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  
•       •       •

9356 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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 09:05:00 AM
I am a big man
(yes I am)
and I have a big gun
got me a big old dick and I
I like to have fun
held against your forehead
I'll make you suck it
maybe I'll put a hole in your head
you know, just for the fark of it
I can reduce you if I want
I can devour
I'm hard as farking steel, and I've got the power
I'm every inch a man, and I'll show you somehow
me and my farking gun
nothing can stop me now
shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot
I'm going to come all over you
me and my farking gun
me and my farking gun
 
2012-04-30 09:07:22 AM

KWess: I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws. Here's how this would play out up here:


Fiancée: "Oh my God, that guy is waving his arms at us and shouting obscenities"

Shooter: "Just a second honey..." (rolls down window)

"Hey, I'm sorry about that. I didn't see you there. It's my fault, I shouldn't be driving so quickly in an area where there may be pedestrians. I'll be more careful."

(Rolls up window, drives away)

Angry Pedestrian: (waves, makes frowny face)


I guess we're doing it wrong?



That's how it plays out most of the time, even between people carrying guns.

/ from Virginia
// hasn't been shot or shot anyone
 
2012-04-30 09:07:56 AM

calm like a bomb: balki1867: I'm not a gun person myself but my general experience from knowing quite a few is that people who grew up around them seem to be very responsible and reasonable about them. Meanwhile, people who run out and buy their first firearm at 30 b/c Rush Limbaugh told them Obama's out to take their 2nd amendment rights away te ...

I am a gun person, as well as a die-hard liberal. I have (at last count) about 20, mostly shotguns and rifles. Most I inherited. All remain under lock in a fireproof cabinet unless I have them out for a specific purpose. I have never, and will never, carry one around "just in case". Why? Because I am much more likely to have it taken away from me or have an accident with it than I am to do anything good. I'll take the risk of needing and not having over farking up and accidentally shooting someone, or getting shot with it myself. The assholes who think otherwise scare me badly, mostly because the majority of them should never be issued a carry license. Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.


I agree for the most part, but with one exception. There have been times where I've carried a pistol expecting trouble. There have been three times in my life when I have been very glad to have had a gun with in easy reach, but I agree carrying every day is stupid and such a pain in the ass.
 
2012-04-30 09:08:19 AM
I would like to propose the I Can Count to Potato Law. Under this law, anyone is legally allowed to shoot and kill a retarded person as long as the retarded person is given to the count of potato to run away.
 
2012-04-30 09:10:08 AM
This is a horrible story that can only be made better by watching racist gun nuts from White Arizona stand up side by side with Gangtsah G and Cold Piece Ro'Nisha to defend his right to whip his gat from his sweatpants (near his knees), take aim from under his sideways hat, and straight shoot a punk ass biatch.
 
2012-04-30 09:10:27 AM

Slaves2Darkness: I agree for the most part, but with one exception. There have been times where I've carried a pistol expecting trouble. There have been three times in my life when I have been very glad to have had a gun with in easy reach, but I agree carrying every day is stupid and such a pain in the ass.


Same here, exactly.

/however, my danger was always bears, not humans
 
2012-04-30 09:11:11 AM
tnation.t-nation.com

How could it possible be misconstrued.
 
2012-04-30 09:11:59 AM

Dimensio: eraser8: The route of retreat has to be obvious and safe. If a route out of the situation exists, but the shooter is unaware of it, he is covered by existing self-defense law. If the route exists but it would be unsafe for the shooter to take it, he is covered by existing self-defense law.

How, exactly, would a shooter who honestly failed to observe an extant "route of escape" prove that failure to a prosecutor who accuses the shooter of being aware of the "route of escape" but using deadly force regardless?


eraser8: Smackledorfer: Its much better to shift the point of impact straight up when firing center mass than to miss off to the side.

This is one thing that gets me about people who hold their weapon sideways. That has got to be one of the best ways to miss your target.

