The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

You're right - a person is either a positive or negative influence in the world. and you know what, the last time i checked, murder is a pretty bad thing. worse than drug dealing, even. so the murder needs to be caught, tried, and punished according to the law, thereby removing the negative person (a murderer) from society.

you can argue all you want that killing a drug dealer isnt as "bad" as killing an "innocent" person. but murder is still murder. its universally recognized as immoral. every nation - civilizied or otherwise, has laws against it and punishments for those who commit it. right now, a murderer is free, running around in society. instead of supporting this individual, perhaps you should hope they are brought to justice. who knows, maybe next time this person decides to kill a drug dealer, a person you deem "innocent" will be hurt or killed in the process.

Sorry, murder is not murder. It's not black and white, although it would be nice if it were. Cops and soldiers kill people all the time and it's not murder.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Sorry, murder is not murder. It's not black and white, although it would be nice if it were. Cops and soldiers kill people all the time and it's not murder.

Your analogy to cops and soldiers doesn't even apply here. Harrison is neither. He's a thug who illegally fired a weapon, injuring both a drug dealer and an innocent bystander. He also lied to the authorities, also a criminal offense. He then either directly or indirectly was responsible for committing murder.

you might have your own personal interpretation of what is right and wrong, but society as a whole and the law are in direct opposition to your point of view.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Your analogy to cops and soldiers doesn't even apply here. Harrison is neither. He's a thug who illegally fired a weapon, injuring both a drug dealer and an innocent bystander. He also lied to the authorities, also a criminal offense. He then either directly or indirectly was responsible for committing murder.

you might have your own personal interpretation of what is right and wrong, but society as a whole and the law are in direct opposition to your point of view.

You said "murder is murder" implying that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder -- which it is not.

Now you'll probably come back with something about how cops and soldiers need to do that sometimes, but that doesn't change a thing. Also remember that cops and soldiers *unnecessarily* kill people sometimes, and it's still not murder. You should read Immanuel Kant, and after that read John Rawls (B'more represent!).

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

You said "murder is murder" implying that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder -- which it is not.

Now you'll probably come back with something about how cops and soldiers need to do that sometimes, but that doesn't change a thing. Also remember that cops and soldiers *unnecessarily* kill people sometimes, and it's still not murder. You should read Immanuel Kant, and after that read John Rawls (B'more represent!).

Actually, i wasn't trying broadening the scope of the discussion to warfare at all. harrison was a private citicizen. he had no legal authority to kill another human being. his actions were not in self-defense. it was a cold-blooded murder. a private citizen acting in the manner which harrison acted is murder. it doesnt matter if the person was a drug dealer, child molester, cross-dresser, or cowboys fan. he had no legal (let alone moral) right or authority to take a life. there are laws in place designed to prevent the exact actions that harrison took. harrison is a criminal. just the man he (had) killed was. that mans lifestyle ultimately caught up with him. so will harrison's.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Actually, i wasn't trying broadening the scope of the discussion to warfare at all. harrison was a private citicizen. he had no legal authority to kill another human being. his actions were not in self-defense. it was a cold-blooded murder. a private citizen acting in the manner which harrison acted is murder. it doesnt matter if the person was a drug dealer, child molester, cross-dresser, or cowboys fan. he had no legal (let alone moral) right or authority to take a life. there are laws in place designed to prevent the exact actions that harrison took. harrison is a criminal. just the man he (had) killed was. that mans lifestyle ultimately caught up with him. so will harrison's.

I agree. I'm not defending Harrison at all, but I do have to agree with BB to an extent. My point was that nothing, even murder, is cut and dry. There is no good without bad, and no bad without good -- there are no absolutes, there just IS. Think Yin-Yang.

In any case, although the evidence seems overwhelming, let's continue to presume innocence before people stand trial.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I agree. I'm not defending Harrison at all, but I do have to agree with BB to an extent. My point was that nothing, even murder, is cut and dry. There is no good without bad, and no bad without good -- there are no absolutes, there just IS. Think Yin-Yang.

In any case, although the evidence seems overwhelming, let's continue to presume innocence before people stand trial.

Now that's a whole other discussion. Good and evil are not dependent upon each other for their existence. Although utopian, good can exist absent evil. Likewise, and evil can exist without good.

