RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him

RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (Full Version)

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

Message

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Never said this case had anything to do with self defense, that's a strawman fallacy. One more time, SYG is a self defense law and has nothing to do with this case, period. This isn't even an 'SYG 'type' case. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Actually, you are lumping all self defense when your life is in danger laws, under the heading of SYG. Actually I'm not. This had NOTHING to do with self defense and everything to do with a law that says you can use deadly force when there is no logical reason for it. Much like SYG, and all the other shit. Once again, you are unable to read what the defense used as a defense. So yea, it is an SYG law. Get back to me when you learn the statute involved and grasp what it says.

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:06:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth So if any women in the Middle East was raped and then stoned to death for Adultery,that would be okay with those who support this law?After all,it was the law,so who care's? This case has nothing to do with rape, but regardless, we are talking about a law in the United States, specifically Texas. Talking about the Middle East is off topic and not germane to the discussion.

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I see your point, but that was absent for the jury, in many other country the fact he aimed in the direction of a person with a firearm proves intention to kill. So it can be red herring but I'm sure if the girl was his ex wife leaving with her new boyfriend after she took the tv she considered hers and he never give her back intention would have been proved. It is the same in the US to anyone who actually understands the law. Here, we have a bunch of people who are unable to interpret what happened and instead are focusing on other issues to try to prove their point. Just because they are saying so doesn't make it what the law is, only what they believe.

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:09:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 It's proof of deadly force in the US as well. Like the earlier Texas case, this looks more and more like jury nullification. Gee, except the jury agreed with the law that was used as a defense. So uhh...wrong again.

Brutalessons -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:14:54 AM)
quote: Tell me again that it isn't a Stand Your Ground type of law. I've just proven you haven't got a clue what the statute in Texas says, so who's making things up? "In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations." The title of the statute should explain to you it is not a "stand your ground" law as it deals not with self defense but loss of property. Stand your ground laws are to protect you from the absurd concept that it is better to be raped and murdered, to run and leave your loved ones behind while you wait and pray for the police to save you, not fro cowardice, but because your liberal representatives have devalued the value of your life over that of the criminal. The worst part is that if you live in one of the crime riddled eastern seaboard cities, this would actually make a sick and masochistic sense to you, and there would be a complete mental inability to understand why anyone would not be willing to cower. Stand your ground is Not vigilante justice, it is Not wild west, it is a protection to you against being prosecuted because you did what you had to do, when it was necessary. I prefer to think of them as "Good Samaritan Laws".

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:27:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brutalessons quote: Tell me again that it isn't a Stand Your Ground type of law. I've just proven you haven't got a clue what the statute in Texas says, so who's making things up? "In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations." The title of the statute should explain to you it is not a "stand your ground" law as it deals not with self defense but loss of property. Stand your ground laws are to protect you from the absurd concept that it is better to be raped and murdered, to run and leave your loved ones behind while you wait and pray for the police to save you, not fro cowardice, but because your liberal representatives have devalued the value of your life over that of the criminal. The worst part is that if you live in one of the crime riddled eastern seaboard cities, this would actually make a sick and masochistic sense to you, and there would be a complete mental inability to understand why anyone would not be willing to cower. Stand your ground is Not vigilante justice, it is Not wild west, it is a protection to you against being prosecuted because you did what you had to do, when it was necessary. I prefer to think of them as "Good Samaritan Laws". Stand Your Ground, Castle Laws, etc. are all there to tell people it's ok to shoot to kill. Vigilante justice. Calling them "Good Samaritan Laws" is saying that you can decide without a court what the punishment needs to be. They most certainly are vigilante justice.

JeffBC -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 12:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Stand Your Ground, Castle Laws, etc. are all there to tell people it's ok to shoot to kill. Vigilante justice. Calling them "Good Samaritan Laws" is saying that you can decide without a court what the punishment needs to be. They most certainly are vigilante justice. Well, that's not ENTIRELY fair. You may decide what the punishment needs to be within the parameters specified by whatever "good samaritan" law is in play... in this case you may apparently shoot someone dead but there is a caveat. The jury must agree that you "reasonably believe deadly force is imminently necessary". So I guess in this case the jury did conclude that the loss of $150 necessitated the use of deadly force and that other possible remedial actions were inappropriate or unavailable to the guy. As I said before, we now know the value of a human life in Texas... no more than $150.

