Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stand your ground has become a weak law

geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:06:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?

I guess you didn't bother to read those posts at all. because I linked 3 cases right in front of you in which they wen't looking for confrontations. Read first, then post
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:08:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Not one of your links reported any news story. The last two were broken, the first is opinion blog, and the second didn't relate to gun crimes at all.

As to the issue at hand, stand your ground laws were never designed to troll the streets to find someone to kill, and I am not sure that SYG has ever been sited for such a case.

But, yes, the purpose of the law is specifically to engage the criminal, as in your house.
Stand your ground, in its essence, is saying that if a criminal breaks into your home and you have the ability to run or stay, you may stay.

In MN, it would be illegal to shoot a man with a knife, threatening me in my own home, if I was able to run out the back door.

Non-SYG states have a subjective issue as to what it means to escape. Should I break my window and jump to avoid shooting someone? After all, it's not self-defense if there are other options, right?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:06:51 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?

I guess you didn't bother to read those posts at all. because I linked 3 cases right in front of you in which they wen't looking for confrontations. Read first, then post

The 3 links are broken, so no, I didn't read them because they went nowhere. The first link specifically mentioned that Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:10:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?

Some of the articles don't seem to be working for me actaully. Perhaps a url error will post again

http://www.troyrecord.com...
http://hereandnow.wbur.org...
http://abcnews.go.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:10:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

The 3 links are broken, so no, I didn't read them because they went nowhere. The first link specifically mentioned that Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground.

It also doesn't mention if Stand Your Ground was:
1. Allowed as a defense in those cases, or
2. They were not convicted
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:11:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:08:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Not one of your links reported any news story. The last two were broken, the first is opinion blog, and the second didn't relate to gun crimes at all.

As to the issue at hand, stand your ground laws were never designed to troll the streets to find someone to kill, and I am not sure that SYG has ever been sited for such a case.

But, yes, the purpose of the law is specifically to engage the criminal, as in your house.
Stand your ground, in its essence, is saying that if a criminal breaks into your home and you have the ability to run or stay, you may stay.

That's more specific to Castle Doctrine.

SYG is intended to be that if some dude attacks you on the street, and you respond, the burden is on the prosecution not just to show you killed a guy, but that it WASN'T self defense.

Self-defense is normally an affirmative defense, I believe, where you admit the killing (ostensibly illegal) and want to justify it. Under SYG, the burden shifts back on the prosecution.

In MN, it would be illegal to shoot a man with a knife, threatening me in my own home, if I was able to run out the back door.

Non-SYG states have a subjective issue as to what it means to escape. Should I break my window and jump to avoid shooting someone? After all, it's not self-defense if there are other options, right?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:06:51 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?

I guess you didn't bother to read those posts at all. because I linked 3 cases right in front of you in which they wen't looking for confrontations. Read first, then post

The 3 links are broken, so no, I didn't read them because they went nowhere. The first link specifically mentioned that Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground.

http://www.foxnews.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:13:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:10:34 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?

Some of the articles don't seem to be working for me actaully. Perhaps a url error will post again

http://www.troyrecord.com...
Opinion, and never says if the defense was used, or if they were acquitted.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org...
Never said if the defense was used, nor if acquitted.
http://abcnews.go.com...
Not watching a video.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:11:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:08:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Not one of your links reported any news story. The last two were broken, the first is opinion blog, and the second didn't relate to gun crimes at all.

As to the issue at hand, stand your ground laws were never designed to troll the streets to find someone to kill, and I am not sure that SYG has ever been sited for such a case.

But, yes, the purpose of the law is specifically to engage the criminal, as in your house.
Stand your ground, in its essence, is saying that if a criminal breaks into your home and you have the ability to run or stay, you may stay.

That's more specific to Castle Doctrine.

SYG is intended to be that if some dude attacks you on the street, and you respond, the burden is on the prosecution not just to show you killed a guy, but that it WASN'T self defense.

It's still an extension of the Castle Doctrine.
Again, could I run into my house (I am safe) to stop the burglars?

Self-defense is normally an affirmative defense, I believe, where you admit the killing (ostensibly illegal) and want to justify it. Under SYG, the burden shifts back on the prosecution.

