Prohibition Laws

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

The defense of self-defense in the US is complicated. In general, you can only answer with deadly force (guns, knives) if you are faced with deadly force (normally guns/knives, but possibly large fists if you are small and female - it's a "reasonable fear" test). As well, you typically must retreat if possible to avoid using deadly force. In the home, in most states, deadly force is allowed, as the fear of harm you will have is increased. Some states still require you to retreat if in the home (e.g. Massachusetts)- this is an issue that is being examined in this season's The Practice, BTW.

If they are robbing your house then probably no one saw them come in, so who is to say they were ever there in the first place? If you blow away Jethro the crack head while he is attemting to rob your home and them bury him in your yard who will even come looking for him? What will they tell the cops? Maybe something like "Jethro went to rob a house up the road and never came back",I am SO sure the cops would investage something like that, NOT!!

[Epona]

As a scooterist, one of these issues affects me directly - it is mandatory in the UK to wear a crash helmet when on a 2-wheeled motor vehicle.

OK, I can see the arguement that it should be my choice as to whether I want to get myself killed or not. BUT - as Aelia pointed out, it is not just ME being protected by my having, by law, to wear a crash helmet.

Suppose you were walking along the pavement with your child, and I crashed nearby, in the process splattering your child with bits of my brain, splinters of skull, and covering you both in blood because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Would you think that I was the only loser in that arrangement? Do you not think that your child would be damaged by seeing such a thing?

Another point. What about (again as Aelia pointed out) the people who have to come along and clear up bits of me off the road? Does it not affect them whether I am wearing a helmet and able to walk away after a spill? What about the people in cars who are being delayed by the road closure where the police investigate how I died and have my corpse removed?

What about the driver who has my brains in his lap because I wasn't wearing a helmet when he hit me and I went through the windscreen?

What about the taxpayers (as in the UK we have public funded healthcare) who are paying for intensive hospital care while I am in a coma or suffering from head injuries which I may not have had if I were wearing a helmet?

Thinking that the stupidity of one person does not impact on anyone else is ridiculous and shortsighted.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Epona: Thinking that the stupidity of one person does not impact on anyone else is ridiculous and shortsighted.

So true, and beyond the most important part of laws to this effect which is saving lives, is the long term repercussions.

Suppose, by not wearing a helmet, someone is permanently disabled and left unable to support themselves. Who has to take care of this person for the rest of their life? Society. As such, society should have a say in matters that effect them. Especially, when you consider that most of the serious injuries in accidents like this are head injuries. Accidents that could be "walked away" from, if the person in question were wearing a helmet.

Seat belts can actually prevent some accidents and stop others from becoming more serious! By holding you in your seat during an incident, it's possible to maintain some control of your vehicle. Maybe long enough to recover complete control.

[Timber Loftis]

Ronn Bman and Epona:

Yes, as I said the collateral effects are part of the justification for these laws. Such as the need for society to support those who are seriously wounded and disabled. That I agree with.

But, Epona, the driver and little girl with bits of brains on their clothes represent *emotional* damage. You gotta be careful here. If we interpret the general notion of "my yes's end at your no's" (a.k.a. we should not harm others) to include *emotional* harm things will certainly spiral out of control. Quite simply we absolutely cannot outlaw all things that might hurt someone else's feelings.

For emotional damage, I am of the complete belief that the sole recovery source should be civil law - i.e. tort suits. And there are common law tort remedies: such as "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "negligent infliction of emotional distress." You should note that even these claims are hard to prove and difficult to win - they, shall we say, higly suspect.

