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.

(The Raw Story)   KY man headed back to prison for fatal stabbing after state Supreme Court rules that "stand your ground" law doesn't apply if the ground you are standing is a strip club parking lot you voluntarily walked out into to start a fight   (rawstory.com) divider line 65
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3253 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2014 at 5:05 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-21 02:18:36 PM  
NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"
 
2014-07-21 03:50:20 PM  
Stab your ground.
 
2014-07-21 04:01:23 PM  
The problem with "Stand your ground" is often in fights both participants feel the other is the aggressor and them. So it sets it up so people will confront each other to lethal levels.
 
2014-07-21 04:48:03 PM  

Magorn: NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"


Call the NKA
 
2014-07-21 05:06:29 PM  
hah, he is going to wish he really was a ky man
 
2014-07-21 05:07:40 PM  

Magorn: NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"


The second amendment doesn't apply to edged weapons. It, quite specifically, says bear arms.
 
2014-07-21 05:09:02 PM  
img2.timeinc.net
What a KY strip club might look like.
I wonder if his actions were justified.
 
2014-07-21 05:09:26 PM  
Man's Moral: "Refuse to lose"

/re-fuse (verb) garbage; trash
 
2014-07-21 05:11:02 PM  
Lemons admitted to stabbing Kessnick twice in the back during a 2:30 a.m. brawl outside the Brass Ass strip club in Newport, but he claims he had no other choice to defend himself and his friends.

I'd imagine it's a bit harder to claim self defense/stand your ground if you stabbed someone twice from behind.
 
2014-07-21 05:12:43 PM  
The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.
 
2014-07-21 05:12:48 PM  
Don't resheathe, resharpen!
 
2014-07-21 05:17:50 PM  
THIS IS AN OUTRA......

Actually it isn't.
 
2014-07-21 05:17:51 PM  
"Lemons admitted to stabbing Kessnick twice in the back"


Uh hmmmmmmmm...
 
2014-07-21 05:18:29 PM  

RexTalionis: I'd imagine it's a bit harder to claim self defense/stand your ground if you stabbed someone twice from behind.


Oh you don't have to be behind them. Unlike the from behind stabbing he'll get in prison.

/sorry john Oliver, had to make a rape joke
 
2014-07-21 05:21:10 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your- gr ound-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense


This was SCOKY, not SCOTUS, and yes, there is some confusion

/IANAL, but I think the above link sets precedent for the KY stabbing to be justified
 
2014-07-21 05:21:41 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.


It can still get confusing. Let's say you lose your temper and start a fight. Then you come to your senses and back off. But the other guy is in a rage now, and he wants to teach you a lesson and he basically starts kicking your ass. You grab a stick and hit the guy in the head, killing him. Who was standing his ground?
 
2014-07-21 05:22:16 PM  

RexTalionis: Lemons admitted to stabbing Kessnick twice in the back during a 2:30 a.m. brawl outside the Brass Ass strip club in Newport, but he claims he had no other choice to defend himself and his friends.

I'd imagine it's a bit harder to claim self defense/stand your ground if you stabbed someone twice from behind.


/could have been worse, could have stabbed him IN his behind, twice.
 
2014-07-21 05:26:54 PM  

Bslim: "Lemons admitted to stabbing Kessnick twice in the back"


Uh hmmmmmmmm...


Sure.  You start the fight face-to-face.. struggle struggle struggle .. then you're behind the guy, stab stab.

I can see it happen.
 
2014-07-21 05:27:04 PM  
RexTalionis: I'd imagine it's a bit harder to claim self defense/stand your ground if you stabbed someone twice from behind.

not necessarily. They could've tried to hug it out and things went awry.
 
2014-07-21 05:27:40 PM  

Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

It can still get confusing. Let's say you lose your temper and start a fight. Then you come to your senses and back off. But the other guy is in a rage now, and he wants to teach you a lesson and he basically starts kicking your ass. You grab a stick and hit the guy in the head, killing him. Who was standing his ground?


In that scenario you typed, i would have to say that once you back off, and show you have no more intent to fight, and the other person is pissed beyond reason, the first guy becomes the "victim" and the second "the aggressor"  In this case, you initiated the fight yes, but you came to your senses and showed  a willingness to cease all physical battle.  This, in general, "resets" you to a average citizen.  This does not by law give the guy you attacked in the first place a right to keep attacking you.  So yes, you could kill him on accident, as you backed off, and he would not stop, and you would be innocent under the "stand your ground" law.  That is how i would judge that.
 
2014-07-21 05:27:53 PM  
When life gives you Lemons give Lemons life.
 