In MN, it would be illegal to shoot a man with a knife, threatening me in my own home, if I was able to run out the back door.

Non-SYG states have a subjective issue as to what it means to escape. Should I break my window and jump to avoid shooting someone? After all, it's not self-defense if there are other options, right?
My work here is, finally, done.
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:13:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:10:34 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:56:43 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:28:48 AM, geoxyx wrote:
http://www.bubblews.com...

As it is now stand your ground needs some work. There are too many cases now where it seems like violent offenders are just going out and killing whenever they get into a disagreement. This is a ridiculous. The law was meant to protect people who would DEFEND themselves in public. Not go looking for confrontations.

http://staugustine.com...

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.foxnews.com...
Geoxyx is online now

Zimmerman didn't use Stand Your Ground laws. Do you have any successful cases that used it in a way that defends someone who "go[es] looking for confrontations"?

Some of the articles don't seem to be working for me actaully. Perhaps a url error will post again

http://www.troyrecord.com...
Opinion, and never says if the defense was used, or if they were acquitted.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org...
Never said if the defense was used, nor if acquitted.
http://abcnews.go.com...
Not watching a video.

http://www.nydailynews.com...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:17:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...

What do you think is bad about this case? Specifically. I have an opinion, but I'm curious why you're using it as an example.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:18:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:15:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

It's still an extension of the Castle Doctrine.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Just thought to be more specific, as there is a difference. But I get your point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:19:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...
The guy was trespassing and, he thought, assaulting someone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Not a news story regrading SYG being used unfairly.

How about you actually state your case, instead of parroting others' views?
My work here is, finally, done.
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:20:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:17:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...


What do you think is bad about this case? Specifically. I have an opinion, but I'm curious why you're using it as an example.

Maybe because he has a history of violence. He got drunk and killed his friend, and in another night when he got drunk he shot at his cousin and roomate.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.

It also states , that you shouldn't have to retreat which is ludicrous if you are defending yourself. You defend yourself and then retreat that is what self-defense is. Avoiding confrontation
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:22:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...
The guy was trespassing and, he thought, assaulting someone.

Yes because they guy obviously thought is friend who he invited to the property was tresspassing. He got drunk and he shot someone and no one sees an issue?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Not a news story regrading SYG being used unfairly.

How about you actually state your case, instead of parroting others' views?

It states that they wan't to further loosen the law. How can you not comprehend how important this is to the current law?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:20:07 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:17:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...


What do you think is bad about this case? Specifically. I have an opinion, but I'm curious why you're using it as an example.

Maybe because he has a history of violence. He got drunk and killed his friend, and in another night when he got drunk he shot at his cousin and roomate.

What happened another night isn't necessarily relevant. Was he charged then? Did he say the same thing, and it was determined he was lying?

A history of violence does not preclude you from ever being in the right.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.

It also states , that you shouldn't have to retreat which is ludicrous if you are defending yourself. You defend yourself and then retreat that is what self-defense is. Avoiding confrontation

I don't believe in the duty to retreat. If someone is committing a crime against me, I shouldn't be forced by law to run away. That's legislating cowardice, and it lets those willing to break the law run roughshod over the law-abiding. I do believe in the duty to not escalate.

Self-defense is NOT avoiding confrontation--it's what happens when the confrontation HAPPENS.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:23:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:20:07 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:17:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...


What do you think is bad about this case? Specifically. I have an opinion, but I'm curious why you're using it as an example.

Maybe because he has a history of violence. He got drunk and killed his friend, and in another night when he got drunk he shot at his cousin and roomate.

So what?
Are you saying the account is untrue? Then prove it.
Or are you suggesting that violent people should be disallowed from protecting themselves, others, or their property?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.

It also states , that you shouldn't have to retreat which is ludicrous if you are defending yourself. You defend yourself and then retreat that is what self-defense is. Avoiding confrontation

So, I have to yield my freedom of assembly to some punk?
I have to yield my possessions to some punk?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:22:24 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...
The guy was trespassing and, he thought, assaulting someone.

Yes because they guy obviously thought is friend who he invited to the property was tresspassing. He got drunk and he shot someone and no one sees an issue?

