Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 03 2017, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-have-no-privacy;-get-over-it dept.

Cory Doctorow reports via Boing Boing

Ross Compton, a 59-year-old homeowner in Middletown, Ohio called 911 in September 2016 to say that his house was on fire; there were many irregularities to the blaze that investigators found suspicious, such as contradictory statements from Compton and the way that the fire had started.

In the ensuing investigation, the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker, specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand, and cardiac rhythms before, during, and after the fire".

[...] The data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened.

[...] [The cops] subsequently filed charges of felony aggravated arson and insurance fraud.

Cory links to coverage by Network World.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:38PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 04 2017, @01:38PM (#462836) Journal

    If you intent to kill, that is murder.

    The obvious rebuttal is "One has a right to use lethal force in self-defense or defense of others, but only to stop the threat." You have intent to use lethal force. That's intent to kill even if it is also intent to stop. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Distinction without a difference?

    Absolutely.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:42PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:42PM (#462897) Journal

    That's intent to kill even if it is also intent to stop.

    I should have know better to introduce such a subtle distinction! Aristotle said that a single action can produce more than one effect. If one of these effects is permissible and the other not (both being necessary consequences of the action), it would seem that the act would be (morally, legally) prohibited by the impermissible effect. This is where the moral doctrine says, you can still act, as long as you only intend the permissible result, and do not intend the impermissible. This is called The Doctrine of Double Effect [stanford.edu].

      For example, a military force wants to bombard a position where civilians are known to be present. This would seem to preclude the attack, for it would inevitably result in "collateral damage". But the Doctrine of Double effect says you can go ahead, as long as you are only bombing the combatants, and only accidentally attacking the civilians, because it would be wrong to attack non-combatants. Some have added (Michael Walzer for one) that just not intending is not enough, that the actor would have to take all reasonable measures to avoid the illicit outcome, and possibly even feel bad about it. And as for the combatants, the enemy, the "bad guys", it is permissible to attack them, even with artillery, but it is impermissible to intend, as the principal end of your acts, to kill them.
     

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Of course not! No one is arguing that! But they also are not identical! You can intend one, but not the other. You can will to stop, without intending to kill, even when using force that very likely has such an effect. Or you can intend to kill without intending to stop? One of these is self-defense (maybe), the other is murder, plain and simple. The issue here is that if you intend to kill, whether in self-defense or protection of others, it is still murder. (Only permissible intent to kill might be execution or euthanasia, but that is another topic.)

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:31AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:31AM (#462975) Journal

      I should have know better to introduce such a subtle distinction!

      My point is true whether or not you introduce said distinction.

      If one of these effects is permissible and the other not (both being necessary consequences of the action), it would seem that the act would be (morally, legally) prohibited by the impermissible effect.

      You have yet to introduce an impermissible effect.

      For example, a military force wants to bombard a position where civilians are known to be present. This would seem to preclude the attack, for it would inevitably result in "collateral damage". But the Doctrine of Double effect says you can go ahead, as long as you are only bombing the combatants, and only accidentally attacking the civilians, because it would be wrong to attack non-combatants. Some have added (Michael Walzer for one) that just not intending is not enough, that the actor would have to take all reasonable measures to avoid the illicit outcome, and possibly even feel bad about it. And as for the combatants, the enemy, the "bad guys", it is permissible to attack them, even with artillery, but it is impermissible to intend, as the principal end of your acts, to kill them.

      That seems a bit irrelevant to your earlier post since the "intent to kill" condition of murder is not required to be primary. If I kill someone for the insurance money, that is still premeditated murder.

      You can will to stop, without intending to kill, even when using force that very likely has such an effect.

      You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. The obvious rebuttal is that you intended an action that has death of another person as a very likely consequence. That's intent to kill by definition.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:58AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:58AM (#462980) Journal

        Poor khallow! I will try to make this comprehensible to you.

        That seems a bit irrelevant to your earlier post since the "intent to kill" condition of murder is not required to be primary. If I kill someone for the insurance money, that is still premeditated murder.

        But it is required to be a condition. Without malice aforethought, it is killing, but not murder. But this does allow us to return the the idiot with a pacemaker that ratted him out. His intent was to claim insurance money. Fair enough. But the only way he could see to do that was to burn his house down. So we might think, insurance money primary intent, fire was not, so double effect says it's legit?