[blogs.smh.com.au image 300x250]


Yeah, but people like that are no more accurate when firing the correct way. The thing about firing an automatic held sideways is that the ejection port is usually on the right side. If you are right handed this means that port is straight up and you are going to cause the gun to jam if you fire it held sideways as the shell will be ejecting straight up.
 
2012-04-30 09:12:27 AM

KWess: I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws. Here's how this would play out up here:


Fiancée: "Oh my God, that guy is waving his arms at us and shouting obscenities"

Shooter: "Just a second honey..." (rolls down window)

"Hey, I'm sorry about that. I didn't see you there. It's my fault, I shouldn't be driving so quickly in an area where there may be pedestrians. I'll be more careful."

(Rolls up window, drives away)

Angry Pedestrian: (waves, makes frowny face)


I guess we're doing it wrong?


I'm from Michigan, and outside of Flint I see it going the same way. Inside Flint, well, people get shot for scuffing shoes. Even Detroit is more sane.
 
2012-04-30 09:12:33 AM

sweetmelissa31: I would like to propose the I Can Count to Potato Law. Under this law, anyone is legally allowed to shoot and kill a retarded person as long as the retarded person is given to the count of potato to run away.


It only makes sense, I mean "those types" have the strength of like ten normal people.
 
2012-04-30 09:13:57 AM

Slaves2Darkness: you are going to cause the gun to jam if you fire it held sideways as the shell will be ejecting straight up.


Or even worse, the spent casing will fly up and somehow land RIGHT in the collar of your shirt and god damn those little bastards are HOT
 
2012-04-30 09:15:02 AM
How the hell does one not charge this idiot with murder? Even by his own account the guy never even threaten him, and yes, any of us would be angry if some moron almost ran us over.

This stand-your-ground shiat is just that.
 
2012-04-30 09:15:36 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Yeah, but people like that are no more accurate when firing the correct way. The thing about firing an automatic held sideways is that the ejection port is usually on the right side. If you are right handed this means that port is straight up and you are going to cause the gun to jam if you fire it held sideways as the shell will be ejecting straight up.


Shell ejection isn't dependent on gravity. Unless it's a cheap gun to begin with, it's not going to jam. It will be sending shells into your field of vision and possibly your face, though.

/I have to do a couple of mags gansta-style when I go shooting, just because.
 
2012-04-30 09:18:28 AM

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.


If only there were a way to make a car back up.....
 
2012-04-30 09:21:13 AM
How the hell does one not charge this idiot with murder?
This stand-your-ground shiat is just that.



Again...you folks got sh*t for brains

This guy will be charged.

I promise.

These idiots are ONLY claiming SYG.

SYG does NOT justify shooting a NON-LETHAL threat.
 
2012-04-30 09:25:29 AM

Beaver1224: In my mind, I see Jimbo and Ned crouched behind a hill, stalking something. Once they're ready, Jimbo yells "I feel threatened!" and they proceed to empty multiple clips into whoever it was.


Maybe that's the problem. You are thinking about only the lowest denominator. People who try to use the law like this should be prosecuted. That doesn't change the fact that actual victims of crimes should absolutely be able to defend themselves.
 
2012-04-30 09:25:45 AM

craigdamage: SYG does NOT justify shooting a NON-LETHAL threat.


It's still BAD LAW.

You keep skipping that part. The part where the law makes average citizens think they have the right to kill others, even when they don't.

That should not be left up for such vague interpretation by the public.

That's as stupid as taking down all the safety guards in a manufacturing plant and saying, "Well, you should be smart enough not to touch a band saw," then wondering why half your employees have no hands.

It's bad management, bad law, and it serves no positive purpose.
 
2012-04-30 09:28:57 AM
Jake Havechek:

If only the people who are so willing to kill for no reason would play out the end of The Downward Spiral.
 
2012-04-30 09:33:54 AM
amoung security guards and escorts, there are techniques available to bring about the opportunity to use force "in self defense".
I wonder how soon the "make my day" will be added to that process.

hmmm - my history sugests that if i can think of it; its being done already.
 
