ano45 Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 So here is our scenario...Joe is a Black Belt who is in a store purchasing some stuff. In walks a robber who is so pumped up that he doesn't even notice Joe standing on the other side of the store. The robber pulls a gun on the clerk and demands money. Joe then runs up to the robber and hits him in the head knocking him unconcious. The robber falls down and cracks his skull open. He dies. If you do not earn what you recieve, then you should not recieve it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ano45 Posted June 24, 2005 Author Share Posted June 24, 2005 Was he justified? If you do not earn what you recieve, then you should not recieve it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 yeshe was defending someone else in a life threatening situatino. the black belt is irrelevant in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ano45 Posted June 26, 2005 Author Share Posted June 26, 2005 yeshe was defending someone else in a life threatening situatino. the black belt is irrelevant in this case.however, HIS life was in no danger... and ur right the black belt part is irrelevant.....but then again, try explaining that to the judge... If you do not earn what you recieve, then you should not recieve it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 i was talking morally justified.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ano45 Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 i was talking morally justified....yes yes but was he legaly JUSTIFIED? If you do not earn what you recieve, then you should not recieve it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 no then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeymagic Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Dodgy?!? 'Karate is a set of beliefs and practices that are never grasped in their totality and that generate more knowledge and more practices' Krug (2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 its a bit odd.... if he gave the robbers some warning the guy turned the gun on him.... or ifthe robber seemed erratic [difficult to prove] he could say he feared for his life as the guy might just shoot the place up anyway.... in either of those cases he would be justified.... if the robber was calm and just pointed thegun at the clerk then no legallyhes not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shotochem Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I don't believe a jury would ever convict him. If it actually would go to trial think of all the publicity it would get....... Movie deals, photo ops, time to write that book ect.... No one in their right mind would hold the person accountable. Morally,if you feel bad send flowers. There is an inherent danger of being killed while performing an armed robbery. Robber gets killed, sucks for him. Pain is only temporary, the memory of that pain lasts a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now