[ 10-10-2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[RevRuby]

timber loftis, you asked how to reinstitute family values-on a nationwide level i have no idea. i can only do it with my family. fostering/adopting kids is important, and if we ever have the money to do it i'd like to. but unfortunately there is no way to make all the non-exsisten parents wake up. for somethis is good. my oldest doesn't need her biological father around, nathan is the only daddy she needs. if the other showed up life would be hell. but for others..... as far as gene slipping through cracks, and kids like him, i can't help them more than being a friend, and now that i'm an adult i don;t see kids like him much anymore. iw ish i still had contact with him. i want so bad to make sure he's ok, but i have no way of finding him. the darwin theory is great, but so are some of the ppl (children mostly) on which it exhibits itself. like i said, i have no way to solve it on a national level. not even on a small communal level. i can only teach my kids the values needed to survive, and hope they take them to heart.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But, Epona, the driver and little girl with bits of brains on their clothes represent *emotional* damage. You gotta be careful here. If we interpret the general notion of "my yes's end at your no's" (a.k.a. we should not harm others) to include *emotional* harm things will certainly spiral out of control. Quite simply we absolutely cannot outlaw all things that might hurt someone else's feelings.

Just outlaw people hurting themselves or others physically(Possibly excluding euthanasia.), then you'll have outlawed a lot of causes for emotional harm with good reason. Then outlaw the destruction or theft of the property of others. Next, outlaw lawsuits that are obviously stupid, prevent them from even getting so far that a skilled lawyer can twist the truth and the law to make them succeed.

At that point you will, in my opinion, have outlawed most causes of emotional and physical harm, thereby making society a better place.

Oh yeah, and as drugs are basically poison, and you're not allowed to harm yourself. They'll be outlawed as well. So if you mess around with them and get hurt, your own fault, you're the one that gets fried.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But, Epona, the driver and little girl with bits of brains on their clothes represent *emotional* damage. You gotta be careful here. If we interpret the general notion of "my yes's end at your no's" (a.k.a. we should not harm others) to include *emotional* harm things will certainly spiral out of control. Quite simply we absolutely cannot outlaw all things that might hurt someone else's feelings.

Just outlaw people hurting themselves or others physically(Possibly excluding euthanasia.), then you'll have outlawed a lot of causes for emotional harm with good reason. Then outlaw the destruction or theft of the property of others. Next, outlaw lawsuits that are obviously stupid, prevent them from even getting so far that a skilled lawyer can twist the truth and the law to make them succeed.

At that point you will, in my opinion, have outlawed most causes of emotional and physical harm, thereby making society a better place.

Oh yeah, and as drugs are basically poison, and you're not allowed to harm yourself. They'll be outlawed as well. So if you mess around with them and get hurt, your own fault, you're the one that gets fried.[/QUOTE]An aquaintance of mine (roommate of a friend I played D&D with) attempted suicide, they were able to save him, but he now has it as a felony on his record, what was he thinking at the time, I have no clue, other than he'd just broken up with a girlfriend, but now he has that on his record precluding him from finding meaningful work, somewhere other than flipping burgers, a few exceptions of course, but not many for him. How has making laws to prevent harming yourself helped him? as far as I can see he is going to be punished for the rest of his life because of a stupid mistake he made after a girl broke his heart, I don't see how big brother laws can help people as a whole (at least to the extent you're advocating, yes seatbelts save lives and making it a law helps some people decide to use them) and legislature prohibitting frivolous lawsuits... ok, so what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit, and how do you word a law that encompasses all possible human stupidity and outlaws lawsuits based on it? I'm willing to listen to your answer, but what you're proposing isn't feasible.

[ 10-10-2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, but if you buy into the notion that you own yourself, you should not be prevented, IMHO, from harming yourself. Just so long as ONLY YOU bear the cost of the harm you do to yourself.

[Timber Loftis]

legislature prohibitting frivolous lawsuits... ok, so what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit, and how do you word a law that encompasses all possible human stupidity and outlaws lawsuits based on it? I'm willing to listen to your answer, but what you're proposing isn't feasible.[/QB]

Simple. If I'm the one who brought it, it's *not* frivolous. If anyone brought it against my client, it *is* frivolous. This is one of the few things that I'm crystal clear about.

On the serious side, though, it is very difficult to show a lawsuit is frivolous. The few cases generally involve situations where a statute has specified that a suit of a certain type is frivolous. For example, asking for punitive damages in a contract case - often (but not always) frivolous.