Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

9357 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (3 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 10:44:36 AM  

heap: 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?


Unfortunately, yeah, I think so, probably due to my work in corrections. But that's not normal, I'll admit. But similarly, I doubt very many people pull out their weapons with the thought, "Well they changed the SYG laws in 2006, so I'm cherry!"

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


Eh, the dots are actually pretty vast in a sense; the validity of the law has nothing to do with prosecutors' willingness to prosecute. And as Lenny mentioned, a wiser way of going about it is to fund public info campaigns to ensure that people have a correct understanding of the law.

heap: 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.


Well said.
 
2012-04-30 10:50:21 AM  
Zimmerman and this other guy are now qualified to be decorated police officers.
 
2012-04-30 10:50:24 AM  

Chimperror2: Lenny_da_Hog: BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?



Violent crime, Way down since enacted.


Please to have citation?
 
2012-04-30 10:50:56 AM  
FTA: 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."

Berserk? Isn't that the normal reaction to someone almost getting hit? I don't get it...
 
2012-04-30 10:53:50 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: Unfortunately, yeah, I think so, probably due to my work in corrections. But that's not normal, I'll admit. But similarly, I doubt very many people pull out their weapons with the thought, "Well they changed the SYG laws in 2006, so I'm cherry!"


do you think the prosecutors aren't affected in the exact same fashion you are as a corrections officer?

and god's honest man...i'm just not buying it. i gather that it may be actually how you feel sitting in front of a keyboard, but i really, well and truly doubt you're going to have the ability to defend yourself in a fatal situation and choose to not do so because you fear a trial.

you're actually saying you fear a trial more than you fear death - think about that for a second.

Salt Lick Steady: the dots are actually pretty vast in a sense; the validity of the law has nothing to do with prosecutors' willingness to prosecute


never mentioned validity - just its existence. it could be 'valid' for however you'd want to define the term - does it, or does it not effect how prosecutors handle the potential cases that come before them? that is a consequence - that's all i'm saying. unintended, yet still a very clear consequence.

the same case could be made that absent these laws, it is the prosecutor's discretion on what possible/potential 'self defense' cases they end up charging crimes in - the lack of a law stating what is definable as self defense has the consequence of determining prosecutor actions. a leads to b - all i'm saying is that ignoring that B is happening is not special to these types of laws, ignoring unintended consequences is our national hobby. this is just example 14354b.
 
2012-04-30 10:58:04 AM  

EWreckedSean: 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.


I know you're either mentally challenged or trolling, but let me help you out.

When you either can't assess a situation, or haven't assessed a situation, the solution isn't to pull your firearm out and start shooting.

Simple facts like this are supposed to accompany the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

Would most of us shoot first if someone burst in our home? Eager to protect my own family I'll admit I might. This shouldn't protect us from conviction however, should we (the shooter) get the situation all wrong. It's a precedent that must be set, otherwise we risk having cowardly assholes running around shooting people and claiming self defense.

Someone bursts into your home? That is a gray area. It's not black and white 'range is open for fire' territory. Though I'll concede that is (and will remain for many years) open for debate. But before you shrug that off as a falsehood, try putting the coin on the other side: If it was a cop with a no-knock warrant and a wrong address, suddenly the system won't seem so clear on your right to open fire and assume a hostile ill-meaning criminal, will it?

Apparently before we can get back to setting that precedent our courts need to strike down some of the Republican fear and violence mongers hell bent on using shiat like this to get them a first class seat and comfy government paycheck on their ride to hell. They seem all too keen on pandering to fat assed "men" with more money, guns and bullets than brains or balls.

And one last point I'd like to make. Legislation like "Make my day" are affronts to our very way of life, and do not serve to protect our 2nd amendment rights, but instead seem to highlight that our society and our people may no longer be capable of being afforded such a right.

Those of us that were trained to use firearms, raised to use and respect them and know it's our worst nightmare the day we have to use them will tell you, letting idiots like this run rampant is the quickest way to ensure excessive and overreaching legislation that goes in the other direction. As strong as the pendulum swings one way today, you can bet your ass tomorrow it's going to swing the other way every bit as much.
 
2012-04-30 11:00:45 AM  

qorkfiend: Chimperror2: Lenny_da_Hog: BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?