          No. More specifically, the secondary effect has to be not only not intended, but not a necessary means to the primary end. It has to be foreseeable and unavoidable, but cannot be instrumental. Killing someone is not the only means to stop someone or to subdue or disable them, so even if a death results, it must be more or less accidental, not intentional or instrumental. So if our pacemaker guy says his intention was to get the insurance money, but he did not intend to set fire to the house, this is not even believable. If someone like the French soldier says he shot the attacker to stop him, but did not intend to kill (whether the guy dies or not), that is the proper use of (potentially) deadly force.

        You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. The obvious rebuttal is that you intended an action that has death of another person as a very likely consequence. That's intent to kill by definition.

        Late enough in the day, the sun is over the yardarm, to start drinking, I guess. Except as usual your rebuttal is neither obvious nor a rebuttal. Not just me saying it. And your grasp of definitions is as quixotic as ever. Lots of actions have death of another as a consequence where the death is not intended. Most often that if because it is not foreseen. And sometimes because it is a candidate for a Darwin Award! Even where the consequence is foreseen, that does not mean that it was intended, it could have just been unavoidable. Remember all those submarine movie scenes where the guy has to shut the hatch to the flooding section, with his shipmates still inside, because if he didn't the whole boat would go down and everyone would die? Did he intend to kill those guys?

          Are all the Americans in the Basket of Deplorables such stone-cold killers? Is your whole country a nation of potential murderers, just waiting for the chance to stand them some ground? I seriously worry about the USA lately.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:56AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:56AM (#462990) Journal
          Ok, interesting post, but not relevant. And I see you're stooping to the implication that I don't "comprehend" your claims. I disagree therefore I must not know somehow, even if you can't understand how I don't know. I'd say rather that you have some weird mental block against "intent to kill".

          Killing someone is not the only means to stop someone or to subdue or disable them, so even if a death results, it must be more or less accidental, not intentional or instrumental.

          Unless, of course, it is the only means to stop someone. Death by deliberately putting bullets into an opponent's center of mass never is accidental. And this is irrelevant even when true to my earlier observations.

          Lots of actions have death of another as a consequence where the death is not intended.

          And yet, we're not speaking of those actions. Instead, we're speaking of actions where the intent is to stop someone - by killing them with lethal force.

          A peculiar consequence of your logic is that it creates unnecessary obligations on the part of the person engaging in self-defense. Not only do I have to act in the right way while making split second decisions, I have to have the right mindset. So even if at a high level, it is a somewhat more rational approach to killing people in self-defense, it still has the problem that most people simply aren't up to deciding on the moment what level of force is appropriate to "stop" a person or to think purely in terms of "stopping" people.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:02AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:02AM (#462996) Journal

            I disagree therefore I must not know somehow, even if you can't understand how I don't know. I'd say rather that you have some weird mental block against "intent to kill".

            I am curious, khallow, what makes you think that I don't know how it is that you do not understand what I am saying? I would think it is pretty obvious to the causal observer. You are not disagreeing because you understand the point. Sometimes, I think you just like to argue, and so I try to get through your thick skull, but only because it is such a challenge.

              I have seen many libertarians like this. Faced with a devastating rebuttal of their ideology (vastly different from an "obvious rebuttal", obviously), the libertarian will just go back to the beginning, like Vizzini said to do, and just repeat their ideology as if repetition could produce truth and reason. Oh, well.

            A peculiar consequence of your logic is that it creates unnecessary obligations on the part of the person engaging in self-defense.

            I certainly hope so! Nothing scares me more than all these cowardly concealed carry people who are just looking to justify their trouble and expense by actually defending their self with a firearm! I think that they are usually like this because they fear something or someone: terrorists, Muslims!, Black lives! Yes, they are stupid, fearful, petty racist scum! Now if we lighten the burden on the defender to not have an intent to kill, it is very easy for these folks to slide right on over into George Zimmerman ground, where they create a situation where they think they have to kill, or perhaps they decide that pre-emptive killing is the best defense? No, these people are murderers, if your intent is to kill, then it is not self-defense. What we might want to agree on here is that under duress, the obligation to intend not to kill is considerably lessened. But that does not turn it into its opposite.

              One way I know that you do not just disagree, khallow, is that there is considerable literature on literature on these topics, both legal and philosophical, none of which you would appear to be familiar with. I would recommend both Cicero's Pro Milone and St. Augustine's De libero arbitrio (On Free Choice of the Will, Book 1, Ch. 5) to start.

