Or when the bullet reaches my body? What if the gun isn't loaded, or has blanks? What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly? What if, when he pulls the gun out, I think he's swinging it at me--is it an attack now?
We are all human beings in the world, faced with dilemmas and such--some of them don't have clear-cut answers. If a stramger pulled a gun on me, I'd break his/her arm if I had to to end the "threat"--I would feel a little bad about it, but I certainly wouldn't consider it a violation of his/her right of self-ownership (I don't think any sensible person would).

So how you could think that using force to stop someone who has pulled a gun on you could possibly justify widespread institutionalized violence and theft (ie, government) is beyond me.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I meant to ask something along these lines. Like what if the guy unloads on me but completely misses? He hasn't attacked me yet according to Jogger (he could have been shooting at the wall behind me, who am I to know his intentions?!) so unless I let him reload and try again, I'd be the one to INITIATE the violence right?

Edit: Question is meant for jogger, I agree with your points Nietz.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I meant to ask something along these lines. Like what if the guy unloads on me but completely misses? He hasn't attacked me yet according to Jogger (he could have been shooting at the wall behind me, who am I to know his intentions?!) so unless I let him reload and try again, I'd be the one to INITIATE the violence right?

Edit: Question is meant for jogger, I agree with your points Nietz.

[/ QUOTE ]

In case you haven't noticed jogger has pretty consistently avoiding going anywhere near the hoteat in these discussions, he likes to put others under the microscope and avoids being put there himself.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for jogger to explain himself or justify himself or defend his beliefs at any length, and I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to subject himself to the micro examination of his beliefs on an individual case basis.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I meant to ask something along these lines. Like what if the guy unloads on me but completely misses? He hasn't attacked me yet according to Jogger (he could have been shooting at the wall behind me, who am I to know his intentions?!) so unless I let him reload and try again, I'd be the one to INITIATE the violence right?

Edit: Question is meant for jogger, I agree with your points Nietz.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is (if we take out all the silly exaggerations) a pretty decent question. Not just for AC v. State, but in everyday life.

At what point have the rights (let's assume we agree on the rights to one's person and the safety thereof) of a person been imposed upon. I tend to favor the common sense explaination here, but attempting to apply it as law (AC or state law) is trickier because sense really isn't that common.

If a man shoots near you, but is shooting at the wall behind, then one could argue he's threatened you, and that he has a responsibility to caution those inbetween his gun and his target. But that may not be the opinion of everyone. Do we have any metrics that can be used across the board here?

Cody

[DrunkHamster]

For stuff like this, I'm a big fan of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" test. It's quite hard to come up with a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an action to be an assault, but everyone knows it when they see it.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I meant to ask something along these lines. Like what if the guy unloads on me but completely misses? He hasn't attacked me yet according to Jogger (he could have been shooting at the wall behind me, who am I to know his intentions?!) so unless I let him reload and try again, I'd be the one to INITIATE the violence right?

Edit: Question is meant for jogger, I agree with your points Nietz.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is (if we take out all the silly exaggerations) a pretty decent question. Not just for AC v. State, but in everyday life.

At what point have the rights (let's assume we agree on the rights to one's person and the safety thereof) of a person been imposed upon. I tend to favor the common sense explaination here, but attempting to apply it as law (AC or state law) is trickier because sense really isn't that common.

If a man shoots near you, but is shooting at the wall behind, then one could argue he's threatened you, and that he has a responsibility to caution those inbetween his gun and his target. But that may not be the opinion of everyone. Do we have any metrics that can be used across the board here?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's just common sense and social norms. How often is a stranger going to start opening fire at the wall right behind you? I don't know if I've ever heard a story where there was a mistaken self-defense shooting because the perp was taking target practice at a wall that a person was standing in front of.

Of course, according to Jogger, since we can't read minds, the only way to deduce an initation of violence is when the bullet enters the body. In the wall example, what if his intention IS to hit the wall, but he hits you in the arm instead? Are you free to pull a gun in self-defense and shoot him or would this be an initiation of violence on the innocent target practice shooter. Better let him keep blasting so you can deduce what his true motives are before you decide to act.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
I have an idea. Let's have a poll, "Who is more of a troll on this forum, Vagos or Jogger?" Whoever wins the most troll votes is to be banned from this forum for life? Do you accept?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To wit, someone raising a gun and pointing it at you is not an attack; it is a threat (whose severity can range from none, as when you know the gun is empty and it is wielded by a friend who is simply fooling around, to extremely grave, as when your wife flicks the gun back and forth between your chest and her own head, immediately after finding you in bed with her sister). However, grave though the threat may be in the second case, and much as you might be *willing* to employ force to extract yourself from the amazingly bad situation, until she pulls the trigger, she has not initiated an attack against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when does the attack start?

[/ QUOTE ]
When she initiates violence against you. In this instance, it would be the moment she squeezes the trigger (while pointing the gun at you, not her own head).

[ QUOTE ]
When the gun is fired? Or when the bullet reaches my body? What if the gun isn't loaded, or has blanks? What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly? What if, when he pulls the gun out, I think he's swinging it at me--is it an attack now?
We are all human beings in the world, faced with dilemmas and such--some of them don't have clear-cut answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but none of the questions you raised illustrates your point.

[ QUOTE ]
If a stramger pulled a gun on me, I'd break his/her arm if I had to to end the "threat"--I would feel a little bad about it, but I certainly wouldn't consider it a violation of his/her right of self-ownership (I don't think any sensible person would).

[/ QUOTE ]
Me either: rational people preempt threats. Hence, rational people disregard the empty claim that one must never initiate a force transaction against another person. It doesn't surprise me that you'd take this position... but it does, a little, that you'd do so while self-identifying as an ACist.

[ QUOTE ]
So how you could think that using force to stop someone who has pulled a gun on you could possibly justify widespread institutionalized violence and theft (ie, government) is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Preemption of threats is what government is (properly) about.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the gun has real bullets, but they don't work properly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I meant to ask something along these lines. Like what if the guy unloads on me but completely misses? He hasn't attacked me yet according to Jogger (he could have been shooting at the wall behind me, who am I to know his intentions?!) so unless I let him reload and try again, I'd be the one to INITIATE the violence right?

[/ QUOTE ]
False: when he fires at you, whether or not he hits, he has initiated an attack against you. Nothing about the definition of attack implies success. The issue is the initiation.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have an idea. Let's have a poll, "Who is more of a troll on this forum, Vagos or Jogger?" Whoever wins the most troll votes is to be banned from this forum for life? Do you accept?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll set it up with a poll. Just to be clear, whoever gets more votes as being a troll is the loser and must leave 2+2 politics forever.