5 ms·

Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? What's the difference?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think. However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique. But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  The point is that of course it has a chilling effect. It's not useful as a standalone principle...
vkou 3y ago
> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area. The principal question is: "Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not. "Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - revscat 3y ago
    Forgive me, but that doesn’t sound precise at all. That sounds like anarcho-capitalist anti-democratic marketing speak.
    - logicchains 3y ago
      >anti-democratic So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? A reminder that Hitler was democratically elected; there's a reason the US is formally a Republic.
      - qotgalaxy 3y ago
        [dead]
      - vkou 3y ago
        > So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? Sure, how else would you stop a violent threat to society? Say, a chap who starts shooting up a mall? Or a foreign invader? I mean, if you're an unconditional pacifist, who believes that violence should never be used, even in response to violence, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree with it. But it doesn't sound like you are.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Instead of peppering me with labels, why not respond to the substance (Also definitely not anarcho-capitalist lol)
  - vkou 3y ago
    The state can only do so in certain circumstances, not in the general case.
  - labster 3y ago
    No, we want the state to allow some types of violence (e.g. boxing matches) but prohibit even the state from other types of violence like torture even from the state.
abfan1127 3y ago
Most Concealed/Carry Firearms courses discuss this very area. When can you brandish a weapon? when can you show you have it without brandishing? When can you use it? Its so complex, I choose to not carry in my state most of the time because of the opportunity for mistake, and therefore possible prosecution of gray area laws that mostly hinge on a prosecutor choosing or not choosing to proceed.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think. However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique. But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.

maxerickson 3y ago
The point is that of course it has a chilling effect. It's not useful as a standalone principle...

vkou 3y ago

> Does not being able to use violence any time you choose have a chilling effect on using it when it is legally justified? It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area. The principal question is: "Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not. "Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
[flagged]
- revscat 3y ago
  Forgive me, but that doesn’t sound precise at all. That sounds like anarcho-capitalist anti-democratic marketing speak.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    >anti-democratic So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? A reminder that Hitler was democratically elected; there's a reason the US is formally a Republic.
    - qotgalaxy 3y ago
      [dead]
    - vkou 3y ago
      > So violence is okay as long as enough people voted for it? Sure, how else would you stop a violent threat to society? Say, a chap who starts shooting up a mall? Or a foreign invader? I mean, if you're an unconditional pacifist, who believes that violence should never be used, even in response to violence, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree with it. But it doesn't sound like you are.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Instead of peppering me with labels, why not respond to the substance (Also definitely not anarcho-capitalist lol)
- vkou 3y ago
  The state can only do so in certain circumstances, not in the general case.
- labster 3y ago
  No, we want the state to allow some types of violence (e.g. boxing matches) but prohibit even the state from other types of violence like torture even from the state.

abfan1127 3y ago

Most Concealed/Carry Firearms courses discuss this very area. When can you brandish a weapon? when can you show you have it without brandishing? When can you use it? Its so complex, I choose to not carry in my state most of the time because of the opportunity for mistake, and therefore possible prosecution of gray area laws that mostly hinge on a prosecutor choosing or not choosing to proceed.