If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Apparently, waving your arms in the direction of a guy who nearly runs you over is grounds for getting shot under the "Stand your ground" law in Arizona   (cnn.com) divider line 751
    More: Scary, emergency vehicle lighting, Laurie Levenson, drive-through, American Life, stand your ground, deadly force, martin case, Wesson  
•       •       •

9355 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



751 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-29 05:48:41 PM
And this law is called "Make My Day?" Yeah, that's not going to be abused in any way at all.
 
2012-04-29 05:53:21 PM
These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.
 
2012-04-29 06:03:47 PM

GAT_00: These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.


How the hell else are they supposed to get off to their Rambo fantasies?
 
2012-04-29 06:09:42 PM
Has there been an increase in these types of things, perhaps the Trayvon Martin thing has let people know what they can get away with. Or is it just increased media attention on murders that would otherwise have gone unreported?
 
2012-04-29 06:13:28 PM
He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?
 
2012-04-29 06:13:52 PM

GAT_00: These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.


look at it this way - all you have to do is find a way to lure rich bankers into your front lawn and then BAM! social change!
 
2012-04-29 06:16:11 PM

Weaver95: GAT_00: These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.

look at it this way - all you have to do is find a way to lure rich bankers into your front lawn and then BAM! social change!


Yeah, because the law will work totally the same that way.
 
2012-04-29 06:19:56 PM

GAT_00: Weaver95: GAT_00: These self-defense laws are a travesty. It's no surprise the Republicans love them.

look at it this way - all you have to do is find a way to lure rich bankers into your front lawn and then BAM! social change!

Yeah, because the law will work totally the same that way.


according to our local conservative shills, that's exactly how it works.
 
2012-04-29 06:21:48 PM

SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?


He could have just shot the dog. But he probably would have gone to jail for that.
 
2012-04-29 06:24:22 PM
I predict this shall go green
 
2012-04-29 06:26:39 PM

Abzzstain: He could have just shot the dog. But he probably would have gone to jail for that.


It's a pathetic statement about life in states with these laws, but he probably would have gotten in MORE trouble shooting and killing the dog, then in shooting and killing a human being.
 
2012-04-29 06:30:19 PM
So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

/right
//pull the other one
 
2012-04-29 06:37:48 PM
Well, why bother carrying a gun if you can't shoot anyone?

These laws are great!

I've popped 12 people who were "threatening" me this year already!
 
2012-04-29 06:49:21 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

/right
//pull the other one


Running over things to escape an assailant is not a reasonably safe alternative. The driver had his pregnant fiancée to think about. Since there was no clear path of safe retreat, he would not be required to retreat, even in a "retreat to the wall" state. He was already at the wall.
 
2012-04-29 06:56:18 PM

SkinnyHead: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

/right
//pull the other one

Running over things to escape an assailant is not a reasonably safe alternative. The driver had his pregnant fiancée to think about. Since there was no clear path of safe retreat, he would not be required to retreat, even in a "retreat to the wall" state. He was already at the wall.


Or he could have just driven around him. Or waited until the guy stopped dangerously waving his arms and moved out of the way. Instead of, you know, killing him.
 
2012-04-29 07:02:15 PM

Abzzstain: SkinnyHead: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

/right
//pull the other one

Running over things to escape an assailant is not a reasonably safe alternative. The driver had his pregnant fiancée to think about. Since there was no clear path of safe retreat, he would not be required to retreat, even in a "retreat to the wall" state. He was already at the wall.

Or he could have just driven around him. Or waited until the guy stopped dangerously waving his arms and moved out of the way. Instead of, you know, killing him.


The Übertroll exists for no other reason than to defend the indefensible
 
2012-04-29 07:19:27 PM
He said witnesses at the scene told him that Adkins "went beserk" on his son, raising his hands and yelling: "What the hell, you almost hit me" and to "watch where the f*** you're going."

Oh yeah. Totally mental. This is not the sort of thing any sane pedestrian who has almost been hit by a car that had to slam on its brakes to avoid the collision would ever say.

/heavy sarcasm
 
2012-04-29 07:30:35 PM

Abzzstain: Or he could have just driven around him. Or waited until the guy stopped dangerously waving his arms and moved out of the way. Instead of, you know, killing him.


But that would invalidate the need for "make my day" and bringing a gun to taco bell. We can't have that.
 
2012-04-29 08:02:30 PM

SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?


I'm sorry we made fun of you :(

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-29 08:10:06 PM

Slaxl: Has there been an increase in these types of things, perhaps the Trayvon Martin thing has let people know what they can get away with. Or is it just increased media attention on murders that would otherwise have gone unreported?