2012-04-30 09:39:20 AM
There is nothing wrong with Stand your ground laws when they apply common sense.

But I cannot think of why conservatives would defend the use of them in cases where the person with the gun initiated the confrontation. If you go stalking someone or if you go trying to run someone over and they respond, under a sane and practical stand your ground law, self defense would not be an option for shooting someone.

But conservatives have taken this too far. They want laws that allow you to provoke someone into doing something you can then turn around and claim self defense for.
 
2012-04-30 09:39:32 AM

Turbo Cojones: 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.

If only there were a way to make a car back up.....


I think he should be charged, as simply locking the door would protect him, not to mention he is in an SUV. A guy with a dog isn't an obstacle to escape. Backing up though probably wasn't an option in the drive thru. You also have to wonder a bit if these parents cared so much about their son, why in the hell did they let a mentally handicap guy wander un-escorted around an area like that?
 
2012-04-30 09:48:44 AM

EWreckedSean: why in the hell did they let a mentally handicap guy wander un-escorted around an area like that?


You'd have to do a lot of reading about the issue and understand that these people do not need 24-hour supervision. The entire goal is to get them to live as independently as possible and to encourage them to do so whenever they're able.

They say he had a 13-year-old's understanding. That is limiting, but not debilitating.
 
2012-04-30 09:48:50 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: craigdamage: Bothe will likely face justice.SYG and Castle Doctrine have NOTHING to do with protecting murderers.

But SYG-type laws *do* have something to do with *creating* murderers.

Again, if a law gives the perception that killing someone is legal when it isn't, it's BAD LAW.


Agh, I hate to say it because I generally agree with you, but I disagree with you. The issue is not with the laws themselves. As I mentioned last night, the problem is with abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse (except in tax cases), so if there's some sort of perception on the part of individuals that they can commit such heinous acts, that's because they're not being prosecuted, not because the law is flawed.
 
2012-04-30 09:50:27 AM

Warlordtrooper: There is nothing wrong with Stand your ground laws when they apply common sense.

But I cannot think of why conservatives would defend the use of them in cases where the person with the gun initiated the confrontation. If you go stalking someone or if you go trying to run someone over and they respond, under a sane and practical stand your ground law, self defense would not be an option for shooting someone.

But conservatives have taken this too far. They want laws that allow you to provoke someone into doing something you can then turn around and claim self defense for.


To cater to the mouthbreathers that support them. You know the people, the ones who have murder fantasies, the ones who want to shoot people that look different from them and the ones that show up at protest with guns and signs that say they are going to start using second amendment solutions.
 
2012-04-30 09:50:34 AM

Warlordtrooper: There is nothing wrong with Stand your ground laws when they apply common sense.

But I cannot think of why conservatives would defend the use of them in cases where the person with the gun initiated the confrontation. If you go stalking someone or if you go trying to run someone over and they respond, under a sane and practical stand your ground law, self defense would not be an option for shooting someone.

But conservatives have taken this too far. They want laws that allow you to provoke someone into doing something you can then turn around and claim self defense for.


So if I ask you what you are doing wandering around the neighborhood by my home, I initiated the confrontation, so if you then sucker punch me and start bashing my head in the concrete, I should just take it, you know, because I asked what you were doing?
 
2012-04-30 09:51:27 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: EWreckedSean: why in the hell did they let a mentally handicap guy wander un-escorted around an area like that?

You'd have to do a lot of reading about the issue and understand that these people do not need 24-hour supervision. The entire goal is to get them to live as independently as possible and to encourage them to do so whenever they're able.

They say he had a 13-year-old's understanding. That is limiting, but not debilitating.


Dude's a troll, but yeah. It's like wringing one's hands over allowing a teenager to *gasp* walk around. Last I checked we let them babysit and cut our lawns with heavy machinery.
 
2012-04-30 09:51:39 AM

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.


She might have spilled her coke!
 