Violent crime, Way down since enacted.

Please to have citation?


Well, now many violent - even deadly - acts are no longer a crime. Problem solved!
 
2012-04-30 11:01:52 AM  

MurphyMurphy: 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


You're upset. You don't mean that. You don't really want America to be damned and you know it.

If you believe in a higher power, hold America in the light; pray that America may be granted healing and wisdom.
 
2012-04-30 11:02:48 AM  
Where exactly does one carry a weapon in ones sweatpants?
 
2012-04-30 11:03:55 AM  

MurphyMurphy: EWreckedSean: 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.

I know you're either mentally challenged or trolling, but let me help you out.

When you either can't assess a situation, or haven't assessed a situation, the solution isn't to pull your firearm out and start shooting.

Simple facts like this are supposed to accompany the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

Would most of us shoot first if someone burst in our home? Eager to protect my own family I'll admit I might. This shouldn't protect us from conviction however, should we (the shooter) get the situation all wrong. It's a precedent that must be set, otherwise we risk having cowardly assholes running around shooting people and claiming self defense.

Someone bursts into your home? That is a gray area. It's not black and white 'range is open for fire' territory. Though I'll concede that is (and will remain for many years) open for debate. But before you shrug that off as a falsehood, try putting the coin on the other side: If it was a cop with a no-knock warrant and a wrong address, suddenly the system won't seem so clear on your right to open fire and assume a hostile ill-meaning criminal, will it?

Apparently before we can get back to setting that precedent our courts need to strike down some of the Republican fear and violence mongers hell bent on using shia ...


Somebody busts into an old couple home at 2am, gets into a struggle with them, and is rightfully shot. MY GOD, I must be a troll o suggest that! You're a moron. Carry on.
 
2012-04-30 11:06:15 AM  

Lunaville: MurphyMurphy: 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

You're upset. You don't mean that. You don't really want America to be damned and you know it.

If you believe in a higher power, hold America in the light; pray that America may be granted healing and wisdom.


I didn't say I necessarily believed in a higher power, just that I was raised to.

And I don't want America to be damned, I just think it already is.

Suppose I should have said "FSM damned America"... but that hardly has the same rhetorical ring to it :P
 
2012-04-30 11:08:26 AM  

EWreckedSean: Somebody busts into an old couple home at 2am, gets into a struggle with them, and is rightfully shot. MY GOD, I must be a troll o suggest that! You're a moron. Carry on.


Either doesn't read post or summarizes a complex discussion with a simple platitude.

It it walks like a troll and talks like a troll.....
 
2012-04-30 11:14:00 AM  
Daniel Jr., who was 29 but had the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, had been shot and killed.

way south: /When people say "an armed society is a polite society", you have to presume there will be a few Darwin moments.


I see what you did there.
 
2012-04-30 11:14:23 AM  

falcon176: I think the real important question on whether or not people will agree with the shooter's stand your ground claim is "was the victim black?"


That sums it up.
 
2012-04-30 11:14:54 AM  

Ambivalence: SkinnyHead: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: Pulling a gun out of your sweatpants (seriously, who carries a gun in SWEATPANTS?)


Plaxico Burress.
 
2012-04-30 11:15:45 AM  

MurphyMurphy: And one last point I'd like to make. Legislation like "Make my day" are affronts to our very way of life, and do not serve to protect our 2nd amendment rights, but instead seem to highlight that our society and our people may no longer be capable of being afforded such a right.

Those of us that were trained to use firearms, raised to use and respect them and know it's our worst nightmare the day we have to use them will tell you, letting idiots like this run rampant is the quickest way to ensure excessive and overreaching legislation that goes in the other direction. As strong as the pendulum swings one way today, you can bet your ass tomorrow it's going to swing the other way every bit as much.


Agreed, right now laws like this are the greatest threat to gun rights out there. Lethal force in your home and lethal force in defense of your life are considered acceptable and were considered acceptable by the mainstream and this expansion of gun rights is unneeded. There are a lot more intelligent things that could be focused on to expand peoples ability to defend themselves than arguing over duty to retreat.

