[flagged]
I am not familiar with the case under discussion, but surely there is no legitimate advancing that one should be tame in front of danger (as in "bending as they are armed").
In other words, to disambiguate: an example about prudence proportionate to danger cannot be simply exported to social life.
Hmm. I see.
My personal recommendation is that you at least few videos before commenting then. It may make you reconsider your support of this particular 'cause'.
And again, your argument is illogical: you can say exactly the same about the ICE agent (they did not acted carefully enough). Why is the victim guilty of not have considered the aggressor as unhinged, and the aggressor not guilty of avoiding the situation that they use to justify their behavior.
Because the 'aggressor' is not aggressor, but a governmental employee mandated to be violent when necessary AND we do have a verb ( and corresponding crime ) for people who choose to stand in the way of such an employee: obstruction of justice ( edit: replaced duty -- other thread was on my mind ).
Your whole world is mildly warped, because you think you can simply apply victim/perpetrator filter to make the whole concept somehow flip. But reality does not work that way.
You were saying that the onus is on her for putting herself in a situation where she should expect to be shoot. But by your own admission, even if we accept that what she has done properly constitute obstruction of duty (which I doubt is the case, and at best is highly arguable) she was putting herself in a situation where she should never be in any real danger.
But again, you did not answer: she was at the wrong time at the wrong place, she did not go out of her way to be in this situation. Pretending that she "looked for it" is just twisting the facts.
> Your whole world is mildly warped, because you think you can simply apply victim/perpetrator filter to make the whole concept somehow flip. But reality does not work that way.
No, your "whole concept" is just highly subjective. You decided that "the onus is on her" because you decided that when she has responsibility over the fact that the ICE agent was unhinged, while the ICE agent had zero responsibility on the fact that she might be unhinged.
Ok. I think we got to stop for one simple reason. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Just a short overview for you and the -- apparent -- audience:
While it is possible for obstruction to be small enough that it will not matter, it can easily move to felony with actual punishment also highly dependent on specifics of a given case. Therefore, your assertion is, at best, your opinion.
That said, my point stands. Had she not been in US illegally none of this would have transpired including this ridiculous conversation.
When it involves weapons, evidence tampering or higher crime, which is clearly not the case here.
> Had she not been in US illegally none of this would have transpired including this ridiculous conversation.
What are you talking about? Who was illegally in US? I thought we were talking about Renee Good, who was a US citizen, was never a migrant (even legal), and dropped her son 7 minutes ago and was on her way home.
'Guy' in the anglosphere is often para-gender (e.g. Australia).
> nonsense
Unfortunately, that is not the telling difference between LLMs and human specimens...
> I thought
Ooooh finally, I have been insisting in a handful of replies to the poster "what (case) /exactly/ are we talking about". Is this confirmed, poster?!
> at least few videos
Sure, but I objected to the general principle: prudence has a limit - the value of one's life has limits. Justice comes before life, Dignity comes before life, etc.
No. Most of the stuff out there. I am already wasting time on HN. I won't also google this stuff for you ( or w/e equivalent you use ).
<< Sure, but I objected to the general principle:
That is reasonable objection, but absolutely not how actual cases work. Minute details matter in how they contribute to a given defense. And it seems you know this.
<< the value of one's life has limits
Sadly, it seems in US it is even quantified.
<< Justice comes before life,
Justice. I hate to go all HS on you, but.. what does justice mean to you.
I cannot understand how you cannot understand. ___Which___, of the many cases I may have heard of, is the one you are talking about.
> not how actual cases work ... And it seems you know this
Yes. But within general principles, you cannot present a principle of prudence as primary when it is suggested that others may be at play. It is a true statement that prudence does not override other factors. If we went into details still within the general principles, if a suggestion were made about "power as would-be giving more freedom", it required a strong rebuttal - very much not (power to potentially exercise violence does not confer a legitimacy for further freedom). In actual cases, discrimination in judgement is required - but that will happen in front of actual cases.
