RE: Stand Your Ground II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/13/2012 9:01:26 PM)

Tell us what your position is. Every time anyone respons to what you seem to be saying you go bananas and claim we are lying. Didn't you say that it would be better to roll back to the old self defense laws??
Don't lie cause you have said it several times. So tell us what those laws were. Asking you to show what you think is better is not lying it is giving you the chance to prove your point.




Kirata -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/13/2012 9:08:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Give facts not stupid accusations.


SERIOUSLY STOP FUCKING LYING ABOUT MY POSITION!

Just because it errs on the kinder side of the truth doesn't make calling your accusations "stupid" a lie. [:)]

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 2:50:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Tell us what your position is.

Thank you. That's a valid question to ask. I haven't said very much about my position, I haven't had a chance to. Page after page, on every page for the last 7 pages you've been explaining my position to me. You've spent more space in this thread misrepresenting my position than I've had time to explain it. Take this recent example:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Ok you post the old Fl self defense laws since you insist that they were somuch better you must have a link to them.
We as in those of us who live here.
Give facts not stupid accusations.


I disagreed with your claim because these laws are different from state to state, that's what I said. That's notably different and in no way equivalent to the position that you assigned me.

If this was happening once in a blue moon *shrug* then whatever, maybe you just misunderstood me. But it's not once in a blue moon, holy crap has it been prolific. You've spent enough time misrepresenting my position that I really haven't had much of a chance to explain my actual position. I've ended up spending most of my time here trying to get you to stop lying about me.








GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 2:52:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Did you miss when I explained the absured handicaps the old self defense standard put the person tring to defend themselves under.


Here's the thing your quote below isn't about the person trying to defend themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I don't know for sure what the rules were in Fl before castle doctrin but in Alabama the bad guys could break into my house and cart everything I had off and if I tried to stop them I was the criminal as long as they didn't attack me. And if they lived their word had equal weight with mine when they pressed assault charges. Even then I had to give a verbal warning and fire a warning shot. I don't want to go back to that. Many of the traditional self defense laws were like that.


It's explicitly about situations where they didn't attack you.

Removing the requirements that you're complaining about legalizes the summery execution of non violent robbers without so much as a warning. That's a scenario that I find morally reprehensible but I'm also not inclined to try and arm chair quarterback what steps you need to take because of the particular nature of their being a criminal invading your house.

I do however find the application of that same principle to public property horrific. I do think that people on public property should have an obligation to retreat from threats of violence when they can safely do so. I don't think it's ok to legalize gang turf wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/92183289.html
A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against two men accused in a deadly gang shootout on Holton Street.

Judge Terry Lewis says Jeffrey Brown and Andrea Tyler were standing their ground the night that 15 year old Michael Jackson was shot in February 2008.

"I find from the evidence, both sides to this shootout expected, anticipated and even welcomed the additional confrontation," Judge Terry Lewis wrote in his order.

Lewis's ruling included the fact that Independent witnesses testified that Jackson and his friend, Jamal Taylor, fired the first shots in the confrontation.

Brown is serving time for another shooting that occurred earlier the same night, but Tyler is expected to be released from the Leon County Jail today.

In his order, Judge Terry Lewis was critical of the stand your ground law, however. "The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the State's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."

State Attorney Willie Meggs says he will call on the governor to call a special session to change the law. He says it okays gun battles in the streets.





ClassIsInSession -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 2:54:49 PM)

Anyone dumb enough to break into my place is going to get their just rewards. They just need to hope I do use one of my many guns to take them out, because I could use my samurai sword to turn them into sushi, or then again, possession is 9/10ths of the law...if it's in my house I own it right? ROFLMAO




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 4:06:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I don't know for sure what the rules were in Fl before castle doctrin but in Alabama the bad guys could break into my house and cart everything I had off and if I tried to stop them I was the criminal as long as they didn't attack me. And if they lived their word had equal weight with mine when they pressed assault charges. Even then I had to give a verbal warning and fire a warning shot. I don't want to go back to that. Many of the traditional self defense laws were like that.


It's explicitly about situations where they didn't attack you.

Removing the requirements that you're complaining about legalizes the summery execution of non violent robbers without so much as a warning. That's a scenario that I find morally reprehensible but I'm also not inclined to try and arm chair quarterback what steps you need to take because of the particular nature of their being a criminal invading your house.