I'm much more concerned about the campus free weapons zone. In the town that contains my daughter's college of choice is up 67%, home invasion is up 35%, and the police force is getting reduced by 10%. The college considers stun guns and pepper spray to be dangerous weapons and thus bans from all buildings, effectively making it so my daughter can't even carry a little single shot unit on her keys. I'm much more pissed off "Crime is up, police are being downsized, and we're still banning pepper spray" than I am over duty to retreat.
 
2012-04-30 11:18:24 AM  
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."

Wow. That happens hundreds of time a day on the streets of NYC.

and unless it was posted here and missed it... Link
 
2012-04-30 11:19:41 AM  

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]


If I'm looking at that guy in the picture from that perspective, I'm pretty sure he isn't missing. My geometry isn't the best but it is never a good when you can actually see down the barrel of the other guy.
 
2012-04-30 11:21:38 AM  

MurphyMurphy: EWreckedSean: Somebody busts into an old couple home at 2am, gets into a struggle with them, and is rightfully shot. MY GOD, I must be a troll o suggest that! You're a moron. Carry on.

Either doesn't read post or summarizes a complex discussion with a simple platitude.

It it walks like a troll and talks like a troll.....


Oh I read it. I repeat my statement. You're a farking moron. Need it spelled out better?

M O R O N

Anybody who really doesn't understand agreeing with an old man shooting a home invader at 2am is, simply put (simply for your sake), a moron. Doubly so when they have to start screaming troll.
 
2012-04-30 11:26:26 AM  

violentsalvation: Oh gee CNN, can you stage a more heart wrenching photo?


violentsalvation: Oh gee CNN, can you stage a more heart wrenching photo?


Yeah, you really wouldn't want people to feel bad for a murder victim.
 
2012-04-30 11:26:58 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.


So what do the laws do, if they are nothing more than the standard of self defense and reasonable use of lethal force already?

If they expanding those precedents, then it's valid to dislike the syg laws.

If they aren't actually expanding them, then why do we need syg laws, and if these laws do nothing except trick the public into misunderstandings that result in death, why aren't the laws to be considered part of the problem?
 
2012-04-30 11:30:39 AM  
In Arizona, where the Adkins family lives, a similar law was enacted in 2006, tacked on to another gun bill after a gun rights lobbyist promoted it for 20 seconds in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Called "Make my Day," it says people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves anywhere they have the legal right to be.

When liberals look at 2nd amendment rights advocates, this is what they see. They see this sentence, personified. They see 2nd amendment rights advocates as so farking derped up on their power trip they aren't willing to walk away before someone ends up dead. You might be the most right person on earth and have every right to be standing there but at some point, you have to be the bigger person and just walk away because it ain't worth it man. shoot the farkhead because you were right.

By the way, you know how you all see cops derped up on power abusing it? That's exactly how we see people who propose these laws.
 
2012-04-30 11:33:28 AM  
Considering the direction this country has gone since 9/12/2001, I have a feeling that 2022 will make Robocop seem like a wistful look back at a happier, gentler age.

Protect the zygotes for they are holy. Once they're out, gun those motherfarkers down. Who knows what they plan to do to you, they might scratch your Hoveround.
 
2012-04-30 11:33:30 AM  

heap: do you think the prosecutors aren't affected in the exact same fashion you are as a corrections officer?


No, I wasn't a CO. I was a lawyer for FDOC. Changes the equation a bit.

Smackledorfer: So what do the laws do, if they are nothing more than the standard of self defense and reasonable use of lethal force already?


The shift of the burden of proof is HUGE. In a retreat jurisdiction, the burden is on you to prove that there was no reasonable way to retreat before using deadly force. With a SYG law, the burden is on the prosecutor to show that you weren't being reasonable.
 
2012-04-30 11:37:27 AM  
Stand your ground is just a re-affirmation of a very basic constitutional right. No wonder so many people oppose it.
 
2012-04-30 11:38:07 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Stand your ground is just a re-affirmation of a very basic constitutional right. No wonder so many people oppose it.


The constitutional right to shoot other people because you're a pants-wetting coward? Which amendment is that?
 
2012-04-30 11:39:17 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: So what do the laws do, if they are nothing more than the standard of self defense and reasonable use of lethal force already?

The shift of the burden of proof is HUGE. In a retreat jurisdiction, the burden is on you to prove that there was no reasonable way to retreat before using deadly force. With a SYG law, the burden is on the prosecutor to show that you weren't being reasonable.


