Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who possesses the right to stand her ground?

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:16:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yesterday, I posted a case in which a woman who was threatened by her abusive spouse fired a warning shot and received 20 years in prison. She apparently did not have a right to stand her ground.

Today, I found an even worse case.

http://www.salon.com...

David McNeil's son was threatened at knifepoint by a disgruntled contractor whom he had recently fired. The contractor approached David in a threatening manner and was armed with a knife that he had used against David's son. David used his guns to defend himself and his family in his own home from a madman.

He was put on trial, and when he attempted to claim "Stand Your Ground" benefits, he was convicted for murder.

The difference between him and Zimmerman: he was African American.

David apparently had no right to stand his ground against an armed individual whom the neighbors confirmed had threatened them as well simply because he was African American.

Where was the media pouring out in support for him? Where was the NRA financial, verbal, and political support? Why does David McNeil not have the right to stand his ground against the insane contractor?

Stand your ground laws are only designed to protect Caucasian males. Nobody is else permitted to use them.

Justice for all apparently means that it is open season against African Americans.
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 6:55:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.

While I agree it is a travesty that people of color aren't treated the same within the legal system. Somebody will argue this, and say I'm wrong. I see it firsthand. You people only observe the Justice System. I live in it. I'm molded by it. Law and Order is how I feed my child. Now in Los Angeles you won't see it too much. Place is too diverse. But I know people. People from Utah or Idaho or, yes, even Florida. It's sickening.

But you're being an extremist here. We should not and should NEVER abolish any law that allows a person to fight back.
#BlackLivesMatter
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:08:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:55:14 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.

While I agree it is a travesty that people of color aren't treated the same within the legal system. Somebody will argue this, and say I'm wrong. I see it firsthand. You people only observe the Justice System. I live in it. I'm molded by it. Law and Order is how I feed my child. Now in Los Angeles you won't see it too much. Place is too diverse. But I know people. People from Utah or Idaho or, yes, even Florida. It's sickening.

But you're being an extremist here. We should not and should NEVER abolish any law that allows a person to fight back.

Agent, your point is well received, but I think what RP (and I know what I) was referring to are those laws which allow a white-looking man to stalk, shoot and kill an unarmed black teenager and do so with impunity -which is something over and above mere self defense.

The right to defend ones self isn't what this case was about. It's what Zimmerman's attorney's made it about so that white jurors and white people would empathize with Zimmerman because they, like he, have preconceived notions about black people. It's a core politics of fear that promote laws like Florida's Stand Your Ground laws and it is that same fear (that white people in the South) have held since the end of slavery in the United States, that motivates laws of this type.

What constitutes "reasonable" in Zimmerman's case is colored -and I chose that word purposefully- by culturally held conceptions of motive, intent and suspicion that attach to the popularly held fear white people (especially in the South) have of Black people. "Reasonable doubt" was found (by that incompetent jury) in their empathy that they would have done the same thing in his situation.

What's most disgusting about this entire thing is that people think "Ah, but I am no racist!" when in reality they are. Asking an older southern white person about racism is like asking a fish about water: they live and see it so much that they cannot separate themselves from it, they cannot recognize it because it exists ubiquitously -and that is just the way things are in the South. I think that some day they won't be that way anymore, but "it'l be a long time commin'."
Tsar of DDO
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:16:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:16:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yesterday, I posted a case in which a woman who was threatened by her abusive spouse fired a warning shot and received 20 years in prison. She apparently did not have a right to stand her ground.

Today, I found an even worse case.

http://www.salon.com...

David McNeil's son was threatened at knifepoint by a disgruntled contractor whom he had recently fired. The contractor approached David in a threatening manner and was armed with a knife that he had used against David's son. David used his guns to defend himself and his family in his own home from a madman.

He was put on trial, and when he attempted to claim "Stand Your Ground" benefits, he was convicted for murder.

The difference between him and Zimmerman: he was African American.

David apparently had no right to stand his ground against an armed individual whom the neighbors confirmed had threatened them as well simply because he was African American.

Where was the media pouring out in support for him? Where was the NRA financial, verbal, and political support? Why does David McNeil not have the right to stand his ground against the insane contractor?

Stand your ground laws are only designed to protect Caucasian males. Nobody is else permitted to use them.

Justice for all apparently means that it is open season against African Americans.

Oh pulease, you can't compare the two; one happened in Florida, the other happened in Cobb County Georgia.

Florida is an American state, the land of freedom and liberty, Cobb County is a fascist state, the land of anti-gay resolutions, creationism stickers on science textbooks, and mandatory gun ownership laws. Cobb County is Newt Gingrich's district, the stretch of highway 75 that runs through Cobb County is named after a former John Birch Society president, a black man certainly can't shoot a white man there for any reason, in fact, I'm pretty sure that it's illegal in Cobb County to just be a black man.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:17:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.

