RE: Have it Your Way....

RE: Have it Your Way.... (Full Version)

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

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 5:01:36 PM)
Why do people assume that leaving meant "Facing away"? When I leave a potentially hazardous situation, I face the hazard. The perp had already robbed at least one person that day. It is quite possible that he was experienced enough in armed robbery and thus faced his victims as he left. Let us see where he was shot before hanging the shooter.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 5:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 Oh really? Link This guy was committing armed robbery, a felony. YOu are absolutely right when it comes to misdemeanors. But this was a forcible act and a felony, this changes things a bit. It isn't just taking property it is threatening ones life to steal property..... It was after the fact. It was not used to prevent anything. So, the guy was now harmless, and no longer a threat to anyone??? No, he proved he was a threat. I don't understand this ass notion that once someone turns their back it is like calling time out on the play ground. You know this douche had a gun, so jumping on his back and starting a fight...not a good idea. Sitting there and letting him get away with it, not a good idea. Finally it was not after the fact. IT was still during the fact. Had the guy hunted the perp down and shot him at home that is after the fact. This was to prevent his escape at worst, at best to keep him from robbing the next guy.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 7:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie at Burger King[:D] It was at the height of lunch time, about 1 p.m., when a would-be robber walked into a Burger King, flashed his gun at one of the family diners, and demanded the diner fork over money and valuables, police said in a CBS report. The robber was exiting when the father, who feared for his and his family’s life, CBS said, took out his own gun and shot the suspect in the leg. Guess he wanted lead, to go[8D] He should feel lucky it wasn't supersized[;)] Here's some more incredible stuff....can't possibly write this shit by yourself... Scroll down.... http://www.corporateofficeheadquarters.com/2011/01/walmart-corporate-office.html (Thank you Mom for my education/discernment...)

Raiikun -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 8:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML This takes us back to Zimmerman/Martin, MizzS. The "stand your ground law" puts the burden on the shooter. Just a minor correction: The burden is only on the shooter to get the charges dropped pre-trial. To get a conviction, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants use of force wasn't justified.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 9:02:46 PM)
Yes really. Instead of digging yourself in deeper with outdated material, read the controlling decision... "The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable". http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html You made two false claims... that you could kill anyone over nothing more than mere property, and that it couldn't be deadly force if you shot someone below the waist. You are 'dead' wrong on both counts. Don't bother moving the goal posts, or changing the subject, or throwing up a bunch of strawmen... in real life if you shoot someone like that, all the internet debate tricks in the world won't do you any good. Having a pound of weed is a felony. Stealing an Ipad is a felony. Push a clerk out of the way and it is forcible. Those aren't the conditions the law had in mind under the forcible felony claim. Shoot someone in the back when there are no Garner conditions present, and you've committed a crime. You might get lucky and not be charged, as in Louisiana, or find a Joe Horn sympathetic jury in some place like Texas, but bizzaro world exceptions don't overturn the law of the land... which is that there must be a clear and imminent threat to you or someone else to justify pulling the trigger. And once you've shot someone, it is deadly force, period. And I didn't see you answer the question... please tell me you don't actually own a gun with the belief that it is open season on human beings over just property. quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 Oh really? Link This guy was committing armed robbery, a felony. YOu are absolutely right when it comes to misdemeanors. But this was a forcible act and a felony, this changes things a bit. It isn't just taking property it is threatening ones life to steal property.....

Powergamz1 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 9:04:55 PM)
Not on this planet. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 No. No. No again. The US Supreme Court ruled decades ago that no one has the right to kill another person merely to keep some property from being stolen. And 9th grade civics should have made it clear that there are no states who have the power to overturn the USSC. This ignorant and dangerous myth persists because cowardly politicians are afraid to vote take those old laws off the books. And your below the waist comment is just as absurdly ignorant of the law. Please tell me you don't go around armed and actually believe that nonsense? quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 FR what if this isn't a case of self defense? Some states permit the use of force to prevent the commission of a crime....this could qualify. It prevented this guy from getting away with robbery. Since the shot was below the waste, it wasn't an attempt to use lethal force just force. This court might look at overturning that one. They have others.