The latter. These laws have been in place for a little while now in some places, and this kind of stuff has happened a fair amount. In Florida, "justifiable homicides" have tripled since they passed theirs in 2006. While some of those may indeed have been true self defense, I'm guessing most of them were cases more like this, and the media is only now paying attention.
 
2012-04-29 08:45:32 PM

Abzzstain: Or he could have just driven around him. Or waited until the guy stopped dangerously waving his arms and moved out of the way. Instead of, you know, killing him.


This happened in a Taco Bell drive through. The driver said he couldn't drive away. He and his girlfriend told police that the assailant had a bat or similar type weapon. The issue is not stand your ground. The issue is whether a reasonable person in that situation would believe that deadly physical force was immediately necessary to protect himself or his passenger against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
 
2012-04-29 09:02:58 PM

SkinnyHead: He and his girlfriend told police that the assailant had a bat or similar type weapon.


Which was never found, even though it should have been lying right there in the drive-thru after the killer shot him. Maybe the dog hid the evidence. Or maybe there was never a weapon and the guy was just waving his arms, and the killer and his girlfriend lied.

Why are so many people defending killers all the sudden?
 
2012-04-29 09:05:25 PM

Abzzstain: Why are so many people defending killers all the sudden?


Because he reports BOTH sides of the issue! Fair and Balanced!
 
2012-04-29 09:08:14 PM

Abzzstain: Why are so many people defending killers all the sudden?


it's an election year. the GOP has a trench warfare mindset - NOTHING they do or say or believe in can be wrong in any way, shape or form. that means they have to defend the 2nd amendment even when they know they're defending assholes who abused the limits of the law to get away with murder. it's not that the GOP think murder is great...its just that the GOP mindset from top to bottom is 'we cannot be wrong, not this year, not now, because the stakes are so high'.

I think it's going to force the Republicans into some very odd positions over the next few months. it'd be great fun to watch if it wasn't so sad.
 
2012-04-29 09:10:54 PM

Abzzstain: SkinnyHead: He and his girlfriend told police that the assailant had a bat or similar type weapon.

Which was never found, even though it should have been lying right there in the drive-thru after the killer shot him. Maybe the dog hid the evidence. Or maybe there was never a weapon and the guy was just waving his arms, and the killer and his girlfriend lied.

Why are so many people defending killers all the sudden?


I was defending the stand your ground law. But in any event, I have no reason to believe that the driver and his girlfriend are liars. It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.
 
2012-04-29 09:15:23 PM

SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.


no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.
 
2012-04-29 09:24:55 PM

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.

no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.


I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.
 
2012-04-29 09:26:25 PM

SkinnyHead: I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.


yes, i'm sure people claim all sorts of things to dodge a murder conviction. don't mean any of it is true though. Or that whatever crazy claims they make will get them off the hook either.
 
2012-04-29 09:29:48 PM

SkinnyHead:
I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.


DID YOU ALL SEE THAT? SkinnyHead just threatened my life!
 
2012-04-29 09:31:40 PM

NewportBarGuy: SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

I'm sorry we made fun of you :(

[i47.tinypic.com image 532x501]


my potato has a sad

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-29 09:33:22 PM

SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.

no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.

I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.


Yes but there has to be a reasonable expectation of harm. Being surrounded by steel in a (presumably) locked SUV is a pretty safe place to be if someone is yelling at you and/or waving a baseball bat. Pulling a gun out of your sweatpants (seriously, who carries a gun in SWEATPANTS?) and shooting them is not a resonable response to that kind of circumstance.

Feeling threatened and being in danger are not the same thing. Someone can feel "threatened" just by being yelled at, that's no justification to shoot them.
 
2012-04-29 09:39:02 PM

Slaxl: Has there been an increase in these types of things, perhaps the Trayvon Martin thing has let people know what they can get away with. Or is it just increased media attention on murders that would otherwise have gone unreported?


Probably some of each.
But the cases do seem to be getting more egregious. You want to really have fun? do a search on the people who were murder or are in prison for standing their ground. Turns out, standing your ground and shooting a cop will still get you dead or prison. Even when the cop is breaking the law.

so what is the solution?
do we need to buy guns in order to protect ourselves from the nuts with guns?
 
2012-04-29 09:40:32 PM

cman: I predict this shall go green


What'd'ya know?
 
2012-04-29 09:40:38 PM

Ambivalence: SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.

no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.

I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.

Yes but there has to be a reasonable expectation of harm. Being surrounded by steel in a (presumably) locked SUV is a pretty safe place to be if someone is yelling at you and/or waving a baseball bat. Pulling a gun out of your sweatpants (seriously, who carries a gun in SWEATPANTS?) and shooting them is not a resonable response to that kind of circumstance.

Feeling threatened and being in danger are not the same thing. Someone can feel "threatened" just by being yelled at, that's no justification to shoot them.