lovmuffin -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 12:32:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Brutalessons quote: Tell me again that it isn't a Stand Your Ground type of law. I've just proven you haven't got a clue what the statute in Texas says, so who's making things up? "In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations." The title of the statute should explain to you it is not a "stand your ground" law as it deals not with self defense but loss of property. Stand your ground laws are to protect you from the absurd concept that it is better to be raped and murdered, to run and leave your loved ones behind while you wait and pray for the police to save you, not fro cowardice, but because your liberal representatives have devalued the value of your life over that of the criminal. The worst part is that if you live in one of the crime riddled eastern seaboard cities, this would actually make a sick and masochistic sense to you, and there would be a complete mental inability to understand why anyone would not be willing to cower. Stand your ground is Not vigilante justice, it is Not wild west, it is a protection to you against being prosecuted because you did what you had to do, when it was necessary. I prefer to think of them as "Good Samaritan Laws". Stand Your Ground, Castle Laws, etc. are all there to tell people it's ok to shoot to kill. Vigilante justice. Calling them "Good Samaritan Laws" is saying that you can decide without a court what the punishment needs to be. They most certainly are vigilante justice. It's been explained quite a few times now on this thread that SYG applies to self defense and has nothing what so ever to do with the Texas case. A person can call a dog a cow and even keep repeating it over and over but its still a dog.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 2:39:46 PM)
So the defense used the SYG law ? Really? They claimed that the defendant was in fear for his life? [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif] Please stop trying to pretend that you are a legal expert, it isn't working quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Once again, you are unable to read what the defense used as a defense. So yea, it is an SYG law. Get back to me when you learn the statute involved and grasp what it says.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 3:00:48 PM)
In America, laws are used to prohibit behavior. As any first year law school student would know, this isn't a country where everything is illegal unless permitted by 'The Law'. You've had this explained to you before, and you've never once come up with a shred of evidence to the contrary... to support the idea that America uses the Chinese system of presumed guilt. With that as a bedrock foundation of the legal system, one more time: Laws aren't used as defense, laws are used to prosecute... so when you say that the jury agreed with the Texas 'law' on murder, are you now claiming that the jury voted Guilty? Exceptions to the laws are used a defenses. They are commonly written as an addendum to the actual law. For Example: It shall be a crime under this code for anyone to carry on their person, hid from the common view, any firearm. That's what is known as 'a law'. Then elsewhere in the uniform code book, there will be a reference to 'definitions'... and 'a firearm' will be defined, so that people don't get arrested for the perfectly legal action of carrying a cardboard cutout of a gun, or a 1" bauble that looks like a gun, or a chocolate gun, etc. In yet another place in the uniform code book will be listed exceptions to 'The Law', such as police officers, and permit holders. And finally, if applicable there will be a section that gives defenses. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 It's proof of deadly force in the US as well. Like the earlier Texas case, this looks more and more like jury nullification. Gee, except the jury agreed with the law that was used as a defense. So uhh...wrong again.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 3:04:27 PM)
Believe what? What I've said about the United States Supreme Court having made definitive rulings about this decades ago? I've given the cites over, and over, and over, you can keep denying they exist all you want, reality isn't going to change to match your denial. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth The laws there need to change,just like this law in Texas need's to change.I agree with everything you have been saying. If you read everything in this thread and Powergamz is who you believe, then you really have a problem. Yes, the law needs to change, but people need to understand what the law being discussed is. Powergamz likes to pretend he knows what he is talking about, but he hasn't read the statute and certainly doesn't understand it.

Phoenixpower -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 3:38:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama The precedent this case sets is dangerous. A woman is NEVER required to have sex with a man if she doesn't want to. Ever. I disagree. Sure, she's not required to have sex but then she IS required to return the money. If she does not it is, in fact, theft. And it is hardly a surprise that deadly force is authorized in Texas for a theft situation. I'm not going to make this one about feminism and reproductive rights. She's a crook. Is she really required to hand back the money??? Now...I haven't read the article itself, but during my years as escort I did well remember the line on the provider homepage:"Note: that any money paid to the adult escorts listed on this website is for their time and companionship only. Whatever else that may occur if and when contact is made is the choice of consenting adults." So sex was not necessarily part of it (mostly of course, yes, but if not then he still had to pay for my time and companienship only).

VideoAdminChi -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 7:00:09 PM)
FR, This thread is locked for review.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/10/2013 10:08:54 AM)
This thread has reached the maximum amount of personal attacks and will remain closed. Moving forward, please stay on topic and do not make other posters the topic.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875