Regardless. Murder is murder. It is a defined term, it has meaning and value derived from centuries of cultural and societal wisdom. Is it "cut and dried", immovable and applied like a cookie cutter? Sometimes. There are matters where it is so on point that it is not debatable that the actions performed constitute murder.

Here, the killing of Pop was murder. Cut and Dried. Book it. All the philosophical ramblings and deep thoughts in the world won't change the conclusion that, in this case, based on the facts known - The man who shot and killed Pop committed murder as that term is defined and applied in our society. Further, as the term is defined, if the facts show that Harrison instructed or otherwise colluded to have Pop killed, he to is guilty of murder. Cut and Dried.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Sorry, murder is not murder. It's not black and white, although it would be nice if it were. Cops and soldiers kill people all the time and it's not murder.

Murder is the intentional killing of another or the killing of another during a felony. Self-defense is a defense to the charge of murder.

Killings by cops and soldiers done in the line of duty are not murder, never have been, never will be. Cops and soldiers "kill people" because it is sanctioned by govt. Society recognizes that in the enforcement of its law and for the protection of the public, police must sometimes use deadly force. Likewise, society recognizes that there is a need for "national self-defense" and, thus, soldiers are not committing "murder" when they kill in the line of duty.

Marvin Harrison's spraying a street with bullets and the intentional murder of an individual who, at the time, was not threatening the person who murdered him are not acts that are defensible in any way.

Sure, in many cases, there are mitigating factors that societies have long recognized as defenses to murder. None of these time tested excuses existed in this case. Under the facts of this case - this was cold blooded; this was indefensible; this was murder. This was black and white.

The DA was the real POS for not prosecuting this case - cowardly and wrong.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Murder is the intentional killing of another or the killing of another during a felony. Self-defense is a defense to the charge of murder.

Killings by cops and soldiers done in the line of duty are not murder, never have been, never will be. Cops and soldiers "kill people" because it is sanctioned by govt. Society recognizes that in the enforcement of its law and for the protection of the public, police must sometimes use deadly force. Likewise, society recognizes that there is a need for "national self-defense" and, thus, soldiers are not committing "murder" when they kill in the line of duty.

Marvin Harrison's spraying a street with bullets and the intentional murder of an individual who, at the time, was not threatening the person who murdered him are not acts that are defensible in any way.

Sure, in many cases, there are mitigating factors that societies have long recognized as defenses to murder. None of these time tested excuses existed in this case. Under the facts of this case - this was cold blooded; this was indefensible; this was murder. This was black and white.

The DA was the real POS for not prosecuting this case - cowardly and wrong.

I was using cops and soldiers as an example of how killing people is not always murder. I'm not sure why you provide that as an argument against me, because it falls right in line with what I was saying.

I wasn't saying Harrison is, or is not, a murderer, and I don't think you have enough evidence to say so either. You're the lawyer, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In any case, I'll have to respectfully disagree about the black and white comment, because I don't believe anything is black and white.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I was using cops and soldiers as an example of how killing people is not always murder. I'm not sure why you provide that as an argument against me, because it falls right in line with what I was saying.

I wasn't saying Harrison is, or is not, a murderer, and I don't think you have enough evidence to say so either. You're the lawyer, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In any case, I'll have to respectfully disagree about the black and white comment, because I don't believe anything is black and white.

My point was two-fold: Killing is not necessarily murder. Never has been, never will be. So, yes, I agree with you to that extent. My point, however, was that murder is a defined term and certain types of killings will always be considered murder.

Walking up to someone sitting in a car, pulling a pistol and shooting them when there is no evidence that the individual was acting in self defense constitutes murder. Absolutely. 100%.

Finally, I qualified all my conclusion on "based on the facts known". If different facts arise, perhaps not. Also, I did not say Harrison was guilty of murder - I said "if the facts show that Harrison instructed or otherwise colluded to have Pop killed, he to is guilty of murder." I should have added a "then" prior to the final phrase.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

In any case, I'll have to respectfully disagree about the black and white comment, because I don't believe anything is black and white.

What color is the text of my response?

What color is the untyped area of my response?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What color is the text of my response?

What color is the untyped area of my response?

Without light, there is no color.