Kirata -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 9:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Instead of digging yourself in deeper with outdated material, read the controlling decision... quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 This guy was committing armed robbery... It isn't just taking property it is threatening ones life Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement... This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable... While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect -- young, slight, and unarmed -- posed any threat. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Call me crazy, but I kinda think that armed robbers who threaten families with guns can reasonably be believed to be persons who pose a significant threat of death or injury to others. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 10:50:07 PM)
So the fact that the armed robber threatened people unless they complied, and then didn't shoot anyone during the robbery is proof that they are going to shoot someone after they run away? OK, I'll call that crazy. And if that's all you've got, so will a judge... except they will spell it h-o-m-i-c-i-d-e. [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Instead of digging yourself in deeper with outdated material, read the controlling decision... quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 This guy was committing armed robbery... It isn't just taking property it is threatening ones life Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement... This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable... While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect -- young, slight, and unarmed -- posed any threat. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Call me crazy, but I kinda think that armed robbers who threaten families with guns can reasonably be believed to be persons who pose a significant threat of death or injury to others. K.

Kirata -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 11:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 And if that's all you've got, so will a judge... except they will spell it h-o-m-i-c-i-d-e. This is not useful. Post winning lottery ticket numbers please. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/10/2013 11:41:50 PM)
Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that facts, logic, and actual (unedited) legal citations are not useful to you in playing Google Fu games. I will leave you this number: 202-479-3000. Be sure and let us know what they say when you call them and explain how they have it all wrong. Enjoy your fantasy all you like, I truly do hope that you never find out how pathetically wrong you are about this particular topic, should you shoot someone in the manner you pretend is legal. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 And if that's all you've got, so will a judge... except they will spell it h-o-m-i-c-i-d-e. This is not useful. Post winning lottery ticket numbers please. K.

Kirata -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 12:18:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that facts, logic, and actual (unedited) legal citations are not useful to you in playing Google Fu games. That's your best substitute for something substantive? I probably document more of my posts than anyone. And as much as I appreciate an acerbic wit, your insults don't rise to that level. quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Enjoy your fantasy all you like, I truly do hope that you never find out how pathetically wrong you are about this particular topic, should you shoot someone in the manner you pretend is legal. I hate to break this to you, but I'm not the one enjoying a fantasy here. Read the story. If you were right, the shooter would have been arrested and charged. He wasn't. Res ipsa loquitur. K.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 12:45:57 AM)
So not getting arrested on the spot invalidates the law? Really? Let's see... Teddy Kennedy killed a girl and didn't get arrested, to apply your claim that means that the murder statutes are invalid... again, enjoy that fantasy. In spite of your pretensions of omnipotence, you weren't there in this case, so you have no way of knowing if the actions of that particular robber met the Garner test or not. Anyone who was half the legal expert you keep trying pass yourself off as, wouldn't have to resort to such games as whining about being insulted by being debunked, they would merely provide a cite to the ruling that overturned Garner, instead of making up bullshit claims that it means the opposite of what it says. Except of course, there is no ruling overturning Garner, and it does mean that there must be a clear, and imminent threat to justify deadly force. That shoulda-coulda-woulda-whatif-buuut-buuut-buuut spin doesn't rise to the required level on either count.

Toysinbabeland -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 12:58:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 So not getting arrested on the spot invalidates the law? Really? Let's see... Teddy Kennedy killed a girl and didn't get arrested. Um, didn't THAT invalidate law?

eulero83 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 2:02:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Why do people assume that leaving meant "Facing away"? When I leave a potentially hazardous situation, I face the hazard. The perp had already robbed at least one person that day. It is quite possible that he was experienced enough in armed robbery and thus faced his victims as he left. Let us see where he was shot before hanging the shooter. I suppose in this case leaving means facing away for two reasons #1 the robber got hit and not the customer se the robber didn't see it coming and as he went on leaving with a bullet in the leg without shooting back means the robber needed less efforts in going on that direction #2 the article's tone is very much on the customer side so if there was something else that could justify the customer they would have reported it.