2014-07-21 05:28:50 PM  
Without having been there to see what happened (or seeing a video that clearly shows what happened), there is no way for us to determine whether he was defending himself/his buddies or just being a butt-twang.  If it's the former, let him go. The latter, let him rot for awhile.
 
2014-07-21 05:31:51 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.


Unless you are in Florida then you can go out of your way to stalk someone and then claim self defense when you have to defend yourself from the person your stalking deciding to defend themselves from a stalker.  It also helps if the person your stalking has a hoodie and skittles and Iced tea.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-21 05:32:29 PM  
The court didn't say the stabbing was illegal. The court said it was not so clearly a lawful act of self defense that the defendant could have charges thrown out without a trial. Then the defendant chose to plead guilty rather than try to persuade a jury.
 
2014-07-21 05:32:40 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

It can still get confusing. Let's say you lose your temper and start a fight. Then you come to your senses and back off. But the other guy is in a rage now, and he wants to teach you a lesson and he basically starts kicking your ass. You grab a stick and hit the guy in the head, killing him. Who was standing his ground?

In that scenario you typed, i would have to say that once you back off, and show you have no more intent to fight, and the other person is pissed beyond reason, the first guy becomes the "victim" and the second "the aggressor"  In this case, you initiated the fight yes, but you came to your senses and showed  a willingness to cease all physical battle.  This, in general, "resets" you to a average citizen.  This does not by law give the guy you attacked in the first place a right to keep attacking you.  So yes, you could kill him on accident, as you backed off, and he would not stop, and you would be innocent under the "stand your ground" law.  That is how i would judge that.


I agree with your analysis, but if this goes down in a minute or two, in a bar or outside, at night, and witnesses stories conflict, and some had been drinking, and you and the other guy had been drinking. What if it's all unwitnessed, at night? And you have a gun?
 
2014-07-21 05:34:15 PM  

Magorn: NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"


www.opticstalk.com
 
2014-07-21 05:34:21 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

Unless you are in Florida then you can go out of your way to stalk someone and then claim self defense when you have to defend yourself from the person your stalking deciding to defend themselves from a stalker.  It also helps if the person your stalking has a hoodie and skittles and Iced tea.


You don't have a right to be the aggressor, even if someone has been following you around for a few minutes. Even if they are an asshole for doing it. There's no law against following someone around or asking what they are doing in this apartment complex. Asshole? Could be. Give you a right to kick his ass? No.

You need to get over that. The jury got it right.
 
2014-07-21 05:34:23 PM  

Brainsick: Bit'O'Gristle: /Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your- gr ound-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense


This was SCOKY, not SCOTUS, and yes, there is some confusion

/IANAL, but I think the above link sets precedent for the KY stabbing to be justified

Back in January, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck, which was parked outside Garcia's Miami apartment. Garcia grabbed a large knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta for at least a block. The incident was caught on tape and showed that Garcia stabbed Roteta to death. At the time Roteta was carrying a bag with stolen radios "but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished."


Ok thanks for the scotus correct, i was reading TFA too fast. But in your above link, the guy who's radio was being stolen pretty much ran the guy down and stabbed him to death.  That is murder, not "stand your ground".  The radio stealing guy didn't even pull a weapon, and was trying to run away. That is hardly a "aggressive" burglar.
 
2014-07-21 05:35:54 PM  
The Brass Ass? Most. Unsexy name. Ever.
 
2014-07-21 05:39:49 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Unless you are in Florida then you can go out of your way to stalk someone and then claim self defense when you have to defend yourself from the person your stalking deciding to defend themselves from a stalker.


You are correct; in Florida, the unusual and unreasonable legal precedent exists stating that following a person in public does not grant the followed person the right to use deadly force against the follower.
 
2014-07-21 05:40:46 PM  

Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

It can still get confusing. Let's say you lose your temper and start a fight. Then you come to your senses and back off. But the other guy is in a rage now, and he wants to teach you a lesson and he basically starts kicking your ass. You grab a stick and hit the guy in the head, killing him. Who was standing his ground?



It depends........

Are there eyewitnesses?
No - You were standing your ground
Yes - Are they friends of yours?
-- Yes - You were standing your ground
-- No - You should have killed them too.  It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.  Other factors come into play - race, sexual orientation, etc.

Do you have defensive wounds?
Yes - You were standing your ground
No - You should have injured yourself. It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.

Did the other person have a weapon?
Yes -  You were standing your ground.
No - Standard police tactics 101.  You should have planted a weapon. It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.