He told his friend, who had gotten violent with him, to leave. His friend didn't leave and, supposedly, attacked him. If that were taken at face value, what is he supposed to do? Get attacked in his own home without any recourse?

You need to look at all sides of this. Whether that's the REAL sequence of events, it appears to be the one he was acquitted under. You can say you don't believe it, but if it were true, it would be appropriate use of SYG, don't you think? Or was he just supposed to get beaten up in his own house?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Not a news story regrading SYG being used unfairly.

How about you actually state your case, instead of parroting others' views?

It states that they wan't to further loosen the law. How can you not comprehend how important this is to the current law?

They're loosening brandishing laws. Do you understand what that means?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:27:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:22:24 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:19:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:08:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...
The guy was trespassing and, he thought, assaulting someone.

Yes because they guy obviously thought is friend who he invited to the property was tresspassing. He got drunk and he shot someone and no one sees an issue?

Oh, so I can't invite you to my house, then demand you leave after insulting me and sexually assaulting my wife? Are you not trespassing, at that point?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Not a news story regrading SYG being used unfairly.

How about you actually state your case, instead of parroting others' views?

It states that they wan't to further loosen the law. How can you not comprehend how important this is to the current law?

If I pull a gun on you and tell you to leave me alone, that is aggravated assault.
My work here is, finally, done.
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:28:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:22:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:20:07 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:17:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...


What do you think is bad about this case? Specifically. I have an opinion, but I'm curious why you're using it as an example.

Maybe because he has a history of violence. He got drunk and killed his friend, and in another night when he got drunk he shot at his cousin and roomate.

What happened another night isn't necessarily relevant. Was he charged then? Did he say the same thing, and it was determined he was lying?

A history of violence does not preclude you from ever being in the right.

So its not revelant that on both nights he got into a drunken stupor and on both nights he was shooting at someone who was allowed on the property. Not only that, history of violence proves that there is an identifiable pattern. He is a violent man and he uses violent means and backwards laws to kill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.

It also states , that you shouldn't have to retreat which is ludicrous if you are defending yourself. You defend yourself and then retreat that is what self-defense is. Avoiding confrontation

I don't believe in the duty to retreat. If someone is committing a crime against me, I shouldn't be forced by law to run away. That's legislating cowardice, and it lets those willing to break the law run roughshod over the law-abiding. I do believe in the duty to not escalate.

Ok, so you would stay in the confrontation rather than try to avoid it. That is not self-defense. If you stay in the confrontation you are escalating because at any time you can easily retreat. You get in confrontation and you defend yourself. That doesn't mean you have to continously stay in the confrontation.
Self-defense is NOT avoiding confrontation--it's what happens when the confrontation HAPPENS.
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Oh, so I can't invite you to my house, then demand you leave after insulting me and sexually assaulting my wife? Are you not trespassing, at that point?
If I pull a gun on you and tell you to leave me alone, that is aggravated assault.

You are trying to use an example which doesn't have anything to do with the case. Of course if they person was exhibiting potential bodily harm to you or your wife you would be able to defend yourself. However that was not the case. This guy was drunk, and because of his lack of coherency,shot is friend. Not only that but this guy has done it before, except he didn't kill anyone that time so it wasn't as big as an issue. IF the law protects the murder of guest, something is seriously wrong with it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:28:19 PM, geoxyx wrote:

So its not revelant that on both nights he got into a drunken stupor and on both nights he was shooting at someone who was allowed on the property. Not only that, history of violence proves that there is an identifiable pattern. He is a violent man and he uses violent means and backwards laws to kill.

No, that is your bias.

Yes, on both nights he shot at people who had been allowed on the property ORIGINALLY. It could just as easily mean he picks crappy people to be friends with.

We'd need more details of the other case (was there even a case?) to know whether it's relevant HERE.

If he shot at them and said "Yeah, I was just being an idiot, sorry", yet here he says "I was being attacked", that would show he may have a violent history, but that he was honest last time, so why would we presume he wasn't this time. I don't know that, of course, but certainly, it appears neither do you.

I don't believe in the duty to retreat. If someone is committing a crime against me, I shouldn't be forced by law to run away. That's legislating cowardice, and it lets those willing to break the law run roughshod over the law-abiding. I do believe in the duty to not escalate.

