Kthebean Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think its the sort of question that would be better answered by reading books rather than asking on the forum, theres such limited space to answer and you are unlikely to be able to write a full distinction as the two terms are so loaded with history and may even mean different things to different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think its the sort of question that would be better answered by reading books rather than asking on the forum, theres such limited space to answer and you are unlikely to be able to write a full distinction as the two terms are so loaded with history and may even mean different things to different people. true. true. the reason i asked on the forum is that, while i know the legal and dictionary definitions of the terms, i've always been uneasy about some of the distinctions made between the two so figured i'd see if other people feel the same. to see if they mean 'different things to different people' as so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 i know. it's the same world wide. i just don't think you ever should be allowed to kill simply to 'protect property' when your life is in no real danger. which the law seems to condone in the sates. If you intervene physically and the person stealing your property fights back, how far do you have to let it escalate before you consider your life to be in danger. You shouldn't have a right to pre emptively kill them, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use reasonable force to defend property just as you do your person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 would you say the bombing of gay bars a few years back was terrorism or hate crime? i get what you mean trying to work out where the line's drawn. or maybe, it's more a matter of degrees as opposed to either or. Was there a political aim, or was it simply intended to kill gay people? That's the key differentiator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I can kind of see your point, people will often talk about groups of hoodlums 'terrorising' various estates, but they probably wouldn't call them terrorists However, I think I' inclined to pretty much agree with what headingnorth said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You shouldn't have a right to pre emptively kill them, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use reasonable force to defend property just as you do your person.And who is going to be the umpire/referee whilst the altercation is taking place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 No one is, do what you believe is necessary, let a jury work it out afterwards if the CPS think that you went to far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 If you intervene physically and the person stealing your property fights back, how far do you have to let it escalate before you consider your life to be in danger. You shouldn't have a right to pre emptively kill them, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use reasonable force to defend property just as you do your person. i see your point. the situation is fluid from when it's simply property to when you're in danger because you stepped in. but mere property shouldn't warrant taking a life. that is never 'reasonable force'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Was there a political aim, or was it simply intended to kill gay people? That's the key differentiator. you could say by killing them you're hoping to get all the others to either go underground or 'stop being gay'. i know that the aim is the key difference, but the motives seem to be hate in both cases, though they might be caused by different factors. killing Christians coz you hate them would be classed the same as killing them for some other political reason no matter how misguided. they'd both be called terrorism at the moment, i think, regardless of the aim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I can kind of see your point, people will often talk about groups of hoodlums 'terrorising' various estates, but they probably wouldn't call them terrorists However, I think I' inclined to pretty much agree with what headingnorth said. i agree with him too, to a point. even in hate crime, the aim is usually to make sure you don't get more of whatever group you hate in your area(job,home etc) therefore meeting that criteria for 'terrorism'. don't think 'terrorism' only applies if there's a political or religious motivation. i would say that while some forms of hate crime are not terrorism all terrorism is a form of hate crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.