> I hate to go all HS on you, but.. what does justice mean to you
What is "HS"? "Hismajesty Socrates the maieutist"?!
Within what I said earlier, "you do what you have to do". Do it prudently, reason it properly within the constraints you are given, but if it is what you have to do you do it (not "but going away is safer"). (Still the general principles.)
But second, your example is moving the goal post. You started by saying "the onus on her". Then you say "when I'm next to my family member that has a gun, I'm almost automatically more careful". But the onus is on your family member. Are you seriously saying that if your family member would shoot you, you will agree that the main responsibility is on you?
And where do you put the bar? Does it mean that if I carry a gun, people should be extra careful next to me and please all of my requests, because it is "on them" if somehow I get angry and shoot them?
This line of reasoning is just so bad. It is "unfalsifiable": you can use this argument anyway you want to blame any people in the situation. Why did you not say "well, the ICE agent should have known that this woman may be dangerous, so he should not have acted in a way that led to increased tension, the onus is on him". And if the ICE agent would have been the victim, would you have said "the onus is on him" for not having been more careful?
I am, admittedly, a simple man. I do not put myself in dangerous situations unnecessarily or, at least, go out of my way to avoid them. Blame may be shared, but it really is on me to assess a risk of any given moment. I admit that it must be nice thinking everyone else is responsible for me. However, that is simply not true.
<< you can use this argument anyway you want to blame any people in the situation.
You make me sound smarter than I am, but, really, you are just misunderstanding the argument ( not sure if on purpose or not ).
<< The main point is that she did not put herself voluntary in a dangerous situation.
You know what. I am all ears. I may simply be wrong. Present your evidence of the case as you see it.
Which is quite a move from "the onus is on you".
> but it really is on me to assess a risk of any given moment
Yes. And the situation we are talking about should clearly not be a situation that should be assessed as "life threatening". By your own admission, she put herself in a minor offense, not something that should be life-threatening. And the fact that the ICE agents carried guns does not justify that one should consider that any interaction with them means that they are putting themselves in life threatening situation.
> I admit that it must be nice thinking everyone else is responsible for me
Well, you are litterally the one here saying that the ICE agent should think everyone else is responsible for them.
No one else does that. I fully agree that people share some responsibilities in the situation they put themselves into. Where we disagree is when you are saying "the onus is on her". No, the onus is not on her: she put herself in a situation that should NOT be something that should be assessed as overly dangerous.
> You make me sound smarter than I am, but, really, you are just misunderstanding the argument ( not sure if on purpose or not ).
Your argument makes no sense at all. Your argument was also quite downvoted. Surely not because of a woke conspiracy, probably more because indeed your argument makes no sense. Maybe you should consider that maybe it is the case?
> You know what. I am all ears. I may simply be wrong. Present your evidence of the case as you see it.
I asked you first. My FIRST COMMENT: "What do you mean? For what I know, she was at the wrong place at the wrong time, did not do anything voluntarily illegal, and was in a situation where everyone should agree would never have had to degenerate into a life-threatening situation."
You never answered.
If you want the discussion to progress, first provide your answer first. I asked you three time to answer on this point.
edit: in another comment, YOU say: """ << can you give information about the case? (Which "videos"?)
No. Most of the stuff out there. I am already wasting time on HN. I won't also google this stuff for you ( or w/e equivalent you use ). """
You are so full of it. Someone says "present your evidence" when you explicitly said there are videos and you refuse, and here, you are asking exactly "present your evidence".
Before I present my evidence, apply to yourself what you put to others, just strong-man the discussion and try yourself to find element that support my way of seeing the situation.
Friend. I don't care what you downvote. I have seen what you vote for. In a sense, I don't even have a need to convince you here. Life will go on with or without this argument proceeding. Allow me to demonstrate.
End of communication.
I also don't care about convincing you. Simply, it is nice that when someone says something totally stupid, other people stops the non-sense to be spread.
And indeed, conveniently for you as you were unable to provide basic evidence of your claim, end of communication.