I do however find the application of that same principle to public property horrific. I do think that people on public property should have an obligation to retreat from threats of violence when they can safely do so. I don't think it's ok to legalize gang turf wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/92183289.html
A judge has dismissed manslaughter charges against two men accused in a deadly gang shootout on Holton Street.

Judge Terry Lewis says Jeffrey Brown and Andrea Tyler were standing their ground the night that 15 year old Michael Jackson was shot in February 2008.

"I find from the evidence, both sides to this shootout expected, anticipated and even welcomed the additional confrontation," Judge Terry Lewis wrote in his order.

Lewis's ruling included the fact that Independent witnesses testified that Jackson and his friend, Jamal Taylor, fired the first shots in the confrontation.

Brown is serving time for another shooting that occurred earlier the same night, but Tyler is expected to be released from the Leon County Jail today.

In his order, Judge Terry Lewis was critical of the stand your ground law, however. "The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the State's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."

State Attorney Willie Meggs says he will call on the governor to call a special session to change the law. He says it okays gun battles in the streets.



I find it reprehensible that the crimminal can do whatever he wants as long as he says he will let you live.
Your previous posts about me aside nobdy wants to legalize gang violence. But what you do not seem to understand is that many of the old laws in effect gave the bad guy a free shot before you could fight back anywhere. Don't you have a problem with that concept?

Have you reas thier law yet I don't know where he was coming from but that's not what the law says. seeking and creating a confrontation is one of many things that disqualify a person from protect.

Again you have said what you don't like what do you want the law to be.
Do you agree with Fl official who says that if attacked by a man with a knife the victim should not be allowed to use any weapon better than a knife.

Syg says that when the thug pulls a knife and says give me you money the attack has begun, many seem to think that it beging when he slashed the victim and since if the victim would just give him the money no one would have gotten hurt.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth but do you believe that the assalant should get a free shot before the victim can do anything because while it may not be your intent that sounds like like you do.




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 4:07:57 PM)

I feel that anyone breaking into my house gives up only one right, that of breathing.




ClassIsInSession -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 5:59:00 PM)

My property is clearly marked No Trespassing. That tells anyone with any sense to stay off. If they enter the premises, armed or not, they will cease to live. No questions asked.

I'm certainly not going to try to figure out if they have hostile intentions or not, taking the time and care for a felon is just one more way to get yourself killed.




Kirata -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 6:44:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Removing the requirements that you're complaining about legalizes the summery execution of non violent robbers without so much as a warning. That's a scenario that I find morally reprehensible

I find it morally deranged that you think law abiding citizens should be rendered legally subject to robbery at will in preference to society tolerating any possible hazard to the criminal's life.

K.




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 9:14:02 PM)

I agree, who owhs the streets, us or them?
You live in Fl don't you?
Do you know what the pre syg rules of engagement were?




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 9:25:41 PM)

Your defenition of when an attack begins is different from mine.
As far as I am concered it begins when they ask you for money or assure you that they won't hurt you if you cooperate It begins when they move to be able to jump you from more than one direction.
I've seen it begin with a question to get them get in close.
Three out of four give me reason to engage in counter intimidation. The 4th is reason to go on alert.
Breaking into my house I consider an act of suicide, you would have to be an idiot to assume they arn't going to hurt you if they break inti your home.
I like the law they have in some states. If 2 guys break into my house and I kill one of them the other goes up for 1st degree murder.




Kirata -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 10:24:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Do you know what the pre syg rules of engagement were?

I can't say for a fact, in the sense of being able to quote it, but all the "syg" provision does is remove the duty to retreat, so it's a safe bet that the previous law required that.

Personally, though a bit off topic, I think one problem is that any use of a firearm is legally defined as "deadly force." Face to face robbery is very much a close quarters situation, and I think the law could distinguish between a cavalier use of deadly force and the protected use of a firearm to direct "sufficient force" against an un-armed criminal, meaning you can shoot him in the shoulder or thigh to put him down, as long as you don't pump one into a vital area.

K.