Killing a man cause he smudged your puma ford doesn't sound too reasonable to me.
 
2012-04-30 11:41:35 AM  
I wonder if this means I'm allowed to open fire on SUVs that drive in the bike lane? If they cut me off or come over into my side where i end up kicking the doors or going into parked cars, can I shoot them? What if they stop inside the crosswalk as I'm crossing?

Yes, I've kicked many cars and trucks and yelled. People are assholes. I know I dented one girls bumper because she stopped right next to my leg while Iwas walking across the street. She was so used to stopping inside the crosswalk, she didn't even slow down till she was inside the lines. Was I wrong, should she have killed me?
 
2012-04-30 11:42:55 AM  

heap: you're actually saying you fear a trial more than you fear death - think about that for a second.


Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim, and I've had to go through really freaking bad trials as a defense litigator. Then there's the transactional work, where you see someone imprisoned for life for having stood their ground, generally convicted because they're black. That last aspect is not something I have to worry about, but yes. I would rather die than be incarcerated for life.
 
2012-04-30 11:44:46 AM  

Karac: Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: So what do the laws do, if they are nothing more than the standard of self defense and reasonable use of lethal force already?

The shift of the burden of proof is HUGE. In a retreat jurisdiction, the burden is on you to prove that there was no reasonable way to retreat before using deadly force. With a SYG law, the burden is on the prosecutor to show that you weren't being reasonable.

Killing a man cause he smudged your puma ford doesn't sound too reasonable to me.


Of course it's not, which is again why I say that the problem is not with the law, but with the failure to prosecute and bring the matter before a fact-finder (jury). This is also why the First Amendment protection of journalism is so important; it brings these travesties to light.
 
2012-04-30 11:45:36 AM  

qorkfiend: Big_Fat_Liar: Stand your ground is just a re-affirmation of a very basic constitutional right. No wonder so many people oppose it.

The constitutional right to shoot other people because you're a pants-wetting coward? Which amendment is that?


Dude, he had a rational point and you were harsh to ignore it. The second amendment affirms the right to keep a trained, well regulated and armed militia. Now people here usually focus on the armed part, not so much the regulated or militia part, or even the "security of a free state" part. But I digress. Stand your ground just re-affirms your well regulated armed militia does not have to retreat if it does not want to. Why is that so bad? Do you want our army forced to retreat?

See, Zimmerman, acting as a trained militiaman, was protecting the country from the invasion of Trayvon Martin. He did not retreat, he reloaded. Thank God for heroes like that.
 
2012-04-30 11:47:17 AM  
balloot:

I didn't ask you to link to some random 70 minute long video from a wingnut conference.

I asked you to name one single real event that has happened in a non ...


Ayoob lists quite a few, in detail, in that video. The fact that you are too lazy and myopic to even skim through what I posted does not reduce the credibility or validity of it. All it proves is that you listen solely to what you want to hear.
 
2012-04-30 11:50:18 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: The shift of the burden of proof is HUGE. In a retreat jurisdiction, the burden is on you to prove that there was no reasonable way to retreat before using deadly force. With a SYG law, the burden is on the prosecutor to show that you weren't being reasonable.


So then, these laws are directly responsible for situations in which guy A shoots guy B, no witnesses, and guy says "I didn't want to retreat, and I don't have to, and that guys dead, he made my day". Which is what many of us are criticizing about them, while you are seemingly trying to pin the blame on prosecutors for not knowing, without proof, which situations are murder and which are clint eastwood legal.

There are different levels of retreating to hypothetically consider too. Fleeing straight away on foot from a guy pointing a gun and shooting at you is stupid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was ever forced to do that prior to the SYG laws.

On the other hand, a guy brandishes a club (a deadly force weapon) and he's fifty feet away and you are in your car, you ought to be driving away. Technically though, you were under the threat of serious bodily harm if you did nothing: he could have closed the distance, broken your window, and killed you. So you HAD to kill him.

Now obviously the 3 foot lead pipe in this story wasn't found, but what if he actually had it? Then, under the make my day law, the man rightfully followed the law.