Yes of course. The Arizona law justifies the use of deadly force: "When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force." So the fear of harm must be objectively reasonable.
 
2012-04-29 09:40:46 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

/right
//pull the other one


this this more this and ALL OF THIS
and this guy is going to be a daddy soon???
sigh
 
2012-04-29 09:42:28 PM

namegoeshere: He said witnesses at the scene told him that Adkins "went beserk" on his son, raising his hands and yelling: "What the hell, you almost hit me" and to "watch where the f*** you're going."

Oh yeah. Totally mental. This is not the sort of thing any sane pedestrian who has almost been hit by a car that had to slam on its brakes to avoid the collision would ever say.

/heavy sarcasm


you know what would work?
when someone slams on their breaks, pull your gun out and kill the driver.
at LEAST the driver was wielding a dangerous weapon when you shot and killed them.
 
2012-04-29 09:43:50 PM

SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: It could be that they were mistaken. In most states, a valid claim of self defense can be based on mistake.

no, in 'most states' that might knock the conviction from murder 2 down to manslaughter. you pop off at the taco bell and gun down someone on a whim you SHOULD go sit in a jail cell for a couple years. the timeout would do you some good.

I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.


I perceive you to be a f*cking retard.
 
2012-04-29 09:47:02 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?


Well, the dog wasn't threatening anyone. You can't run over a child to get away from the father. You can't run over a pet to get away from the owner. It just doesn't work that way.

However, legally, you CAN shoot down a lunatic swinging a pipe or bat at you.

Where's the Black Panthers to put a bounty on this guy?
 
2012-04-29 09:48:27 PM

SkinnyHead: Yes of course. The Arizona law justifies the use of deadly force: "When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force." So the fear of harm must be objectively reasonable.


Okay, being in a locked SUV against an unarmed assailant (even if they thought that assailant MAY have had a pipe or bat of some kind) is not objectively reasonable. If it were it'd be a hell of a lot easier and more reasonable to just HIT the guy with the SUV than pull out a gun and shoot him.
 
2012-04-29 09:50:45 PM
CNN was unable to locate the shooter but spoke with a man who identified himself as his father. The man didn't want to be named and stood behind the door of his home, warning that he had a gun in his hand. He defended his son's right to use deadly force.

That CNN reporter is lucky he wasn't killed in self-defense. He should have fired a few shots through the door just for safety's sake.
 
2012-04-29 09:56:03 PM

Ambivalence: SkinnyHead: Yes of course. The Arizona law justifies the use of deadly force: "When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force." So the fear of harm must be objectively reasonable.

Okay, being in a locked SUV against an unarmed assailant (even if they thought that assailant MAY have had a pipe or bat of some kind) is not objectively reasonable. If it were it'd be a hell of a lot easier and more reasonable to just HIT the guy with the SUV than pull out a gun and shoot him.


I'm not sure they were locked in the SUV. The driver may have stepped out of the vehicle. Other news reports say there was a fight before the shooting.
 
2012-04-29 09:56:44 PM
Boy, removing a reasonable duty to retreat sure has worked out splendidly.
 
2012-04-29 09:59:49 PM

doglover: However, legally, you CAN shoot down a lunatic swinging a pipe or bat at you.


i'm sure you could...if that had been what happened here, then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

however...the dead guy had no weapon on him, nor was any weapon found in the area. witnesses also said the shooter appeared to act aggressively.
 
2012-04-29 10:08:16 PM

doglover: Where's the Black Panthers to put a bounty on this guy?


Seeing as how the shooter is black, I don't think that's going to happen.
 
2012-04-29 10:11:02 PM

Abzzstain: Why are so many people defending killers all the sudden?


because right wingers make a fetish out of killing others.
 
2012-04-29 10:20:25 PM

Weaver95: witnesses also said the shooter appeared to act aggressively.


HA!

What was their first clue?
 
2012-04-29 10:25:39 PM

GleeUnit: I perceive you to be a f*cking retard.


That's an insult to all mentally disabled people.
 
2012-04-29 10:29:13 PM

doglover: Weaver95: witnesses also said the shooter appeared to act aggressively.

HA!

What was their first clue?


probably the dead body.
 
2012-04-29 10:37:49 PM

Weaver95: probably the dead body.


THAT'S THE JOKE
 
2012-04-29 10:40:35 PM

gameshowhost: Boy, removing a reasonable duty to retreat sure has worked out splendidly.


go a step further
the people in the car were not at risk. not from a bat or a pipe.
his CAR might have been at risk. the paint jorb or the head lights.
but at no point was he or his baby momma in DANGER

for that reason alone he should be arrested for manslaughter
 
Displayed 50 of 751 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report