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 10:34:32 PM)

I agree in priciple. However I recently read an article written by a police officer titled there is no such thing as an unarmed assalent. The fact that there is not a visible weapon doesn't mean there isn't one.I would expect a truly unarmed assalent to run away when confronted with a firearm. That said I will repeat that in principle I agree with you if there is only one of them.

In the National Guard We were taught to always shoot to disable (off the battlefiels, I was in a MP unit) We were also taught that the best location to disable was a chest shot and we carried 45's




Kirata -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/15/2012 10:39:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the National Guard We were taught to always shoot to disable (off the battlefiels, I was in a MP unit) We were also taught that the best location to disable was a chest shot and we carried 45's

A chest shot with a .45, eh? Sounds to me like perhaps they neglected to distinguish between disabling someone temporarily and "disabling" them completely and permanently.

K.





BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/16/2012 12:43:39 PM)

To be fair they were telling us to kill miscreants but to be sure to say we only wanted to disable them.
It was kind of what passed for a joke in the NG MPs. It was the late 70's and they wanted us to say the right things for the press.




GotSteel -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/17/2012 7:39:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I find it reprehensible that the crimminal can do whatever he wants as long as he says he will let you live.

Has that ever been true? Seriously, has that ever actually been the law in any state at any point in US history? Having an obligation in public to walk away and call the cops from situations where you can safely do so doesn't seem like the same thing to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Your previous posts about me aside nobdy wants to legalize gang violence. But what you do not seem to understand is that many of the old laws in effect gave the bad guy a free shot before you could fight back anywhere. Don't you have a problem with that concept?

That's correct I don't understand that many of the old laws did that. Can you produce evidence that what you're claiming is true? Perhaps show the legislation or case law which requires you let the other guy shoot first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Have you reas thier law yet I don't know where he was coming from but that's not what the law says.

Of course I've read Floridas stand your ground law, hence my ability to talk about clauses I disagree with earlier in the thread. We clearly don't agree with each other on what the law says but as I suspect neither of us are legal experts it doesn't really matter what we think it says. However, because of this thing called case law it does matter what judges keep thinking it says. If judges think it says that it needs to be changed so they don't think it says that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
seeking and creating a confrontation is one of many things that disqualify a person from protect.

Here's the law, show me how that works:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again you have said what you don't like what do you want the law to be.

I have explained how I think the law should be changed at this point, I'm not going to try and turn that into the form such legislation would take as I'm not qualified to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Do you agree with Fl official who says that if attacked by a man with a knife the victim should not be allowed to use any weapon better than a knife.

Who is Fl official and what were his parents thinking when they named him that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Syg says that when the thug pulls a knife and says give me you money the attack has begun, many seem to think that it beging when he slashed the victim and since if the victim would just give him the money no one would have gotten hurt.

Really, who who is this Mr. many? Can you quote him or anyone else saying that? I can think of at least a couple of laws that would have been broken prior to "slashed the victum".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I am not trying to put words in your mouth but do you believe that the assalant should get a free shot before the victim can do anything because while it may not be your intent that sounds like like you do.

No that's not my opinion, having just run a quick google search I don't even find that opinion on the internet. I can find people that think the earth is flat, that the Flinstones is historically accurate, that they have alien microchips embedded in their head. But I haven't managed to even find that position. Is that actually even a real position? Can you quote it from anyone?




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/17/2012 12:00:51 PM)

The whole thing comes down to the question of does the bad guy get a free shot. If you can't fight back untill he actually attacks you this means he has to shoot first. But of course nobody is going to be stupid enough to say it that way. They say you have to retreat, as if an assalent won't follow you, call the cops as if he won't shoot you for trying, wait till he actually attacks you which is give him the first shot.




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/17/2012 12:03:36 PM)

It is true that when the assalent demands yor money he has committed a crime. But untill he resorts to violence your not allowed to except under syg laws.




BamaD -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/17/2012 12:06:20 PM)

If you don't think that syg opponents don't think that you should only meet force with eual force ie. if they have a knive you can't use a gun what in the world do you think "appropriate force" means?




Kirata -> RE: Stand Your Ground II (6/17/2012 12:56:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

We clearly don't agree with each other on what the law says but as I suspect neither of us are legal experts it doesn't really matter what we think it says.

Is it in English? [:)]

K.




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625