Raiikun -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 2:13:04 AM)
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27. If the guy was armed, in the building, with money that didn't belong to him; it can be argued he stopped a forcible felony in progress, under Florida law.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 6:22:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Why do people assume that leaving meant "Facing away"? When I leave a potentially hazardous situation, I face the hazard. The perp had already robbed at least one person that day. It is quite possible that he was experienced enough in armed robbery and thus faced his victims as he left. Let us see where he was shot before hanging the shooter. I suppose in this case leaving means facing away for two reasons #1 the robber got hit and not the customer se the robber didn't see it coming and as he went on leaving with a bullet in the leg without shooting back means the robber needed less efforts in going on that direction #2 the article's tone is very much on the customer side so if there was something else that could justify the customer they would have reported it. The robber got hit and not the customer has nothing to do with the direction he was facing. It just means the customer was a better or faster shot. As I said, let's see WHERE he got hit. The robber didn't see it coming? Well, you might be able to track a bullet in flight while watching a whole burger King full of customers at prime lunch hour but my old eyes aren't that good any more.[:D] Less effort to go in that direction? Well, let's see. I have a getaway car and driver a few feet away and someone just shot me. What direction to I head in?[8\|] For fucks sake, think before you type. Yes, the article was pro the customer. It's the Washington Times for Pete's sake. Editorially, that paper thinks Rush Limbaugh is a lefty.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 7:02:32 AM)
What? Being rich and privileged? People get away with crimes every day, and no, that doesn't invalidate the law for the next person charged. Neither does the fact that each outcome will depend on the totality of the circumstances. quote: ORIGINAL: Toysinbabeland quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 So not getting arrested on the spot invalidates the law? Really? Let's see... Teddy Kennedy killed a girl and didn't get arrested. Um, didn't THAT invalidate law?

eulero83 -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 10:02:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam The robber didn't see it coming? Well, you might be able to track a bullet in flight while watching a whole burger King full of customers at prime lunch hour but my old eyes aren't that good any more.[:D] Less effort to go in that direction? Well, let's see. I have a getaway car and driver a few feet away and someone just shot me. What direction to I head in?[8\|] not in flight of course! what I meant is standing up and taking a gun and aiming are big movements if the robber was still "caring about the audience" I would have seen the wanna be hero, about being the faster shot it was not a duel at noon. About the second sentence: if I'm not facing away and just got shot I answer to the fire before a second bullet hits me, as i have to turn and stand up and this makes me a big and slow target, if I have to turn and stand up to shot I'll decide to move to the car as it's the best way to not be killed. What we know is the robber didn't pass away after the shot so this means that facing away or not he was still able to fire back and hit someone, so this action placed in a more dangerous situation the other customers. So for your fuck sake I thought before typing, probably much more than you. what I wrote about the article was that if there's written the robber was exiting it means that while the father was fearing for his family the other witnesses were feeling he was exiting.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 10:11:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 what I wrote about the article was that if there's written the robber was exiting it means that while the father was fearing for his family the other witnesses were feeling he was exiting. You didn't read the earlier post in its entirety did you? You have a lot of what ifs and wherefores about what a robber would do to avoid this and that. You actually act like he had intelligence and it was well thought out. The fact that he committed an armed robbery in a crowded location means it probably wasn't well thought out and/or he wasn't very bright. A: Exiting doesn't mean facing away. If there is potential danger, you don't turn your back on it as you leave. B: You've just been hurt badly and a getaway car is waiting a few feet away. You don't return fire, you run like hell. This guy was apparently an experienced felon as it was (at least) his second armed robbery of the day. Let's see if he got shot in the front or rear before we lynch the parent. ETA. He didn't have to stand to aim. You can shoot while sitting. I've done it. Aiming is not a big movement. It can be done with a minimum of effort and takes well under a second.

Kirata -> RE: Have it Your Way.... (4/11/2013 11:34:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 pretensions of omnipotence... legal expert... games... whining... bullshit... Look at me, not the mirror, when you're talking to me. K.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875