2012-04-30 09:54:30 AM

EWreckedSean: That doesn't change the fact that actual victims of crimes should absolutely be able to defend themselves.


This law gives FAR too much deference to people on the street to try, convict, and execute other citizens.

EWreckedSean: People who try to use the law like this should be prosecuted.


And in the meantime, people are killed based solely upon the opinion of a single other citizen, and no amount of prosecution will reverse that.

Instead of prosecuting the guy after the fact, why don't we try and prevent the killing in the first place? Then no one's dead and no one's going to prison.

Unless you're suggesting would have shot the guy regardless of the existence of an SYG law the shooter thought he was covered under.
 
2012-04-30 09:54:53 AM

doglover: UCFRoadWarrior: At least this time they admit the person shot was 29...but of course, we are reminded that he "had the mentality of a 13 yr old"

There's also a witness this time, who agrees the guy started hitting the car.

She probably felt threatened, prompting the boyfriend to shoot the guy.



Did the car survive?

Won't someone think of the car?
 
2012-04-30 09:55:13 AM

Salt Lick Steady: so if there's some sort of perception on the part of individuals that they can commit such heinous acts, that's because they're not being prosecuted, not because the law is flawed.


one creates the situation of the other. you may see a layer of abstraction there, but i don't.

we never assess laws, we just happily chug down the road of unintended consequences and pretend the laws that are passed actually address their stated intent, and ignore all other consequences - shiat like this is a prime example.
 
2012-04-30 09:55:39 AM

EWreckedSean: Warlordtrooper: There is nothing wrong with Stand your ground laws when they apply common sense.

But I cannot think of why conservatives would defend the use of them in cases where the person with the gun initiated the confrontation. If you go stalking someone or if you go trying to run someone over and they respond, under a sane and practical stand your ground law, self defense would not be an option for shooting someone.

But conservatives have taken this too far. They want laws that allow you to provoke someone into doing something you can then turn around and claim self defense for.

So if I ask you what you are doing wandering around the neighborhood by my home, I initiated the confrontation, so if you then sucker punch me and start bashing my head in the concrete, I should just take it, you know, because I asked what you were doing?


If you get out of your car and start following me after I started retreating, yeah, you initiated that.
 
2012-04-30 09:56:28 AM
This guy thought he could wave his arms around with impunity and with no concern for the ramifications.

Well, I bet you he cares now.
 
2012-04-30 09:56:37 AM

EWreckedSean: Granted you gotta feel bad for the guy with the skull fracture, but there is no way the 77 year old guy who shot him could have reasonably known the person who rushed into his home with his elderly wife was injured.


Amazing.

"Sorry I shot and killed you for no reason whatsoever, but hey, them's the breaks!"

I mean, it's almost like shooting first and asking questions later is a bad idea.
 
2012-04-30 09:59:23 AM

theknuckler_33: "Sorry I shot and killed you for no reason whatsoever, but hey, them's the breaks!"

I mean, it's almost like shooting first and asking questions later is a bad idea.



fark it I say we turn this country into a big ass western movie,preferably one starring Clint Eastwood. Whores,liquor,guns and ammo for everyone!
 
2012-04-30 10:01:47 AM

Salt Lick Steady: Lenny_da_Hog: craigdamage: Bothe will likely face justice.SYG and Castle Doctrine have NOTHING to do with protecting murderers.

But SYG-type laws *do* have something to do with *creating* murderers.

Again, if a law gives the perception that killing someone is legal when it isn't, it's BAD LAW.

Agh, I hate to say it because I generally agree with you, but I disagree with you. The issue is not with the laws themselves. As I mentioned last night, the problem is with abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse (except in tax cases), so if there's some sort of perception on the part of individuals that they can commit such heinous acts, that's because they're not being prosecuted, not because the law is flawed.


If it's vague and causes timid non-enforcement by prosecutors, it's still bad law.

