So if someone pulls a gun on you and unloads 6 rounds trying to shoot you, but has terrible aim and misses every shot... no crime was committed?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So if someone pulls a gun on you and unloads 6 rounds trying to shoot you, but has terrible aim and misses every shot... no crime was committed?
Are you claiming that credible threats of violence and coercion aren't crimes, or just that they aren't crimes when men and women calling themselves government do it?
That's what's wrong with statists.
Probably refers to this part
FYI your natural unalienable rights are property. If someone infringes upon your rights, your property has been damaged.
Yeah, I don't think that is a logical response to the question. Here's an upvote for you to try again.
If I give a dumb answer to something can I get an upvote too? ;)
done. :)
He's the one claiming you need
If all shots missed, no damages were incurred.
You need context. This is about the U.S legal system. We believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, which means that we believe that the initiation of force is objectively immoral, and criminal.
Criminal? Who's writing that law in anarchist society?
And no, not out of context. I'm pointing out the flaw in his understanding of that principle. It's absolutely a crime despite no measurable damage to a victim.
@jaredhowe: I don't know who you're arguing with, but it ain't me. Nothing you just said has anything to do with what I've said.
The initiation of force is objectively immoral and criminal, therefore you can't fathom why I would want to help people defend themselves when force is initiated against them by statists?
This is about the best argument against your argument.
I'm really struggling with this entire anarchist thing. The system we currently have is the worst ever conceived, except for all the others before. I don't see how this is realistically feasible. There are costs for victimless crimes. Legalize drugs? Sure, I can entertain that - especially not making it criminal. But, who is going to administer violent crimes? You? Me? This seems to require structure.
"So if someone pulls a gun on you and unloads 6 rounds trying to shoot you, but has terrible aim and misses every shot... no crime was committed?" The bullet rounds went into something, damage was done... So what if I fire back in defense and they die, have I committed a crime?
It's an exemplum, not a real situation. If it makes you f eel better, he was on a dock so the bullets all landed at sea. I guess a shark could claim damages if he were unlucky... ;)
As to the rest, you'll have to ask OP since he's the one claiming damages are needed for a crime to have been committed.
You are the one trying to claim that a person who fails to provide self-defense and fails to pay into a system that provides self-defense, somehow deserves reparations for a threat on their life inherent in the fact that they are human and understand how to feel the fear of death. That all sounds like you believe some kind of God should provide "Justice", but I'm not convenced you'r a believer in God.
I said nothing of the kind.
"attempting to hurt someone should be punished regardless as to whether they were successful in causing harm." ~@telos, Who do you think has the authority to do the "punishing" that you speak of?
BTW:
When one breathes out, they breathe out CO2. If they believe that CO2 causes harm to the planet("Global Climate Change"), then they would be "attempting to hurt" all people by breathing. Thus, this action acording to you "should be punished regardless as to whether they were successful in causing harm."
False. There are demonstrable emotional damages for threatening with deadly force. Either you used fear to try to compel someone to use force against themselves, or you were trying to harm them, the threat of which resulted in emotional damages, which are definitely demonstrable.
Again, this is the problem with statists. They only pretend to care about crime when the people who engage in it aren't wearing costumes.
All shots missed what? It seems unlikely every bullet would literally hit nothing at all such that "no damages were incurred."
Right. Emotional damage. So are you going to throw internet trolls in jail too when they hurt peoples' feelings? I'm sure the victim could demonstrate emotional harm.
Also the scenario was laid out pretty simply, don't see where you're getting this "compel someone to use force against themselves bit." I clearly said they were being shot at.
Again, this is the problem with anarchists. They can't argue against points so they argue against things you didn't say and try to insult you.
Your claim now is threatening someone with deadly force is the same as posting on the internet?
Again, this is the problem with statists.
Like "So if someone pulls a gun on you and unloads 6 rounds trying to shoot you, but has terrible aim and misses every shot... no crime was committed?", for example?
Yet another problem statists: gaslighting and projection
Now you're doubling down by alleging that I'm alleging proportionality doesn't exist?
Which implies you don't think damages can be proven when threatening someone with deadly force.
Wow indeed.
Wow. Look, you said all someone needed to do was prove emotional damage. People claim that all the time on the internet. Bullies can go to jail for those emotional damages.
This is all based on you claiming you have to prove damage to the victim and then assuming I'm a statist to ignore my point rather than actually discussing it.
I'm saying that attempting to kill someone is, and should be, be punishable even if you can't prove damage. I'm saying that your interpretation of the law is flawed and based on a single point which can easily be questioned on situations like the one I gave.
Interesting that you started off by dismissing me as a statist, then flagged my post... yet still haven't even attempted to argue against the point I made.
So the bullets bother you? Ok what if someone just tried to punch a victim? I've been in fights where I actually did get punched, and couldn't claim "emotional damage." Therefore if someone attempts to punch a person and fails, is a crime committed? Look, there's an entire spectrum of waht might bother people. A battle hardened veteran might not be "emotionally damaged" one bit by a few bullets, while another vet with PTSD might be completely harmed by it. By nitpicking the exemplum you're really just avoiding the point, which is that attempting to hurt someone should be punished regardless as to whether they were successful in causing harm.
"attempting to hurt someone should be punished regardless as to whether they were successful in causing harm." ~@telos, Who do you think has the authority to do the "punishing" that you speak of?
If someone pulls a gun on you, it's still an act of violence even if they missed you with every shot. An act of violence, whether by action or threat of action, should be prosecuted as such. We don't need arbitrary rules (aka statutes) to know that violence is wrong. Nobody should be allowed to make rules that impose duties on others.
I completely agree with you! I think OP's mistaken in claiming measurable harm needs to have been done to the victim. Attempting harm to a victim should be enough.