Reply #214: those observations [View All]

"The laws in question have ALL been 'on the books' for decades
at least, centuries in some cases. If they're unconstitutional,
don't you think they'd be struck down by now? I'm not offering
this as proof of their constitutionality, merely making an
observation."

And what a fine observation it is. May I offer one in return? It's raining.

But you sure are right that longevity is not proof of constitutionality. Perhaps you remember the Texas law that your Supreme Court struck down only last month, which seems also to have been on the books since time immemorial, in Texas terms, and even to have been upheld by a previous Supreme Court. An amazing thing, constitutional law, ain't it?

"The criminal law, by PROHIBITING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST
OTHER PERSONS, protects everyone's right to life."

"Except, of course, when it doesn't. This happens when there are
EXCEPTIONS written into the law. You know that, don't you?"

And now I have had my fill of the charade that passes for dialogue with someone whose main trick is to pretend that nothing that was said before was ever said.

Do a little search in this thread for the word "justification". See whether you can relate what I have said about it, in the context of violations of rights, to the silliness you have spewed, quoted just above.

Here's your hint: if the EXCEPTION in question operates to permit people to kill those under the height of 4'2" with impunity, is that exception JUSTIFIED? Here's a really bit hint: NO. No justification for exception that results in violation of rights (unequal protection), no constitutional validity.

Are you this thick, or do you just take pleasure in making yourself appear this thick?

"In a case of self defense, meeting potential force with force
is justified. The level of force to be used is stated in the statute,
as are the circumstances in which the exemption applies."

You betcha. And there we are back again, with you using the operative expression and for some reason thinking that you can then talk about something else: "SELF-DEFENCE" has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "if you hit me I get to hit you".

YES, the "circumstances in which the exemption applies" are stated in the statute. Duh, duh, duh. You just keep wanting to pretend that they don't mean what they say, it seems.

"If one is capable of removing one's self from the threat of death
or injury, it is **NOT** IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to use force
to protect one's self from death or injury."

"Except, of course, that consistently the courts haven't held that.
You SHOULD know that."

Ah, I do love a little "proof" by blatant assertion. Livens up a dull afternoon. Note the quotation marks around the word "proof", indicating that it isn't what it purports to be.

"You're offering a 'term of art' and trying to say it has
a concrete definition. How special."

Really?? Perhaps you can show me where I did that. Did I offer this "concrete definition"? Or did I just say that the expression used has a MEANING? In case I wasn't clear, I'm also saying that legislatures used such expressions precisely BECAUSE they have meanings.

"Right...NARROWLY CONSTRUED within the structure of the Statute.
It's pretty simple. I'll simplify it further for you. If the law says
'you can't do this, unless that happens, and then you can' if 'that'
happens, then 'you can'. It does NOT mean 'if that happens, you have
to do a whole bunch of other crap to be able to get back to 'you can'.
To take it a step further, if a law says 'You can't have sex unless
you're married to your partner', if you're married, you can have sex
with your partner. The statute doesn't REQUIRE you to have sex with
your partner in a certain position, at a certain time of day, in a
certain location, or using a condom. You've fulfilled the 'prongs' of
the statute, and can concentrate on your 'pronging', secure in the
knowledge that you've fulfilled your legal obligations."

What a truly amazing collection of incomprehensible and irrelevant twaddle. Allow me to congratulate you; if this was your aim, you have succeeded admirably.

Now, allow ME to simplify it for YOU:

If a law says "You may not have sex unless you're married to your partner", then, if you're married, you may have sex with your partner.

And IF YOU'RE NOT MARRIED, then you MAY NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOUR PARTNER.

That seems to be just a slightly more relevant bit of information than whatever the hell you went off on a tangent about.

If the law says "you may not use force against another person unless you have a reasonable belief ...", then IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE REASONABLE BELIEF, you MAY NOT USE FORCE against that other person.

Damn, that's easy. It really is simple, when someone isn't so bent on bending and twisting.

"It would depend on the circumstances. If everybody under 4'2" was ..."

No, no, Nanette. You don't get to change the question and then answer it. That wasn't the question posed. Beep. Try again.

"If, on the other hand, legislators just hated short people,
it wouldn't be constitutional. You're dealing with necessity."

There ya go -- you're getting warm. In fact, it wouldn't matter what the government's motivation was, not a whit -- that is, malice is in no way required for constitutional invalidity. Not unless the government had JUSTIFICATION for the exception it enacted, would it be constitutional, utterly irrespective of what its motivation for the exception might have been.

There is, by common consensus, JUSTIFICATION for making an exception to the rule against the use of force where the person using it has no other option in order to avert a danger to his/her life or limb which s/he reasonably believes is presented by the person against whom it is used.

There is no such justification for making an exception in the case of people under 4'2".

And I'm damned if I can see any justification for making an exception in the case of somebody trying to steal your stereo.

The justification in the former case actually protects the right to life of the person acting in self-defence. There is an either/or situation here that the government has to address: either it prohibits people from protecting their own lives and limbs by using force, thus requiring them to submit to death or injury or be punished, themselves, for causing death or injury -- and thereby protects the right of people who illegally use force against other people not to be deprived of life without due process, and their right to equal protection -- or it permits people against whom force has been used to use force for the purpose of protecting their life and limb, by exempting them from such punishment, and thereby protects the right of people who are the victims of the illegal use of force not to be deprived of life without due process.

The situation addressed is one in which it is reasonably believed that there is no third option -- no "no one gets hurt" option. That is the ONLY REASON why the exemption is JUSTIFIED -- why someone will not be punished for causing death or injury: that THERE IS no third option.

In the case of the stereo-stealer, the Texan "victim" is apparently being permitted to cause death or injury without fear of punishment. But THERE IS a third option in that case: forego the continued possession of the fucking stereo. THERE IS no balancing that has to be done by the state (in the minds of civilized 21st century people, who regard an individual's interest in life as superior to another individual's interest in property IN ALL CASES), THERE IS no individual interest in *life* that requires protecting other than the interest of the person committing the property offence, THERE IS no justification for permitting the killing or injuring of human beings with impunity.

Apparently there are societies that have decided to regard an individual's interest in the continued possession of a stereo as superior, in terms of the value placed on the two by society and thus which interest the society will protect in the event of a conflict, to another individual's interest in the continued living of a human life (not to mention society's interest in promoting respect for human life in general as an overarching goal of a society). If I were defending that decision, myself, I'd probably commit suicide on the ground that I was unworthy to continue living.

Heck, I have no plans of ever returning to Texas, and in fact I would do everything within my power to avoid such a fate. That, of course, no more disqualifies me from having and expressing opinions about that state's revolting disrespect for human life than the fact that I am not a citizen of, and may never travel to, Brazil disqualifies me from expressing an opinion about the revolting disrespect for human life in evidence in certain public policies there.

And just as I can't make you speak civilly -- honestly, genuinely, in good faith -- you can't make me believe that these laws of yours are constitutionally permissible even when measured against your own puny national or state standards.

So nyah nyah (whoever it was who suggested that I might reply with "Your Momma" was just exhibiting the ethnocentricity so common down there, of course) and I believe we're about done.

.