When you called the police, were you perceived as a victim who had feared for his life?
Yes - You were standing your ground
No - You should have memorized and practiced your interactions with police.  They need to hear the right comments from you. It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.
 
2014-07-21 05:41:36 PM  

Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

I agree with your analysis, but if this goes down in a minute or two, in a bar or outside, at night, and witnesses stories conflict, and some had been drinking, and you and the other guy had been drinking. What if it's all unwitnessed, at night? And you have a gun?

//ok im

a bit confused as to your actual question here.  You asked my opinion on a scenario, and yes, there can be confusing testimony from witnesses, and having none makes it harder.  And the weapon hardly makes a difference.  it's more about "did you have cause to defend yourself as a victim."  You go by what evidence you have, or testimony of witnesses, and make the most honest call you can.
 
2014-07-21 05:42:38 PM  

Winston Smith '84: Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

It can still get confusing. Let's say you lose your temper and start a fight. Then you come to your senses and back off. But the other guy is in a rage now, and he wants to teach you a lesson and he basically starts kicking your ass. You grab a stick and hit the guy in the head, killing him. Who was standing his ground?


It depends........

Are there eyewitnesses?
No - You were standing your ground
Yes - Are they friends of yours?
-- Yes - You were standing your ground
-- No - You should have killed them too.  It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.  Other factors come into play - race, sexual orientation, etc.

Do you have defensive wounds?
Yes - You were standing your ground
No - You should have injured yourself. It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.

Did the other person have a weapon?
Yes -  You were standing your ground.
No - Standard police tactics 101.  You should have planted a weapon. It's a tossup - You may or may not have been standing your ground.

When you called the police, were you perceived as a victim who had feared for his life?
Yes - You were standing your ground
No - You should have memorized and ...


Exactly. There are many, many factors to consider, thousands of scenarios you could come up with. And if the Zimmerman media frenzy (and the FARK threads) are any indication, many people have not got a f*cking clue how it all works.
 
2014-07-21 05:45:10 PM  

uncleacid: When life gives you Lemons give Lemons life.


Well done.
 
2014-07-21 05:48:07 PM  
Brian Lemons pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter and second-degree assault in the 2008 stabbing death of Cory Kessnick, and he was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

What kind of party do you throw for a guy like that?
 
2014-07-21 05:52:05 PM  
KY will be highly relevant at his next residence ..
 
2014-07-21 05:53:34 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: Brian Lemons pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter and second-degree assault in the 2008 stabbing death of Cory Kessnick, and he was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

What kind of party do you throw for a guy like that?


i1341.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-21 05:57:35 PM  

Nabb1: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

It can still get confusing. Let's say you lose your temper and start a fight. Then you come to your senses and back off. But the other guy is in a rage now, and he wants to teach you a lesson and he basically starts kicking your ass. You grab a stick and hit the guy in the head, killing him. Who was standing his ground?


The first question is: How much "come to your senses" was there. Was this 2 seconds between the break in the action or are you saying, "I'm sorry dude. I didn't mean to hit you" as you are holding your hand out to help the guy up. Two seconds goes by as you are standing over him and the fight is still on in his mind (and everyone around you) and you are done in your mind. The guy you beat up would be in a mutual fight if he starts in on you in the first scenario and if you killed him then you will go to jail since you started the current altercation and also killed the guy. If the second scenario played out you may try to use the SYG law, but you will have a lot of convincing to do rather than the open and closed case of the George Zimmerman trial.

It also helps if you have done nothing illegal. Nothing that George Zimmerman did would have been considered illegal in any way up until Trayvon was shot. The first and only crime was committed by Trayvon and in all accordance (yes, I listened to most of the trial as it was being broadcast) by both the defense and eventually even the prosecution had to go along with the story that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the sidewalk. When it becomes illegal to follow someone (stalking is a legal precedent of following someone on multiple occasions and not on a singular event such as the Martin/Zimmerman altercation) then Trayvon may have legally been able to beat up Zimmerman and Zimmerman could not have legally shot Martin since GZ would have committed the first crime and continued with it.

/If I were G. Zimmerman I would have sued Martin's parents for his assault and battery to get some money since he is now unemployed and may be so for a few years
 
2014-07-21 06:00:37 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Brainsick: Bit'O'Gristle: /Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your- gr ound-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense


This was SCOKY, not SCOTUS, and yes, there is some confusion

/IANAL, but I think the above link sets precedent for the KY stabbing to be justified

Back in January, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck, which was parked outside Garcia's Miami apartment. Garcia grabbed a large knife, ran downstairs and chased Roteta for at least a block. The incident was caught on tape and showed that Garcia stabbed Roteta to death. At the time Roteta was carrying a bag with stolen radios "but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished."