Ok, so you would stay in the confrontation rather than try to avoid it. That is not self-defense.

Yes, it most certainly is.

If you stay in the confrontation you are escalating because at any time you can easily retreat.

No, it most certainly isn't.

These words mean things.

You get in confrontation and you defend yourself. That doesn't mean you have to continously stay in the confrontation.

No, it doesn't. It means you de-escalate where possible. But it also doesn't necessarily mean you have to run away. How is that just?

Some guy walks up to me and punches me, telling me to "get out of town f******". I get up, and he advances again. I have to run away? That's absurd.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:35:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:32:16 PM, geoxyx wrote:

Oh, so I can't invite you to my house, then demand you leave after insulting me and sexually assaulting my wife? Are you not trespassing, at that point?
If I pull a gun on you and tell you to leave me alone, that is aggravated assault.

You are trying to use an example which doesn't have anything to do with the case. Of course if they person was exhibiting potential bodily harm to you or your wife you would be able to defend yourself.

Which is what was alleged here.

However that was not the case. This guy was drunk, and because of his lack of coherency,shot is friend.

That's an unsupported assertion. Read what he claimed. IF TRUE, you have now admitted it would be appropriate. So then it's just a question of "do we believe him", which happens with ALL laws.

Not only that but this guy has done it before, except he didn't kill anyone that time so it wasn't as big as an issue. IF the law protects the murder of guest, something is seriously wrong with it.

If the law runs with biases and presumes guilt without evidence, there's somethign seriously wrong with it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:37:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:23:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:20:07 PM, geoxyx wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:17:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:12:18 PM, geoxyx wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...


What do you think is bad about this case? Specifically. I have an opinion, but I'm curious why you're using it as an example.

Maybe because he has a history of violence. He got drunk and killed his friend, and in another night when he got drunk he shot at his cousin and roomate.

So what?
Are you saying the account is untrue? Then prove it.
Or are you suggesting that violent people should be disallowed from protecting themselves, others, or their property?
Are you really arguing this? Violence doesn't lead to anything good. There is a huge difference between violence and self-defense.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.

It also states , that you shouldn't have to retreat which is ludicrous if you are defending yourself. You defend yourself and then retreat that is what self-defense is. Avoiding confrontation

So, I have to yield my freedom of assembly to some punk?
I have to yield my possessions to some punk?
It's really simple. You defend yourself holding the criminal at bay, You then retreat to avoid retaliation.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:32:16 PM, geoxyx wrote:

Oh, so I can't invite you to my house, then demand you leave after insulting me and sexually assaulting my wife? Are you not trespassing, at that point?
If I pull a gun on you and tell you to leave me alone, that is aggravated assault.

You are trying to use an example which doesn't have anything to do with the case. Of course if they person was exhibiting potential bodily harm to you or your wife you would be able to defend yourself. However that was not the case. This guy was drunk, and because of his lack of coherency,shot is friend. Not only that but this guy has done it before, except he didn't kill anyone that time so it wasn't as big as an issue. IF the law protects the murder of guest, something is seriously wrong with it.

The guy was trespassing!!!
Burglars trespass!!!
The account states that the man who was trespassing REFUSED to leave, and scoffed at the demand.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:42:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:37:28 PM, geoxyx wrote:

Are you really arguing this? Violence doesn't lead to anything good. There is a huge difference between violence and self-defense.
You are saying that the man had no right to defend himself, because the man has a history of violence.
What would you do, if you invited me over, then for whatever reason ("attack" in this case) you demand I leave, and, not only do I refuse, I belittle your request?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This one is a loosening of the brandishing laws, which I think is a good thing. You SHOULD be able to brandish, or fire a warning shot, rather than shoot the person...it might get misused ,of course, but in theory I support it.

It also states , that you shouldn't have to retreat which is ludicrous if you are defending yourself. You defend yourself and then retreat that is what self-defense is. Avoiding confrontation

So, I have to yield my freedom of assembly to some punk?
I have to yield my possessions to some punk?
It's really simple. You defend yourself holding the criminal at bay, You then retreat to avoid retaliation.

So, the potential mugger stays on the street, but I have to go home?
Why do I have to yield, I didn't do anything wrong?
My work here is, finally, done.
geoxyx
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

No, that is your bias.