Right now, they're juggling an issue with limited precedence. The only way to build precedence is to prosecute people, but each one of those attempted prosecutions is going to represent at least one death and a high risk of incarceration for the shooter. Ignorance is no excuse, but average people shouldn't be expected to be lawyers, and legislators should account for that.

This is too dangerous to play out in the courts.
 
2012-04-30 10:02:07 AM

craigdamage: These guys may CLAIM stand your ground. They will NOT be protected by it.


You DO realize it took the mass of public outrage to even get Zimmerman CHARGED, right?

What...you mean like the "occupy movement" ?


Zimmerman lost any protection from SYG laws when he stalked an un-armed kid.

from wiki:
The lead homicide investigator on the case, Chris Serino, recommended charging Zimmerman with manslaughter. Serino filed an affidavit the night of the incident, saying he was unconvinced by Zimmerman's account, but was informed by State Attorney Wolfinger's office that there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction

Again. You children are jumping to conclusions.

As I said above.
Bothe will likely face justice.SYG and Castle Doctrine have NOTHING to do with protecting murderers.


You only read that one part of my response, and didn't even bother to read the rest of the wiki, did you?

The entire "Ongoing Investigation" Section:

Zimmerman was originally not charged with any crime. He asserted the right of self-defense and investigators said they could find no evidence disproving that assertion.[15][148] The State Attorney's office and Police Chief Lee said they did not have enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman. "In this case Mr. Zimmerman has made the statement of self-defense," Lee said. "Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that, we don't have the grounds to arrest him." In response to criticisms of the investigation, Lee responded that "We are taking a beating over this" and defended the investigation.[149] "This is all very unsettling. I'm sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he'd probably do things differently. I'm sure Trayvon would, too."[50]

On March 20, 2012, State attorney Norm Wolfinger announced that a Seminole County grand jury would be convened on April 10, 2012, to investigate the death of Martin.[150][151][152] However, State attorney Angela Corey, who was assigned to the case by Governor Rick Scott, stated that her office, not a grand jury, will decide whether to press charges in the shooting death of Martin. Angela Corey stated that, "I always lean towards moving forward without needing the grand jury in a case like this, I foresee us being able to make a decision, and move on it on our own."[71] Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) is involved and "no stone will be left unturned in this investigation."[151]


From the "Public Response" section:

Over 2.2 million signatures were collected on a Change.org petition, created by Martin's mother, calling for Zimmerman's arrest.[169] It was the website's largest petition ever
...
Walkouts were staged by students at over a dozen Florida high schools.[174]

Thousands of people attended rallies around the country to demand Zimmerman's arrest,[23] including a gathering on March 22 in Union Square of civil rights leaders including Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King III, Dick Gregory, and others.[24] Members of the Occupy movement marched in solidarity during the "Million Hoodie March".[175][176]

Speaking on the day of the Zimmerman arrest, Al Sharpton said: "45 days ago, Travon Martin was murdered. No arrest was made. The Chief of Police in Sanford announced after his review of the evidence there would be no arrest. An outcry from all over this country came."


Also go check their "Timeline of Events" section for time correlation.
 
2012-04-30 10:03:00 AM

heap: Salt Lick Steady: so if there's some sort of perception on the part of individuals that they can commit such heinous acts, that's because they're not being prosecuted, not because the law is flawed.

one creates the situation of the other. you may see a layer of abstraction there, but i don't.

we never assess laws, we just happily chug down the road of unintended consequences and pretend the laws that are passed actually address their stated intent, and ignore all other consequences - shiat like this is a prime example.


I'm sorry, don't buy into the chugging consequences line. I was always uncomfortable with duties to retreat in the face of possible death or grave bodily injury; I consider it a moral right to stand my ground and respond with an appropriate level of force, and the laws simply shift the burden of proof, as I mentioned earlier.

But whether it was reasonable is a question that almost always should be sent to a jury. Prosecutors aren't doing that, however. This 'guy with a pipe that was never found' case is particularly egregious.
 
2012-04-30 10:05:12 AM

doglover: Weaver95: doglover: Weaver95: probably the dead body.