/and of course a million and one alternate scenarios in between those two, like the earlier SYG case in florida where a man picked a bar fight, felt threatened, went back into his car for a gun, went back in and continued to talk shiat (standing his ground, ain't nobody supposed to make him flee from a place he has a right to be) right up until things got assaulting enough for him to shoot. I call that murder.



heap: you're actually saying you fear a trial more than you fear death - think about that for a second.


Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. Everybody knows that.
 
2012-04-30 11:50:49 AM  

ha-ha-guy: 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


You talk like one of the rare people that should have a CCW.
 
2012-04-30 11:51:48 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim,


Bull. farking. shiat.

If you feared trial more than death, you could shoot the guy, and then commit suicide to avoid the trial.
 
2012-04-30 11:53:01 AM  

Smackledorfer: If you feared trial more than death, you could shoot the guy, and then commit suicide to avoid the trial.


If you fear the trial more than death, I think you can just kill it now.
 
2012-04-30 11:53:29 AM  

Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim,

Bull. farking. shiat.

If you feared trial more than death, you could shoot the guy, and then commit suicide to avoid the trial.


It's not trial itself, though that's hellish, it's the consequences that could result.
 
2012-04-30 11:54:46 AM  

lennavan: Dude, he had a rational point and you were harsh to ignore it. The second amendment affirms the right to keep a trained, well regulated and armed militia. Now people here usually focus on the armed part, not so much the regulated or militia part, or even the "security of a free state" part. But I digress. Stand your ground just re-affirms your well regulated armed militia does not have to retreat if it does not want to. Why is that so bad? Do you want our army forced to retreat?


Just as you ignore that after all the reasons for doing so, the constitution guarantees the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
 
2012-04-30 11:55:32 AM  

namatad:
They don't reduce or remove the standard for "necessary reasonable force" to stop an attacker. Retreat or no, use of force must be justified. I don't think these laws affect that requirement in any way.
...Self defense is a DEFENSE which is used at trial. Since when does the cop decide to not arrest a shooter??


THIS

You still have to have a trial where the defendant demonstrates that their use of deadly force was self-defense.
 
2012-04-30 11:59:52 AM  
I can't help wondering if the presence of pregnant fiancee might have had something to do with the response.

Was he being protective of them, or was he bein' a MAN?

People have a tendency to go overboard (read: "do really stupid shiat they would not done otherwise") if there is a member of the opposite watching...
 
2012-04-30 12:01:03 PM  

Smackledorfer: So then, these laws are directly responsible for situations in which guy A shoots guy B, no witnesses, and guy says "I didn't want to retreat, and I don't have to, and that guys dead, he made my day". Which is what many of us are criticizing about them, while you are seemingly trying to pin the blame on prosecutors for not knowing, without proof, which situations are murder and which are clint eastwood legal.


It goes in the other direction all the time; guy A shoots guy B, no witnesses, so good luck proving you were doing it in self defense. Call me a sucker for the underdog, but like I said, I saw too many inmates for which this was the reason they were sentenced to life. You add incompetent counsel to it, and it's just tragic. And in a case where the evidence is known and clear - there was no pipe found, the dude was in an SUV and actually stated that he wasn't afraid for his life - yeah, it's abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Smackledorfer: There are different levels of retreating to hypothetically consider too. Fleeing straight away on foot from a guy pointing a gun and shooting at you is stupid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was ever forced to do that prior to the SYG laws.


This absolutely happened all the time, cases where the prosecution successfully argued that you could've fled down the alley. And there is nothing wrong with making the prosecution actually prove that you were unreasonable, rather than forcing you to prove you weren't.

Smackledorfer: Now obviously the 3 foot lead pipe in this story wasn't found, but what if he actually had it? Then, under the make my day law, the man rightfully followed the law.


No, even under SYG that would not fall under the reasonable standard. But again, that's a question for a fact-finder, not for a prosecutor who doesn't feel like spending the time or money on actually proving his or her case.
 
2012-04-30 12:03:34 PM  
Let's see, some guy with a gun tucked into his sweatpants taking his pregnant wife to Taco Bell. I'm guessing lower class, Fox News worshipping white trash. Pulls it out and shoots an angry looking Hispanic man who he claims was threatening him with a non-existant weapon? Yep, definately some white trash redneck. Hell, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't made him and Zimmerman this election cycle's "Joe the Plumber."
 