Ok thanks for the scotus correct, i was reading TFA too fast. But in your above link, the guy who's radio was being stolen pretty much ran the guy down and stabbed him to death.  That is murder, not "stand your ground".  The radio stealing guy didn't even pull a weapon, and was trying to run away. That is hardly a "aggressive" burglar.


Yet a judge decided it was self-defense. That was kinda the point of me linking that article
 
2014-07-21 06:02:12 PM  

Nabb1: Warlordtrooper: Bit'O'Gristle: The Supreme Court avoided the law of self-defense in the Lemons ruling, but three justices agreed in a September opinion that the "stand your ground" law could be confusing.

/Really? What is so confusing about it? If you are going about your innocent and lawful way, and are attacked by someone, you have the right to "stand your ground and defend yourself, including the use of deadly force". How, by any stretch of the imagination is that confusing? And who is confused? SCOTUS? Or your average joe?

And in this case, yes, you can't be a willing participant in a physical altercation (you actively went seeking the other person) and claim "stand your ground" after LOOKING for the fight, and then stabbing a guy to death. I can't believe his scumbag lawyer even tried that defense.

Unless you are in Florida then you can go out of your way to stalk someone and then claim self defense when you have to defend yourself from the person your stalking deciding to defend themselves from a stalker.  It also helps if the person your stalking has a hoodie and skittles and Iced tea.

You don't have a right to be the aggressor, even if someone has been following you around for a few minutes. Even if they are an asshole for doing it. There's no law against following someone around or asking what they are doing in this apartment complex. Asshole? Could be. Give you a right to kick his ass? No.

You need to get over that. The jury got it right.


What if the person doing the stalking is a creepy-ass cracker?
 
2014-07-21 06:02:15 PM  
"Lemons had no defensive stab wounds and only Lemons's version of the facts supported his defense theory."

Yeah, SYG laws were written by people that have a real interest in killing people and walking away from it, regardless of circumstance.

Need someone out of your life? Just get them alone. Hell, you can invite them over to your house. It's not like they'll be giving the police a statement when you're done with them.
 
2014-07-21 06:02:43 PM  
Cue in the usual Justice For Trayvon Derp...Even though Zimmerman didn't even use Stand Your Ground defense....he used long standing self defense laws and precedents. But, hey, Al Sharpton is right because he kills Jews....
 
2014-07-21 06:14:28 PM  
ah newport!  my old hometown!    Newport hasn't been any fun since they ran the mob out in the late 70's.  this shiat never happened when the mob run newport
 
2014-07-21 06:15:55 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: "Lemons had no defensive stab wounds and only Lemons's version of the facts supported his defense theory."

Yeah, SYG laws were written by people that have a real interest in killing people and walking away from it, regardless of circumstance.

Need someone out of your life? Just get them alone. Hell, you can invite them over to your house. It's not like they'll be giving the police a statement when you're done with them.


Exactly correct.  Follow the correct steps and you will not be prosecuted.  The four keys are: no witnesses, kill the other person, make sure some evidence supports you (bruise yourself, plant a weapon, etc.), and sound sympathetic to the police.
 
2014-07-21 06:17:06 PM  

rkiller1: What a KY strip club might look like.
I wonder if his actions were justified.


You make me pull, I'll put you down.
 
2014-07-21 06:19:48 PM  

iheartscotch: Magorn: NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"

The second amendment doesn't apply to edged weapons. It, quite specifically, says bear arms.


Those things at the end of a bears' arms _are_ edged weapons.
 
2014-07-21 06:25:06 PM  
KY man wont need to be KY man for much longer..  Soon, he'll just emit a whistling sound when he walks..
 
2014-07-21 06:41:50 PM  

Magorn: NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"


The Second Amendment isn't just about guns. First they came for the Partizans, plug bayonets, slung-shots, life preservers and horsewhips...
 
2014-07-21 06:45:12 PM  

dionysusaur: iheartscotch: Magorn: NRA not expected to protest because "a knife?  seriously, what kind of pansy exercises their second amendment freedoms with a KNIFE"

The second amendment doesn't apply to edged weapons. It, quite specifically, says bear arms.

Those things at the end of a bears' arms _are_ edged weapons.


Not that a bear couldn't take your head off if it was wearing boxing gloves.
 
2014-07-21 06:50:26 PM  
KY man better bring some lube with him when he goes to prison!
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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