The black woman's conviction for attempted murder (because she fired warning shots) in Florida is a travesty of justice on every level of due process... of that there is no doubt or question. In the context of the Zimmerman case, it is that much more shameful.
Tsar of DDO
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:19:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:08:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:55:14 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.

While I agree it is a travesty that people of color aren't treated the same within the legal system. Somebody will argue this, and say I'm wrong. I see it firsthand. You people only observe the Justice System. I live in it. I'm molded by it. Law and Order is how I feed my child. Now in Los Angeles you won't see it too much. Place is too diverse. But I know people. People from Utah or Idaho or, yes, even Florida. It's sickening.

But you're being an extremist here. We should not and should NEVER abolish any law that allows a person to fight back.

Agent, your point is well received, but I think what RP (and I know what I) was referring to are those laws which allow a white-looking man to stalk, shoot and kill an unarmed black teenager and do so with impunity -which is something over and above mere self defense.

I looked at the law and found no reference to race. Are you more referring to jury bias? But also, I don't think stand your ground laws apply to stalking. From my understanding, the Stand Your Ground law really only means that you don't have to retreat before acting in self-defense.


Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:26:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:19:49 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/16/2013 7:08:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:55:14 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.

While I agree it is a travesty that people of color aren't treated the same within the legal system. Somebody will argue this, and say I'm wrong. I see it firsthand. You people only observe the Justice System. I live in it. I'm molded by it. Law and Order is how I feed my child. Now in Los Angeles you won't see it too much. Place is too diverse. But I know people. People from Utah or Idaho or, yes, even Florida. It's sickening.

But you're being an extremist here. We should not and should NEVER abolish any law that allows a person to fight back.

Agent, your point is well received, but I think what RP (and I know what I) was referring to are those laws which allow a white-looking man to stalk, shoot and kill an unarmed black teenager and do so with impunity -which is something over and above mere self defense.

I looked at the law and found no reference to race. Are you more referring to jury bias? But also, I don't think stand your ground laws apply to stalking. From my understanding, the Stand Your Ground law really only means that you don't have to retreat before acting in self-defense.

It's about how the law is interpreted by jurors in the context of culturally held preconceptions of race, not what is said in the literal text of the law. So, recognize that there is a distinction between prima facia interpretations, and applied meanings in given circumstances -and in that distinction is found the racial implications of what it means to "stand one's ground."
Tsar of DDO
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:26:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The real problem in the 20 years for shooting the wall case isn't any sort of racial bias - she was guilty, under the law, and convicted fairly. It's a problem with the statute and especially with the mandatory minimums attached to her crime. Mandatory minimums are just absolutely stupid. Every crime is unique and needs to be judged on the circumstances - sentencing is a delicate art and requires the input of a judge. That should not be eliminated.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:27:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's the thing. I still think that the Zimmerman verdict was fair and followed the law. But it's also true that the law is inconsistently applied among races. So while Zimmerman DID have the right to stand his ground, we should address the inequality from the other side of the argument and defend everyone else's right to stand his or her ground.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:30:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:26:23 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/16/2013 7:19:49 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/16/2013 7:08:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:55:14 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:47:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/16/2013 6:35:03 AM, YYW wrote:
White looking, and only white looking people may stand their ground. Non-white looking people have no such "right."

SYG needs to be abolished if it cannot be applied to everyone.

While I agree it is a travesty that people of color aren't treated the same within the legal system. Somebody will argue this, and say I'm wrong. I see it firsthand. You people only observe the Justice System. I live in it. I'm molded by it. Law and Order is how I feed my child. Now in Los Angeles you won't see it too much. Place is too diverse. But I know people. People from Utah or Idaho or, yes, even Florida. It's sickening.

But you're being an extremist here. We should not and should NEVER abolish any law that allows a person to fight back.

Agent, your point is well received, but I think what RP (and I know what I) was referring to are those laws which allow a white-looking man to stalk, shoot and kill an unarmed black teenager and do so with impunity -which is something over and above mere self defense.

I looked at the law and found no reference to race. Are you more referring to jury bias? But also, I don't think stand your ground laws apply to stalking. From my understanding, the Stand Your Ground law really only means that you don't have to retreat before acting in self-defense.

It's about how the law is interpreted by jurors in the context of culturally held preconceptions of race, not what is said in the literal text of the law. So, recognize that there is a distinction between prima facia interpretations, and applied meanings in given circumstances -and in that distinction is found the racial implications of what it means to "stand one's ground."