            I enjoy our little talks, khallow, truly I do!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:34AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:34AM (#463005)

              -20 arrogant son of a bitch

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:53AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @03:53AM (#463012)

                I am matching your AC posts point for point, khallow. I know you are really butthurt about loosing another debate. But I am also quite hurt! Did you ever stop to consider my feelings? You only mod-bombed me with 4 out of your daily allotment of 5 mod points! Are you serious, or what? Now stop being so foolish and arrogant to enter into a battle of wits against an actual philosopher. It is not pleasant to even watch as a gladitorial sport. (the REAL aristarchus)

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:21AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:21AM (#463043) Journal
                  I rarely post AC and only when posting jokes so bad and tasteless, I don't want potential employers ever figuring out it was me. I don't think I've posted AC last year, but I might have. The joke would be awful.

                  You only mod-bombed me with 4 out of your daily allotment of 5 mod points!

                  I rarely mod and when I do, it's always an up mod.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:39AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:39AM (#463085)

                    I rarely post AC

                    Funny, jmorris just recently claimed the same thing! Hmmm. . . .

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:43AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @11:43AM (#463088)

                AC, how do you distinguish arrogance from actual knowledge? Just curious. Is it only aristarchus's style, and you are saying he knows what he is talking about, or something else? Are you saying his position is wrong, or just that you don't like how he says it?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 05 2017, @05:35AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 05 2017, @05:35AM (#463028) Journal

              I am curious, khallow, what makes you think that I don't know how it is that you do not understand what I am saying?

              That's how you approach way too many arguments, and not just with me. It becomes how others supposedly don't understand your arguments rather than a rational discussion of your arguments.

              You are not disagreeing because you understand the point.

              No, I'm disagreeing because it is obviously false from first principles. Remember this whole series of posts started merely because you claimed intent to kill wasn't intent to kill.

              I have seen many libertarians like this. Faced with a devastating rebuttal of their ideology (vastly different from an "obvious rebuttal", obviously), the libertarian will just go back to the beginning, like Vizzini said to do, and just repeat their ideology as if repetition could produce truth and reason. Oh, well.

              Really, that's the excuse you're going to make? Well, I guess it's pretty good for a non sequitur. I think however, I'd take you more seriously, if you didn't have so many awful fallacies running through your posts. Sure, one can argue valid points even while uttering many fallacies, but that does tend to be a strong indication of not thinking things through.

              One way I know that you do not just disagree, khallow, is that there is considerable literature on literature on these topics, both legal and philosophical, none of which you would appear to be familiar with. I would recommend both Cicero's Pro Milone and St. Augustine's De libero arbitrio (On Free Choice of the Will, Book 1, Ch. 5) to start.

              Ok, I'll bite. What would that "considerable literature" be either relevant or interesting? This looks a lot like an appeal to authority fallacy. Existing literature doesn't fix gaps in your reasoning. I doubt Cicero thought "That aristarchus chap is going to have trouble with his self-defense arguments again in oh, a couple of millennia. I better help the poor boy out."

              Let us remember that your argument [soylentnews.org] boils down to:

              Simple statement, if they intend to kill, they are murderers.

              And that in turn is based on erroneous definitions of "intent to kill" and murder. To me, this is not about libertarianism. This is not about what ancient philosophers I haven't read. This is a simple semantics failure that can readily be corrected by adopting better definitions of the two terms.

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday February 05 2017, @08:18AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday February 05 2017, @08:18AM (#463060) Journal

                And I thought we were done! I will try again, khallow, but you should know I would not do this for anyone else. Confucius says,

                子 曰 : 「 不 憤 不 啟 , 不 悱 不 發 , 舉 一 隅 不 以 三 隅 反 , 則 不 復 也 . 」

                Francis can probably translate for you.

                It becomes how others supposedly don't understand your arguments rather than a rational discussion of your arguments.

                Actually, it is mostly with you. Runaway wouldn't know an argument if it bit him on the ass when he was in the outhouse. jmorris, well, jmorris is on the SJW watchlist. We don't talk about him anymore. Eth? Argument? No point. frojack had some promise, but is too smooth of an operator to fall into the traps/tarbabies you do. No, khallow, you actually have to understand an argument before we can enter into a rational discussion of it. At this is why you fail.

                Simple statement, if they intend to kill, they are murderers.