THAT'S THE JOKE

I don't think the dead guy thought it was very funny.


I dunno, you could say the joke


puts on glasses

SLAYED HIM!


YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!


Nonononono...

( •_•)⌐■-■ I guess you could say that the joke...

(⌐■_■) ...was a killer.

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
 
2012-04-30 10:05:23 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: craigdamage: SYG does NOT justify shooting a NON-LETHAL threat.

It's still BAD LAW.

You keep skipping that part. The part where the law makes average citizens think they have the right to kill others, even when they don't.

That should not be left up for such vague interpretation by the public.

That's as stupid as taking down all the safety guards in a manufacturing plant and saying, "Well, you should be smart enough not to touch a band saw," then wondering why half your employees have no hands.

It's bad management, bad law, and it serves no positive purpose.


That's really not a problem with the law, just the public perception. They could rescind the "Make my Day" law and ratify an identical law called "reasonable allowance for self-defense but not random murder you jackholes" and all of your concerns would be addressed.
 
2012-04-30 10:07:44 AM

Salt Lick Steady: I was always uncomfortable with duties to retreat in the face of possible death or grave bodily injury


then be begoddamned uncomfortable. would you rather be a killer?

your comfort :: dead person. you tell me which is more important.

and the laws simply shift the burden of proof

and this has nothing at all to do with how prosecutors handle the situations when they arise?

again, just because it wasn't the consequence you'd intend, doesn't mean it isn't a consequence.

it is.
 
2012-04-30 10:12:52 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Salt Lick Steady: Lenny_da_Hog: craigdamage: Bothe will likely face justice.SYG and Castle Doctrine have NOTHING to do with protecting murderers.

But SYG-type laws *do* have something to do with *creating* murderers.

Again, if a law gives the perception that killing someone is legal when it isn't, it's BAD LAW.

Agh, I hate to say it because I generally agree with you, but I disagree with you. The issue is not with the laws themselves. As I mentioned last night, the problem is with abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse (except in tax cases), so if there's some sort of perception on the part of individuals that they can commit such heinous acts, that's because they're not being prosecuted, not because the law is flawed.

If it's vague and causes timid non-enforcement by prosecutors, it's still bad law.

Right now, they're juggling an issue with limited precedence. The only way to build precedence is to prosecute people, but each one of those attempted prosecutions is going to represent at least one death and a high risk of incarceration for the shooter. Ignorance is no excuse, but average people shouldn't be expected to be lawyers, and legislators should account for that.

This is too dangerous to play out in the courts.


The laws aren't vague, they're as clear as the castle doctrine. And while I sympathize with the notion that one innocent life is too much, that doesn't logically nullify the laws. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (and again, I'm not minimizing the horrific nature of unjustifiable deaths but merely using a common analogy). I've seen too many cases where a dude was imprisoned for life or got a capital sentence because he killed someone in the process of trying to defend himself, and he had an incompetent pd who couldn't adequately handle the burden of proof in a retreat jurisdiction.

The prosecutor will try every angle in these jurisdictions: well, he could have try to run down that ally, well he could've tried to duck behind a car, well he could've held his pet chicken as a shield. (Yeah, that last one I made up...)

I agree that our legislative process and our laws in general are simply too complex for an average non-lawyer to know, and that the notion that ignorance is no excuse should be re-examined.
 
2012-04-30 10:15:09 AM

odinsposse: That's really not a problem with the law, just the public perception. They could rescind the "Make my Day" law and ratify an identical law called "reasonable allowance for self-defense but not random murder you jackholes" and all of your concerns would be addressed.


Not all, but most.

It's called Management of Change in industry.

You've made a change that is a high risk - as a legislator, you should also be funding widespread educational information about that law to make the public aware of its actual meaning and intention.
 
2012-04-30 10:16:39 AM
The story reads like the guy in the car didn't need to "stand yer ground".Just drive off and either hit the dog or not, he essentially put possibly ending a dogs life, if it didn't move out of the way, above definitively killing this guy.
 