Thank you for the clarification. Now this is more in response to RoyalPaladin. If the law equally applies to everyone, but there is only discrimination based on preconceived bias from within the jury, why should it be abolished? There are very few laws that are going to be considered entirely impartially by juries. This is more a problem with the jury, not the law itself.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:30:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:27:03 AM, 000ike wrote:
Here's the thing. I still think that the Zimmerman verdict was fair and followed the law. But it's also true that the law is inconsistently applied among races. So while Zimmerman DID have the right to stand his ground, we should address the inequality from the other side of the argument and defend everyone else's right to stand his or her ground.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:32:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Have any of you ever seen a utility knife? From the salon write up alone - and let's not forget that the salon is a liberal rag, and hence very sympathetic to African Americans and likely to put the best possible spin for the black guy on this while staying within the facts - it seems like all the contractor was doing was simple assault. You have to have a reasonable fear for your life in order to kill someone in self defense.

It's also funny that they write up the dispute from a 100% lopsided perspective, no doubt going on the testimony of the accused alone. The other guy wasn't there to tell his story because someone shot him. There's always three sides to any story - his side, her side and the truth and it's frankly very sloppy journalism to report this one sided account of their interactions as fact.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 8:44:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Stand Your Ground right ought not to be enshrined in any piece of legislation, but instead a fact that the judiciary ought to be allowed to consider (self-defence, in short) when making a verdict. To make it a law politicises it, which in turn creates racism. A judicial system, without elections and without need to pander to a crowd can instead make informed decisions based on the reason of the indvidual judge who is accountable only to those employed above him and his own conscious, is the strongest defence of liberty against the mistakes made by the state in the legislature.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:29:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
However, I don't think that "I'm feeling uncomfortable" is reasonable cause for self defense killing.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:33:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
SYG is a Florida law, not a national law.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:44:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 8:44:22 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The Stand Your Ground right ought not to be enshrined in any piece of legislation, but instead a fact that the judiciary ought to be allowed to consider (self-defence, in short) when making a verdict. To make it a law politicises it, which in turn creates racism. A judicial system, without elections and without need to pander to a crowd can instead make informed decisions based on the reason of the indvidual judge who is accountable only to those employed above him and his own conscious, is the strongest defence of liberty against the mistakes made by the state in the legislature.

Without the law explicitly defined, people on trial would be at the whims of others. These whims could be prejudiced against a minority, and minorities would have no recourse against it. No law to fall back on. Instead of protecting minorities, this would protect and conceal racist verdicts against them. Moreover, without a law which to base judgement on, a verdict which declares someone - an African American, for instance, is guilty of murder and not self-defense, would be under the same roof as the same verdict predicated on racist tenets. Rulings shouldn't be compromised by the motive to not appear racist, and that is only possible if rulings are predicated on an objective set of laws, and not the whims of individual or individuals making a ruling.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 10:08:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 8:44:22 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The Stand Your Ground right ought not to be enshrined in any piece of legislation, but instead a fact that the judiciary ought to be allowed to consider (self-defence, in short) when making a verdict. To make it a law politicises it, which in turn creates racism. A judicial system, without elections and without need to pander to a crowd can instead make informed decisions based on the reason of the indvidual judge who is accountable only to those employed above him and his own conscious, is the strongest defence of liberty against the mistakes made by the state in the legislature.

The underlined is incorrect. The creation of the law does involve a political process, but the racism was already there before that process began. Racism is like a disease...it infected this law as it does other aspects of society...it was not "created" by this law.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 10:24:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are we gonna keep playing this game of finding cases with black defendants who were convicted whereas Zimmerman was half-white and was acquitted and then explain it by saying that everyone is just racist?

Look, it's clear that you have a kind of desire for all of these cases to be racially motivated, so your'e explaining everything through that very biased lens. So frankly, it's going to be very hard to make your case when clearly you have EXTREME confirmation bias.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 10:58:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Royal, according to your source, it appears the murder happened in late 2005. While according to this source, Stand your ground wasn't legal until 2006. How can one envoke a legal defense when it wasn't law yet?

At the time the guy defended his home, it was a crime to do so.
http://www.gpb.org...
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 10:59:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 6:16:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Yesterday, I posted a case in which a woman who was threatened by her abusive spouse fired a warning shot and received 20 years in prison. She apparently did not have a right to stand her ground.

Today, I found an even worse case.

http://www.salon.com...

David McNeil's son was threatened at knifepoint by a disgruntled contractor whom he had recently fired. The contractor approached David in a threatening manner and was armed with a knife that he had used against David's son. David used his guns to defend himself and his family in his own home from a madman.

He was put on trial, and when he attempted to claim "Stand Your Ground" benefits, he was convicted for murder.

The difference between him and Zimmerman: he was African American.

