Name one time in history when the "good guys" were the ones trying to erase hist

[Dave Gray]

Hypothetical situation. So if Person A calls Person B a racist name. Person B gets mad and tries to beat the shit out of Person A because their feelings were hurt. Then Person A shoots and kills Person B because they're being physically attacked. I'm convinced that the liberal majority here would be calling for Person A to be arrested and given life or the death sentence. 

Well, in your scenario, it's not live and let live.  If someone is verbally attacking you, they're not really leaving you alone.

I also don't agree with escalating that to physically assaulting that person.
I also don't agree with escalating that to deadly force, either.

[Sunstroke]

Hypothetical situation. So if Person A calls Person B a racist name. Person B gets mad and tries to beat the shit out of Person A because their feelings were hurt. Then Person A shoots and kills Person B because they're being physically attacked. I'm convinced that the liberal majority here would be calling for Person A to be arrested and given life or the death sentence. 

The two keywords of this post are highlighted. The fact that you are convinced of something, doesn't make that something true, real or accurate.

My liberal preference would be a manslaughter charge, with sentencing above or below the standard based on Person A and Person B's historical predilection for violent conflicts.

[pondwater]

Well, in your scenario, it's not live and let live.  If someone is verbally attacking you, they're not really leaving you alone.

That was the most extreme case. Maybe person A was saying racist things not directed at any one person in particular. Maybe they were wearing a Trump hat. Maybe they were pro choice/pro life. Maybe they were wearing a swastika shirt. These days people get attacked for all sorts of stupid shit.

I also don't agree with escalating that to physically assaulting that person.

I would agree with you.

I also don't agree with escalating that to deadly force, either.

So if someone attacked you for because their feelings were hurt and they were on top of you beating the shit out of you. You wouldn't escalate that to deadly force. You would just let them beat you to death?

[pondwater]

The two keywords of this post are highlighted. The fact that you are convinced of something, doesn't make that something true, real or accurate.

My liberal preference would be a manslaughter charge, with sentencing above or below the standard based on Person A and Person B's historical predilection for violent conflicts.

Why would someone be charged with anything for defending themselves if they're physically attacked?

[Fau Teixeira]

Why would someone be charged with anything for defending themselves if they're physically attacked?

Because his liberal preference would be to not condone escalation of violence to a deadly level based on a simple physical altercation.  Where your preference seems to be that if they punch you in the nose you're then justified in killing them as they walk away.

[pondwater]

Because his liberal preference would be to not condone escalation of violence to a deadly level based on a simple physical altercation.  Where your preference seems to be that if they punch you in the nose you're then justified in killing them as they walk away.

They don't have to get killed, but if they punch me in the nose they aren't just walking away. They may get carted away, eat baby food, and wear diapers for the rest of their life. I think the overall point is that there is no moral or legal justification to physically assault someone based on what they say or believe.

I'm not a badass by any means. However, if someone physically assaults me, it will get very violent, very quickly. I may not win, but I will attempt to beat them with my fists until their body isn't moving and the threat is eliminated. Unconscious, retarded, or dead, doesn't matter to me. DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON PEOPLE.

[Sunstroke]

Why would someone be charged with anything for defending themselves if they're physically attacked?

Well, there is the small detail of Person A, you know, actually killing Person B.

 

[pondwater]

Well, there is the small detail of Person A, you know, actually killing Person B.

 

Who's to say that Person B wasn't trying to kill Person A when they violently attacked them? Or should a person just go limp in the middle of the street and let someone beat them to death? If someone attacks a Grizzly Bear and the bear kills them, who's fault is it? Like usual, you don't make any sense, LMAO.

[CF DolFan]

Hell CF, you might as well get used to it. After seeing the news conspiracy theory about the supposed "Nazi" stage at the CPAC, it made me realize that these type of people will complain about anything.

LOL ... I know. Some days I just like to see the semantic side steps people will take about pretty much anything so that they don't have to admit something is effed up.  

[Spider-Dan]

Anyhow, to address your scenario. That person is free to kneel and express his politics as he pleases. However [...]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Your commitment to "live and let live" only ever seems to extend as far as protecting things you think are OK.

It's one thing to disagree with stuff other people are saying and advocate for your own values.  I do that all the time, so I clearly have no problem with that.  What I find annoying is the repeated insistence that you just want to be left alone and stop telling you how to live... while y'all are all about telling other people how to live.  All the time.

These discussions would be a lot more productive (or, at least, more efficient) if conservatives would stop trying to pretend that it's only the liberals who want to impose their values on other people.  You don't see me pretending the opposite is true.

[Sunstroke]

Who's to say that Person B wasn't trying to kill Person A when they violently attacked them? Or should a person just go limp in the middle of the street and let someone beat them to death? If someone attacks a Grizzly Bear and the bear kills them, who's fault is it? Like usual, you don't make any sense, LMAO.

Like usual, you say one thing, and then come back with a different hypothetical detail or variations that makes your original scenario inaccurate or misleading. 

You are so fucking GOP it isn't even funny.

[pondwater]

Like usual, you say one thing, and then come back with a different hypothetical detail or variations that makes your original scenario inaccurate or misleading. 

You are so fucking GOP it isn't even funny.

Here he goes with the passive aggressive temper tantrum again. Take a breath lil' fella, it's just the internet. You'll be ok after a nap.

Anyhow, what so you're saying is that if someone is defending themselves from being physically attacked and the attacker is killed. That the person who was attacked deserves to be punished? And if so, why? Feel free to be specific. 

[Tenshot13]

Are you guys talking about Trayvon Martin?

[Sunstroke]

Here he goes with the passive aggressive temper tantrum again. Take a breath lil' fella, it's just the internet. You'll be ok after a nap.

Ah, so if someone uses the F-word in an exchange with you, it's a temper tantrum.

Good to know...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

people erasing history......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWxszYK6IPU

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb7yI_rPU58


That isn’t one.....it is two.Unless you don’t view them as the “good guys”