SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Friday February 03 2017, @10:52AM
from the you-have-no-privacy;-get-over-it dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Arsonist's Pacemaker Rats Him Out; Police Subpoenaed Logs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 55 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Operator, please trace this call and tell me where I am.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 05 2017, @05:35AM
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
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
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
https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?sid=17809&cid=462619#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 10 2017, @04:53AM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 10 2017, @05:37AM
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
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
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
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
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
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.