Yes, on both nights he shot at people who had been allowed on the property ORIGINALLY. It could just as easily mean he picks crappy people to be friends with.

Ok, I'm starting not to like this guy I hang out with. Next time I'll invite him over and shoot him because he's annoying. The guy could have called the police, he could have thrown them out without a gun( Ex marines are usually skilled combatants). No, he got drunk and shot them, then claimed self-defense.
We'd need more details of the other case (was there even a case?) to know whether it's relevant HERE.

If he shot at them and said "Yeah, I was just being an idiot, sorry", yet here he says "I was being attacked", that would show he may have a violent history, but that he was honest last time, so why would we presume he wasn't this time. I don't know that, of course, but certainly, it appears neither do you.


I don't believe in the duty to retreat. If someone is committing a crime against me, I shouldn't be forced by law to run away. That's legislating cowardice, and it lets those willing to break the law run roughshod over the law-abiding. I do believe in the duty to not escalate.

Ok, so you would stay in the confrontation rather than try to avoid it. That is not self-defense.

Yes, it most certainly is.

If you stay in the confrontation you are escalating because at any time you can easily retreat.

No, it most certainly isn't.

These words mean things.

You get in confrontation and you defend yourself. That doesn't mean you have to continously stay in the confrontation.

No, it doesn't. It means you de-escalate where possible. But it also doesn't necessarily mean you have to run away. How is that just?

Some guy walks up to me and punches me, telling me to "get out of town f******". I get up, and he advances again. I have to run away? That's absurd.

Some guy walks up to you and punches you. You get up and draw a weapon holding him at bay. He is now visibly scared and backs off. You begin to retreat and if he advances you wound him.

Self defense

Some guy walks up to you and punches you. You get up and draw a weapon holding him at bay. He is now visibly scared and backs off. You shoot at him multiple times anyway

Not self defense
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:48:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:45:07 PM, geoxyx wrote:

No, that is your bias.

Yes, on both nights he shot at people who had been allowed on the property ORIGINALLY. It could just as easily mean he picks crappy people to be friends with.

Ok, I'm starting not to like this guy I hang out with. Next time I'll invite him over and shoot him because he's annoying. The guy could have called the police, he could have thrown them out without a gun( Ex marines are usually skilled combatants). No, he got drunk and shot them, then claimed self-defense.

"Annoying"? He claims the guy assaulted him.

Being dishonest does not make your point more reasonable.

Now, you can disbelieve that the guy was assaulting him, but IF HE WAS, do you not think that it was appropriate?

We'd need more details of the other case (was there even a case?) to know whether it's relevant HERE.

If he shot at them and said "Yeah, I was just being an idiot, sorry", yet here he says "I was being attacked", that would show he may have a violent history, but that he was honest last time, so why would we presume he wasn't this time. I don't know that, of course, but certainly, it appears neither do you.


I don't believe in the duty to retreat. If someone is committing a crime against me, I shouldn't be forced by law to run away. That's legislating cowardice, and it lets those willing to break the law run roughshod over the law-abiding. I do believe in the duty to not escalate.

Ok, so you would stay in the confrontation rather than try to avoid it. That is not self-defense.

Yes, it most certainly is.

If you stay in the confrontation you are escalating because at any time you can easily retreat.

No, it most certainly isn't.

These words mean things.

You get in confrontation and you defend yourself. That doesn't mean you have to continously stay in the confrontation.

No, it doesn't. It means you de-escalate where possible. But it also doesn't necessarily mean you have to run away. How is that just?

Some guy walks up to me and punches me, telling me to "get out of town f******". I get up, and he advances again. I have to run away? That's absurd.

Some guy walks up to you and punches you. You get up and draw a weapon holding him at bay.

That's brandishing, actually--which is now legal thanks to the loosening of the brandishing laws, that you were finding fault with.

He is now visibly scared and backs off. You begin to retreat and if he advances you wound him.

Self defense

Why do you have to retreat?

Some guy walks up to you and punches you. You get up and draw a weapon holding him at bay. He is now visibly scared and backs off. You shoot at him multiple times anyway

Not self defense

Nope. Nor is that what happened in any case you've given. Nor would that work for SYG.

So why use it?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!