                And that in turn is based on erroneous definitions of "intent to kill" and murder. To me, this is not about libertarianism. This is not about what ancient philosophers I haven't read. This is a simple semantics failure that can readily be corrected by adopting better definitions of the two terms.

                Which two terms, khallow? Perhaps I am misunderestimating your malfunction. My point is that if you, or anyone like you, or anyone, intends to kill another human being, that is murder. If it is not murder, that is because we define murder as killing a human, and those we decide to not consider human cannot be murdered? Oh, Tom Sawyer, I believe, related a boiler explosion on a Mississippi steamboat, and when his aunt asked, "Was anyone hurt?", he said: "No, killed a nigger, though." Of course, that is racist, and though it has a long history in America (Smithsonian expeditions to collect native American skulls?), it is wrong. So, any intended killing of a human, whatever the motivation, whether it be money, hatred, serial-killer reasons, all wrong, all murder.

                    Unless, as St. Augustine said, and as you would know if you had read him and obviously (no rebuttal necessary) you have not, you are a authorized officer of the state. But even then, and this is the point, the police do not have authority to execute anyone! They only have the authority to apprehend, and then remand the "suspect" over to a court of law. Now if the court, in the few remaining countries who do not think that the death penalty is an abomination (both Wyoming and Montana still have the death penalty, do they not, khallow?) determines that the just punishment for the crime is death, then the executioner can legitimately intend the death of the criminal. How do we know? My God, khallow, even here we err on the side of life! If an execution goes awry (except in Texas, of course), it is the will of God, and we have to reprieve the convict.

                    Now to the other exception to our rule, that intending to kill people is wrong. Euthanasia. Most of the world, especially the west and Runaway2000, are ambivalent about this one. But if it is permissible to end suffering, by the touch of grace, the "coup de grâce" then it would be permissible to intend to kill. But that is hardly ever the case in law enforcement or war, unless, like the Conquistadors, you think it is an act of mercy to kill the pagans (and libertarians), instead of letting them persist in their heresy? No, neither of these conditions apply to a situation of self-defense, except for racists or Crusaders. And fuch them.

                Ok, I'll bite. What would that "considerable literature" be either relevant or interesting? This looks a lot like an appeal to authority fallacy.

                Oh, shit, khallow! Do you think you are Milo Youwantobeallupinmyassious? You are taking on the entire cultural history of the planet, and putting your paltry opinion up against it? Who is arrogant? Who is the Poseur? You have no idea of the powers you are dealing with! The appeal to authority fallacy is only a fallacy if the authority to which you are appealing has no more knowledge of the pertinant matter than you do, and this is exactly what you so when you insist that your uninformed pleblian opinion is equal to those who have actually acquired some expertise on the topic. You are wrong, khallow! Everyone who knows anything about the topic says you are wrong. If you intentionally kill another human being, even if it was originally a situation of self-defense, you commit murder.

                Thank you, khallow, for your comments on this topic. I still think we are off-topic for this thread, but there is something to be learned. Intending to kill is murder. I may point out a case you may be familiar with, the asshole in Missoula? He set a trap by intentionally leaving his garage door slightly open, when he knew there was a rash of college students stealing beer from garages in his neighborhood, and he intentionally killed a German exchange student. He is is prison now, because he intended to kill. An this was a just sentence. He was a murderer, even though he though of himself as a self-defender. Does this make sense to you now?

                    OK, one more scenario: I see khallow, and he sees me. For some reason, khallow thinks that I am posing an existential threat to him. I do't know why. Perhaps I am a young black dude. Maybe I am wearing a hoodie? Did you see the flash of a crescent moon on my chest? Or, I am a woman. Whatever the reason, khallow reaches for iron. I, of course, immediately shoot him dead. Why? Because obviously he was the criminal, he drew first. (OMG, a whole bunch of cowboy, "shoot out at high noon" just popped up in my mind!) But that would be wrong, since it would be wrong to kill khallow (other considerations aside right now) just because he was defending himself from what he thought was a lethal threat. Of course, he was posing a lethal threat to me, so I can KILL the motherfucker because, yes, already, you see where this is going.

                A lethal force response to a lethal force threat is always justified? If you are trying to kill me, I can kill you right back? Well, you better hope, khallow, that you are faster on the draw! But this does involve us in a infinite regression, one of those things that Aristotle hated. If you intend my death, I can intend your death. But since I intend your death, you can in return intend my death! So what is the result of this ammosexual mutual death-fest scenario? Yes, everyone is dead, and it is all justifiable. Which side are you on, khallow?