David apparently had no right to stand his ground against an armed individual whom the neighbors confirmed had threatened them as well simply because he was African American.

Where was the media pouring out in support for him? Where was the NRA financial, verbal, and political support? Why does David McNeil not have the right to stand his ground against the insane contractor?

Stand your ground laws are only designed to protect Caucasian males. Nobody is else permitted to use them.

Justice for all apparently means that it is open season against African Americans.

"Last fall, a judge ruled that he deserved a new trial because his original attorney did not inform jurors they could acquit him if he shot in defense of his home or his son. "

http://newsone.com...

Sounds like lawyer incompetence more than anything else. If you want to argue someones being treated unfairly, its all people who cannot afford a good enough lawyer not black people. The anti-black bias in the judicial system doesnt seem to affect wealthy blacks very much, I would argue that it makes far more sense that the real issue is lack of access to decent attorneys by poor people of all colors.

Although, that is one incompetent Lawyer...

Predictably, Salon is also wrong in calling out "Stand your ground" laws using this case, that occurred in 2005 according to their own article, because Gerogias "Stand your ground" law was not enacted until 2006:

http://www.gpb.org...

I agree this is an unjust ruling to be sure, but the narrative you're trying to construct is pretty flawed. This took about 5 minutes to research, keep an open mind people.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 10:59:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 10:58:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Royal, according to your source, it appears the murder happened in late 2005. While according to this source, Stand your ground wasn't legal until 2006. How can one envoke a legal defense when it wasn't law yet?

At the time the guy defended his home, it was a crime to do so.
http://www.gpb.org...

You beat me to it by 38 seconds >.>
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:01:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 10:59:27 AM, thett3 wrote:

You beat me to it by 38 seconds >.>

LOL!
I'm surprised no one said it before.
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:06:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:32:26 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Have any of you ever seen a utility knife? From the salon write up alone - and let's not forget that the salon is a liberal rag, and hence very sympathetic to African Americans and likely to put the best possible spin for the black guy on this while staying within the facts - it seems like all the contractor was doing was simple assault. You have to have a reasonable fear for your life in order to kill someone in self defense.

That's complete and utter bullshitt. Someone pointed a knife at his son and told him to "make him leave" when asked to leave *their* property. McNeil had every right to use whatever force he chose to evict the intruder from his property, not to mention the fact that he *did* threaten the son with a weapon.

It's also funny that they write up the dispute from a 100% lopsided perspective, no doubt going on the testimony of the accused alone. The other guy wasn't there to tell his story because someone shot him.

Kind of like the Zimmerman trial, eh?

There's always three sides to any story - his side, her side and the truth and it's frankly very sloppy journalism to report this one sided account of their interactions as fact.

Agreed
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:17:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 10:58:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Royal, according to your source, it appears the murder happened in late 2005. While according to this source, Stand your ground wasn't legal until 2006. How can one envoke a legal defense when it wasn't law yet?

At the time the guy defended his home, it was a crime to do so.
http://www.gpb.org...

Thank you very much for a well-reasoned perspective that debunks what would otherwise be a rather disturbing case of racial prejudice.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:18:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 11:17:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 10:58:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Royal, according to your source, it appears the murder happened in late 2005. While according to this source, Stand your ground wasn't legal until 2006. How can one envoke a legal defense when it wasn't law yet?

At the time the guy defended his home, it was a crime to do so.
http://www.gpb.org...

Thank you very much for a well-reasoned perspective that debunks what would otherwise be a rather disturbing case of racial prejudice.

Hey wheres my thank you, he only beat me by 38 seconds :P
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:20:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:32:26 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:

There's always three sides to any story - his side, her side and the truth and it's frankly very sloppy journalism to report this one sided account of their interactions as fact.

According to the article, there was an eye-witness account by a neighbor that corroborated everything that occurred in the story.

This is very different from the Zimmerman case where there was no eye-witness accounts of the crucial time in question and where only the testimony of the defendant could corroborate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:21:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 11:18:59 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/16/2013 11:17:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/16/2013 10:58:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Royal, according to your source, it appears the murder happened in late 2005. While according to this source, Stand your ground wasn't legal until 2006. How can one envoke a legal defense when it wasn't law yet?

At the time the guy defended his home, it was a crime to do so.
http://www.gpb.org...

Thank you very much for a well-reasoned perspective that debunks what would otherwise be a rather disturbing case of racial prejudice.

Hey wheres my thank you, he only beat me by 38 seconds :P

I guess my thank you is 38 seconds late, lol
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 11:22:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 11:18:59 AM, thett3 wrote:
Hey wheres my thank you, he only beat me by 38 seconds :P

You know, this has happened to me before, and it was agravating. However, it's quite funny when I am the winner...fancy that. ;)
My work here is, finally, done.