2012-04-30 12:04:39 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: lennavan: Dude, he had a rational point and you were harsh to ignore it. The second amendment affirms the right to keep a trained, well regulated and armed militia. Now people here usually focus on the armed part, not so much the regulated or militia part, or even the "security of a free state" part. But I digress. Stand your ground just re-affirms your well regulated armed militia does not have to retreat if it does not want to. Why is that so bad? Do you want our army forced to retreat?

Just as you ignore that after all the reasons for doing so, the constitution guarantees the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.


I like to recall that society is the same today as it was back when the constitution was written and the founding fathers knew it would be the same, which is why they intended the document to be a "dead document" that never changes.

Like back then when the people had to keep arms because the redcoats might be coming at short notice, so the towns had to defend themselves against invasion. We still need to protect ourselves from invasion.
 
2012-04-30 12:05:39 PM  
What the fark? "I didn't want to run over the dog, so instead I SHOT THE GUY IN THE CHEST?!?" WTF is wrong with people?
 
2012-04-30 12:07:40 PM  
Killed for yelling? Killed for pointing? Killed for looking? Killed for being there?
This country gets crazier by the hour...
"Love it or leave it" - At least I have a choice....
 
2012-04-30 12:08:11 PM  

Tman144: What the fark? "I didn't want to run over the dog, so instead I SHOT THE GUY IN THE CHEST?!?" WTF is wrong with people?


Dim bulb + gun + pregnant fiancee + "stand your ground"
 
2012-04-30 12:08:57 PM  

Tman144: What the fark? "I didn't want to run over the dog, so instead I SHOT THE GUY IN THE CHEST?!?" WTF is wrong with people?


Even if you take him at his word and his belief - it's a strong argument for why people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns outside of their homes. If you take him at his word, this clearly demonstrates untrained citizens do not have the capability of making reasonable life and death decisions with a gun. Should be with the police/armed forces only.
 
2012-04-30 12:09:59 PM  

EWreckedSean: 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.


-------------------------

Fail. Nobody is arguing against Castle doctrine. If someone invades your house, you get to defend it by any means necessary. We are arguing against legally being able to shoot and kill anyone who you get into an argument with.

These SYG laws are so incredibly broken. It amazes me that people even attempt to defend them. There is quite literally no other law anywhere that makes an illegal act legal based on the subjective opinion of the perpetrator. This isn't an oversight, because it's completely retarded to let people use an opinion to legally justify crimes.

While we're at it, we should pass a "She totally wanted me" law that cancels out rape if you claim the girl in question was giving you sexy vibes. Also, a "greedy douchebag" law that lets you rob someone as long as you perceive them as being not generous enough.
 
2012-04-30 12:10:57 PM  

balloot: Also, a "greedy douchebag" law that lets you rob someone as long as you perceive them as being not generous enough.


Or too ostensibly wealthy.
 
2012-04-30 12:11:55 PM  

you are a puppet: Ironic thing is the people who lobby for and support these laws are the same ones that complain about the 'pussification of America'

"Remember the old days when Men were Men? I miss those days...what happened to this country? Also, I piss myself when another guy looks at me. Uh-oh, somebody on the internet is typing in all caps! I'm going to get my gun and hide under the bed. Vote Republican"



That's the problem with these laws. They're generally not meant for, supported by, or employed by the "reasonable person." They're championed and utilized by the pants-wetting hysterics who become gun nuts.

I wish I had copied and pasted it, but one time some guy here posted something that was a real insight into to these types of people. Someone made a comment about gun nuts itching for conflict in their desire to pull out their gun and blow someone away, and this self-admitted gun nut offered this long sincere reply about how the exact opposite is true... that he can't stand conflict... that when someone even cuts him off in traffic, his heart races because he worries how it might escalate into a conflict leading the other guy to become violent, and how one or the other of them might end up being killed.

Something as mundane as someone cutting him off in traffic sends him into a fight or flight panic, that in his mind immediately becomes a likely kill or be killed situation. These people are farking nuts. They are skittish terrified little mice in human form, and these laws give them carte blanche to act on their deranged ever-present terror without so much as worrying about becoming some 300lb. skinhead's prison pet.

Read the part about the reporters visiting the father:

"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."

farking CNN is on his doorstep to ask about his son, and he's crapping his pants, warning about how he's brandishing a weapon.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report