                No, khallow, once again you are well out of your area of expertise, and arguing with a 2400 year old philosopher only to keep him entertained. I only continue for your sake. I want you to survive our shoot-out at high noon, because that would solve nothing as regards the issue at hand. If you want to mod bomb me, attack me with a flying monkey squad of AC posts, and in general avoid the argument, I understand that. Typical response of an internet troll. But I have always thought of you as something more. Don't disappoint me, please actually read Pro Milone [thelatinlibrary.com], but, oh, you probably need a translation? Perseus [tufts.edu] is always a good resource for classical texts. Cicero's argument in his defense of Milo is the locus classicus for arguments of self defense. And you think I am just referring you to Roman lawyers to show up your ignorance? Maybe, since you certainly are ignorant, but the citation is meant to remedy that ignorance. You cannot say, khallow, that I never did anything for you!

                So, to all the ammosexuals here on SoylentNews, I just want to say, if you intend to kill, you are a murder. Straight up, no weaseling. Murder. If you are an authorized officer of the law, and you have to use lethal force in the performance of your duties, you have both my gratitude and my sympathy. No one should ever have to make that choice, ideally. But if you are a cop, a soldier, a khallow, and you intentionally cause the death of a fellow human being, when unintentionally would have been perfectly acceptable, you are an enemy of humanity. Simple, eh? No wonder so many of the American Veterans from the Bush Wars in the Middle East have committed suicide. Not easy to live with being a murderer, even if your country told you to be one.

                Ok, khallow, time to again put up. Can you produce any law, any philosophical argument, any vaguely rational argument, to support your position? Or is it only "your opinion"? I will meet you opinion at High Noon, Park Headquarters, Mammoth Hotsprings Green, on or about June 16th. Bring a second, and a medic. You have been served.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 06 2017, @02:20PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 06 2017, @02:20PM (#463420) Journal

                  My point is that if you, or anyone like you, or anyone, intends to kill another human being, that is murder.

                  And I've already shown how that assertion is wrong. Please fix.

                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday February 06 2017, @04:23PM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 06 2017, @04:23PM (#463482) Journal
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 10 2017, @04:53AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 10 2017, @04:53AM (#465402) Journal
                      Ok, so what's the point? The soldiers of that story were shooting with intent to kill. Then when circumstances changed, they changed their minds and resulting behavior as well. It's a straightforward example of how self-defense can involve intent to kill.
                      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 10 2017, @05:37AM

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday February 10 2017, @05:37AM (#465408) Journal

                        I am gradually developing an intent to kill, khallow. Just today, I find out, you are a Coloradian? Do you not realize that is a Californicator once removed? You are on ground that I might just stand on.

                        Then when circumstances changed, they changed their minds and resulting behavior as well.

                        No, the behavior was the same, the deployment of lethal force. How are you so dense, khallow? The intent to use deadly force, unless it is "certain death deadly force", is not the same as the intent to kill. And even if it is "certain death deadly force", the intent is not necessarily to kill. You evidently did not grok my submarine example, and obviously, as a rebuttal, you are incapable of comprehending what spook_brat said: the soldiers did not intend to kill the attacker. The intended to stop him. Now intending to stop someone in a situation like this can mean that you use lethal force, and using lethal force could mean that you kill him. But this guy didn't die (yet, any breaking news?), and the soldiers were glad (or they should be if they are not total stone cold sociopathic killers like you an Runaway1234 appear to be) that their use of lethal force was not lethal. Which suggests, to those of us who are not arguing from the benighted position of Libertardian Racism, that they in fact did not intend to kill. They only intended to stop.

                        So, you cowardly Coloradian, suppose that you, as Coloradians often do, sneak up on me with the intent to kill me and take all my stuff. I have some very nice stuff! But, I hear you coming, see your murderous intent, and I shoot you down like the cowardly dog that you are! In the West, we have no sympathy for bushwackers or dry-gulchers! So, there you are, shot through the shoulder, your shooting arm paralyzed, loosing copious amounts of blood. But, you know, you are not dead! If my intent was not to stop you, but to kill you, at this point I would put one through your skull, since no one who attacks aristarchus deserves to live, right? No, that would be wrong of me. You no longer pose a threat (and in fact, on the intellectual level, you never did), and so further hostilities toward you are unjust. I should do as the French soldiers did, apply first aid, call for help, and get you to a hospital, you anti-social violent libertarian piece of shit!