2012-04-30 10:17:48 AM

heap: your comfort :: dead person. you tell me which is more important.


When it means I may be the dead person? Perhaps 'comfort' wasn't the correct term.

heap: and this has nothing at all to do with how prosecutors handle the situations when they arise?


It does, but again, that's not a flaw in the law; that's a flaw in the prosecutorial system.
 
2012-04-30 10:19:05 AM
er definitely but i guess definitively sorta works...
 
2012-04-30 10:20:48 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: odinsposse: That's really not a problem with the law, just the public perception. They could rescind the "Make my Day" law and ratify an identical law called "reasonable allowance for self-defense but not random murder you jackholes" and all of your concerns would be addressed.

Not all, but most.

It's called Management of Change in industry.

You've made a change that is a high risk - as a legislator, you should also be funding widespread educational information about that law to make the public aware of its actual meaning and intention.


This I totally agree with.
 
2012-04-30 10:21:33 AM
If you're inside a SUV (surrounded by a shell of metal and tempered glass) the guy you shoot dead damn well better have a 3 foot metal pipe and one of your windows show where the guy started trying to break through your window with your pipe. Don't have that? Murder charges.

/have my CCW on my right this second
//never drawn it, just the way I like it
 
2012-04-30 10:24:20 AM

theknuckler_33: EWreckedSean: Granted you gotta feel bad for the guy with the skull fracture, but there is no way the 77 year old guy who shot him could have reasonably known the person who rushed into his home with his elderly wife was injured.

Amazing.

"Sorry I shot and killed you for no reason whatsoever, but hey, them's the breaks!"

I mean, it's almost like shooting first and asking questions later is a bad idea.


Amazing. You in your wife are in your late 70s, it's 2am, and some 35 year old pushes passed you into your house with your wife and gets into a physical struggle with you. Obviously you should stop and talk for a bit to figure out what is going on. Darwin isn't your friend.
 
2012-04-30 10:26:47 AM

I say this as a veteran, a gun owner and a reasonably intelligent man with a Christian upbringing:

God damn America.


/we are getting everything our war mongering hypocritical society deserves.
//It's heartbreaking that young men like this victim have to pay the cost for the world that created cowards like the shooter
 
2012-04-30 10:30:17 AM

Salt Lick Steady: When it means I may be the dead person? Perhaps 'comfort' wasn't the correct term.


if the option is really, actually, and demonstrably 'pull the trigger, or be dead' - do you think a jail sentence would enter your head at that point? do you think you would stop and contemplate a trial, or would you do what you had to do to stay alive?

somewhere in the wankery of simulated/hypothetical situations people come up w/ in this context, the idea that you'd let yourself be killed if there was the possibility of being charged - and this is hooey of the first order. if the situation is actually one of 'shoot or die', you're going to damn well do what you think you need to do to stay alive - alive and on trial is always going to beat dead. the states don't empower anything but the loons with these laws.

i've carried for 25 years now, and with the exception of going to a range or buddies' backyards, i've never once unholstered - and judging by how a lot of people look at this topic, there've been numerous opportunities where i should have found the ground i was standing on as worth more than another human being's life.

that ground wasn't special - there was another plot of it just like it 20 feet away.

Salt Lick Steady: heap: your comfort :: dead person. you tell me which is more important.

When it means I may be the dead person? Perhaps 'comfort' wasn't the correct term.

heap: and this has nothing at all to do with how prosecutors handle the situations when they arise?

It does, but again, that's not a flaw in the law; that's a flaw in the prosecutorial system.


the prosecutorial system's actions are a consequence of the law. i'm not connecting two vastly unconnected dots here, man.

and yes, comfort was the wrong word to use. do you suppose george zimmerman sleeps well at night - and do you think he'd sleep any better had he not been charged? for real, contemplate just what ending another person would do to *you*. there's no comfort to be had in the topic at all, really.
 
Displayed 50 of 751 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report