joether -> RE: The Wild west in Missouri (6/12/2012 10:50:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: deadonimpact quote:
ORIGINAL: joether Missouri is NOT a 'Stand Your Ground' state, but a 'Castle Doctorine' state. Stop arguing on something that doesnt even apply to the issue of the thread! Likewise, 'kid' as you call him, is a 49 year old man. The 'grandfather' is 65 years old. Both individuals had opportunity to do bodily harm to the other at any time. Also, we are not talking how 'things are done in the military'. If you actually READ the story, its a pair of CIVILIANS dealing with an issue. If you would actually READ my post, I made a point to say that it would not be practical for civilians, but I was a good model to develop off of to shape the stand your ground and castle doctrines alike, as getting rid of them is ludicrous. Well, "Stand Your Ground" has the obvious flaw that is currently on display in the Zimmerman case. Problem with this law, is it allows folks to 'kill first and ask questions later'; when the reality was, asking the questions would not have required revealing the firearm in the first place. Also, its to easy for someone to murder another and make it look like a 'defensive killing'. It should serve to most people as a lesson that even though whats written on paper may sound good, the execution (pun unintended) is horribly flawed. The Castle Doctorine at least establishs a reasonable limit on circumstances. The "Stand Your Ground" however sets up to many variables that could place the law abiding citizens in legal jeapordy due to circumstances. Its not like people can consult a lawyer or judge when bullets are flying pass their head! The laws in this case, need to be easily understood and without to much grey matter between 'lawful' and 'chaotic'. quote:
ORIGINAL: deadonimpact If you are going to bash an idea before you even attempt to understand it, then try to apply the idea you just bashed without knowing what is about, you only looking like a fool. As the defender, its not your responsibility to care about bodily harm. Of course you can, you are the one with the gun. Its about proving the circumstances that justify you drawing it. The problem with your 'ideas' was that in each case, it was not based on the facts of the case itself. And I listed them in three seperate lines to avoid confusion. Apparently, that was not enough!
|
|
|
|