                        So that's it, until you try to draw this out even more due to your lack of understanding and education. Can't let it go, can you. Should we talk about Marxism and Backhoes some more?

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:02PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 11 2017, @02:02PM (#465766) Journal

                          I am gradually developing an intent to kill, khallow. Just today, I find out, you are a Coloradian? Do you not realize that is a Californicator once removed? You are on ground that I might just stand on.

                          I was in California before that. The plague is spreading.

                          Then when circumstances changed, they changed their minds and resulting behavior as well.

                          No, the behavior was the same, the deployment of lethal force.

                          "Deployment"? The obvious rebuttal here is a huge difference between deploying lethal force and using that deployed force to shoot someone. I didn't say that all exercises of self-defense required intent to kill. I merely noted that when you try to kill someone in an act of self-defense, then it is an example of intent to kill which is not murder.

                          The intent to use deadly force, unless it is "certain death deadly force", is not the same as the intent to kill.

                          The obvious rebuttal is that the certainty of the deadly force is not part of intent to kill. Most modes of killing are uncertain, such as shooting someone who is actively trying not to die. It's still intent to kill even if you got in a lucky shot.

                          You evidently did not grok my submarine example, and obviously, as a rebuttal, you are incapable of comprehending what spook_brat said: the soldiers did not intend to kill the attacker.

                          The obvious rebuttal is that if the soldiers didn't intend to kill the attacker, then they wouldn't have tried to kill him with lethal force.

                          If my intent was not to stop you, but to kill you, at this point

                          The key phrase is "at this point". A few seconds earlier there was intent to kill.

                          And what happens should I with murderous intent drunkenly fire a shot wide into the wall of the bar, glare at you with my beady, blood-shot eyes and bellow "HEY! YOU AIN'T ETHANOL-FUELED! HE OWES ME THREE DOLLARS!" and then go back to my boozing and losing at cards, does that mean that my prior murderous intent no longer existed because circumstances changed?

                          But this guy didn't die (yet, any breaking news?), and the soldiers were glad (or they should be if they are not total stone cold sociopathic killers like you an Runaway1234 appear to be) that their use of lethal force was not lethal. Which suggests, to those of us who are not arguing from the benighted position of Libertardian Racism, that they in fact did not intend to kill.

                          Why does it suggest that intent to kill didn't exist? The soldiers knew what guns do. They used said guns to shoot someone in a way that would kill that person.

                          So that's it, until you try to draw this out even more due to your lack of understanding and education. Can't let it go, can you. Should we talk about Marxism and Backhoes some more?

                          Your error is not my lack of education.

                          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 11 2017, @07:46PM

                            by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 11 2017, @07:46PM (#465860) Journal

                            Your error is not my lack of education.

                            Possibly. But your lack of education is not my error. It is yours alone.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @05:20AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @05:20AM (#466456) Journal
                              If you ever want to talk about the subject rather than imaginary lack of education some time, feel free to do so. I'll point out here that you have had plenty of posting opportunities to present such an education. We aren't after all talking about a sophisticated topic here, but the definition of a phrase.

                              The problem is that words have meaning. And "intent to kill" is pretty clear what it means: deliberately engage in activities you know have a high likelihood of killing people. As you've agreed in the past, it doesn't matter if there are other goals at hand. Intent to kill holds every time someone intends to perform any action with a high likelihood of death for others particularly IMHO when the more successful the action is, the higher the likelihood of death. Your various examples show this, whether it be the shooting at the Louvre or your example of the submarine (where one deliberately kills others to save others).

                              What's particularly bizarre is that you already have established [soylentnews.org] exceptions to your absolute claim " if they intend to kill, they are murderers". Well, Buttercup, self-defense is just another exception.

                              And really, there's nothing more to this thread than that. There is no libertarian agenda furthered by how we choose to interpret "intent to kill".
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @05:46AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @05:46AM (#466463) Journal

                  子 曰 : 「 不 憤 不 啟 , 不 悱 不 發 , 舉 一 隅 不 以 三 隅 反 , 則 不 復 也 . 」

                  Francis can probably translate for you.

                  I missed this piece of shit. You probably could translate that for me too. Fuck off, if you're too busy playing language dominance games to make an argument that a SN reader who knows English can understand.

                  Which two terms, khallow? Perhaps I am misunderestimating your malfunction. My point is that if you, or anyone like you, or anyone, intends to kill another human being, that is murder.

                  And you already allowed (even on the very next few paragraphs no less) that execution and euthanasia can be exceptions to that point. I merely noted that self-defense is another exception.

                  Oh, Tom Sawyer, I believe, related a boiler explosion on a Mississippi steamboat, and when his aunt asked, "Was anyone hurt?", he said: "No, killed a nigger, though." Of course, that is racist, and though it has a long history in America (Smithsonian expeditions to collect native American skulls?), it is wrong. So, any intended killing of a human, whatever the motivation, whether it be money, hatred, serial-killer reasons, all wrong, all murder.

                  I guess you better not reason that way then, if you dislike it so much. I'll also note that Tom Sawyer was fictional and I'm no Tom Sawyer. But even if we look at real world people who had a casual attitude about killing people, those people aren't me. Their opinions are thus quite irrelevant to any point you think you're trying to make here.

                  Unless, as St. Augustine said, and as you would know if you had read him and obviously (no rebuttal necessary) you have not, you are a authorized officer of the state. But even then, and this is the point, the police do not have authority to execute anyone! They only have the authority to apprehend, and then remand the "suspect" over to a court of law. Now if the court, in the few remaining countries who do not think that the death penalty is an abomination (both Wyoming and Montana still have the death penalty, do they not, khallow?) determines that the just punishment for the crime is death, then the executioner can legitimately intend the death of the criminal. How do we know? My God, khallow, even here we err on the side of life! If an execution goes awry (except in Texas, of course), it is the will of God, and we have to reprieve the convict.

                  Another sign that your reasoning is all fucked up. This is again quite irrelevant to the claim at hand, since one doesn't need to be either an authorized officer of the state or a court of law in order to defend oneself from harm.

                  Now to the other exception to our rule, that intending to kill people is wrong. Euthanasia. Most of the world, especially the west and Runaway2000, are ambivalent about this one. But if it is permissible to end suffering, by the touch of grace, the "coup de grâce" then it would be permissible to intend to kill. But that is hardly ever the case in law enforcement or war, unless, like the Conquistadors, you think it is an act of mercy to kill the pagans (and libertarians), instead of letting them persist in their heresy? No, neither of these conditions apply to a situation of self-defense, except for racists or Crusaders. And fuch them.

                  Ok, so you brought up a couple of practices, spewed some ignorant tripe, and then say it's irrelevant to our discussion? Ok then. I want my 40 seconds of life back.

                  Ok, I'll bite. What would that "considerable literature" be either relevant or interesting? This looks a lot like an appeal to authority fallacy. Oh, shit, khallow! Do you think you are Milo Youwantobeallupinmyassious? You are taking on the entire cultural history of the planet, and putting your paltry opinion up against it? Who is arrogant? Who is the Poseur? You have no idea of the powers you are dealing with! The appeal to authority fallacy is only a fallacy if the authority to which you are appealing has no more knowledge of the pertinant matter than you do, and this is exactly what you so when you insist that your uninformed pleblian opinion is equal to those who have actually acquired some expertise on the topic. You are wrong, khallow! Everyone who knows anything about the topic says you are wrong. If you intentionally kill another human being, even if it was originally a situation of self-defense, you commit murder.

                  The appeal to authority continues. I see my trust in your ability to explain yourself was once again completely unwarranted. If you can't do it without appealing to St. Augustine and others, then you can't explain it. Let the grownups talk.

                  So, to all the ammosexuals here on SoylentNews, I just want to say, if you intend to kill, you are a murder.

                  Except of course, for the exceptions of execution and euthanasia which you've already granted in this very post. You can say whatever you want, but you are wrong by your own arguments. Consistency is essential to philosophy and you fail hard here - as usual, I might add.

                  This discussion was really over some time ago. But it is interesting to poke over the various flaws, inconsistencies, and rhetorical fallacies you bring to the table. I wonder if it will ever be possible for you to make a decent, rational argument?

                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 13 2017, @06:03AM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 13 2017, @06:03AM (#466467) Journal

                    The obvious rebuttal is that you have had too much to drink, khallow. Go to bed. Things will seem better in the morning, after your head stops hurting. Let it go, khallow, let it go.