RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!!

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (Full Version)

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

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:26:18 PM)
quote: The matter of it being his property, the expert quoted by the Post Dispatch said it is decided on a case by case basis that will be a problem for the prosecution even if they decide it was easement. The confrontation clearly began on his property another problem. So you would have no problem with a home owner walking from their property into a beach access easement and someone killing someone else? This is hardly any different. And yes, I would expect the property owner to know exactly where his property ends under Castle Doctrine laws. If you are going to pull a gun, ignorance of the law is no excuse. quote: The party had been drinking and were aggressive not only refusing to defuse the situation but intensifying it. Big problem. Shooting at their feet isnt escalation enough? quote: The shooting was set off by the victim's action regardless of how you view his intent. None of this negates his guilt but it sure will muddy the waters if they focus on murder. The Missouri code.... quote: (1) Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person; or Something he intended to do.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:33:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The matter of it being his property, the expert quoted by the Post Dispatch said it is decided on a case by case basis that will be a problem for the prosecution even if they decide it was easement. The confrontation clearly began on his property another problem. So you would have no problem with a home owner walking from their property into a beach access easement and someone killing someone else? This is hardly any different. And yes, I would expect the property owner to know exactly where his property ends under Castle Doctrine laws. If you are going to pull a gun, ignorance of the law is no excuse. quote: The party had been drinking and were aggressive not only refusing to defuse the situation but intensifying it. Big problem. Shooting at their feet isnt escalation enough? quote: The shooting was set off by the victim's action regardless of how you view his intent. None of this negates his guilt but it sure will muddy the waters if they focus on murder. The Missouri code.... quote: (1) Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person; or Something he intended to do. His firing the warning shots will be presented as proof that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. You seem to have not even read what I actually said, I direct you to the following phrases A does not negate his guilt and B will muddy the waters And if the authorities don't know for sure where the property ends how do you expect him to know what they will rule? Not ignorance of the law but ignorance of the future. That is where the case by case part will come into play. They will say that if the people with jurisdiction couldn't say how could he. And once again you want to tell me what I have no problem with.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your disagreement is with the charge. How is the charge not appropriate? The matter of it being his property, the expert quoted by the Post Dispatch said it is decided on a case by case basis that will be a problem for the prosecution even if they decide it was easement. The confrontation clearly began on his property another problem. And he left the confrontation and the trespasser returned to the easement. He got his gun and re started the confrontation on the public way. Then he committed assault with a deadly weapon. Then he shot an unarmed man who by his own statement had taken no aggressive action. There is no way he was not in the wrong. Your desire to defend the guy with the gun is very telling.

eulero83 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:36:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I believe he is saying this happened in the US, he meant Italian heritage, if we give him the benefit of the doubt, I think. right i missread, I'm not used to people defining themself by heritage, but I also confused the parts as here is not such a thing as a black man in a neighbourhood watch, too. [:D] No such thing as a black neighborhood watch member? Have you checked the roster of every neighborhood watch in the country?. I was ironic... but the political and ethnical situation is different here I can tell you that's very very unlikely, it would not be difficoult to check as they must register and there are 4 in the whole country. There are far more neighborhood watches and I am reasonably sure that some of them have black members ok you missed a part in the discussion I meant in italy there are just 4 or 5 neighborhood watch not in the usa, it all started because I missread a part in another post where there was written "an italian teen" so I supposed he was talking about something that happened in italy and not that the teen could be considered italian just because he had italian heritage who knows how many generation ago.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:37:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD His firing the warning shots will be presented as proof that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. Actually it should be charged as assault with a deadly weapon. It showed a clear willingness to kill people who posed no physical threat to him or anyone else.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:41:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your disagreement is with the charge. How is the charge not appropriate? The matter of it being his property, the expert quoted by the Post Dispatch said it is decided on a case by case basis that will be a problem for the prosecution even if they decide it was easement. The confrontation clearly began on his property another problem. And he left the confrontation and the trespasser returned to the easement. He got his gun and re started the confrontation on the public way. Then he committed assault with a deadly weapon. Then he shot an unarmed man who by his own statement had taken no aggressive action. There is no way he was not in the wrong. Your desire to defend the guy with the gun is very telling. A shame you can't read I said that going to his car was going to hang him because that was when he should have dialed 911. You can't possibly get everything wrong so you must be doing it on purpose.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:44:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD His firing the warning shots will be presented as proof that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. Actually it should be charged as assault with a deadly weapon. It showed a clear willingness to kill people who posed no physical threat to him or anyone else. Or it showed a desire to scare them off without hurting anyone. In Alabama until recently you could not claim self defense unless you had fired a warning shot so as usual you are so far off base you are on the soccer field.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 2:49:34 PM)
quote: His firing the warning shots will be presented as proof that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. You seem to have not even read what I actually said, I direct you to the following phrases He shot twice... once in the air... once at their feet. The first perfectly fine... the second? quote: And if the authorities don't know for sure where the property ends how do you expect him to know what they will rule? 1 - Because the experts who have been approached dont know the particulars of the land surveys. Nor would the police. I am sure they will be reviewed , and possibly redone, before court. 2 - Every land owner should know his property lines. They can be later called into questions... as in this case. quote: Not ignorance of the law but ignorance of the future. That is where the case by case part will come into play. They will say that if the people with jurisdiction couldn't say how could he. Because its his property. Would you buy property without knowing where it begins or where it ends? I dont think any reasonable person would expect anyone to buy property without knowing the boundaries.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 3:01:15 PM)
quote: In Alabama until recently you could not claim self defense unless you had fired a warning shot so as usual you are so far off base you are on the soccer field. As a legal and practical matter warning shots are deadly force and should be treated as such. The safety rules demand knowing the target and what is beyond it. [ Kevin L. Jamison is an attorney in the Kansas City Missouri area concentrating in the area of weapons and self-defense. ] https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warning-shots/

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 3:14:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD His firing the warning shots will be presented as proof that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. Actually it should be charged as assault with a deadly weapon. It showed a clear willingness to kill people who posed no physical threat to him or anyone else. Or it showed a desire to scare them off without hurting anyone. In Alabama until recently you could not claim self defense unless you had fired a warning shot so as usual you are so far off base you are on the soccer field. Warning shots are fired into the ground or otherwise safely not at the people being warned. The shot at the man's feet does not qualify. That was straight up assault with a deadly weapon and a case could be made for attempted murder.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 3:17:33 PM)
quote: Warning shots are fired into the ground or otherwise safely not at the people being warned. Actually..... http://full-contact.military.com/2012/10/26/legal-self-defense-should-your-fire-a-warning-shot/ The ONLY time you should fire your weapon is in self defense when you feel your life is in danger. The “warning shot” myth that so many people think is ok, could be that one wrong move you make that could land you in prison for the rest of your life.

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 3:19:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your disagreement is with the charge. How is the charge not appropriate? The matter of it being his property, the expert quoted by the Post Dispatch said it is decided on a case by case basis that will be a problem for the prosecution even if they decide it was easement. The confrontation clearly began on his property another problem. And he left the confrontation and the trespasser returned to the easement. He got his gun and re started the confrontation on the public way. Then he committed assault with a deadly weapon. Then he shot an unarmed man who by his own statement had taken no aggressive action. There is no way he was not in the wrong. Your desire to defend the guy with the gun is very telling. A shame you can't read I said that going to his car was going to hang him because that was when he should have dialed 911. You can't possibly get everything wrong so you must be doing it on purpose. I read what you write and you keep trying to say this guy isn't a murdering piece of crap and I have a problem with that. He killed an unarmed man who had done absolutely nothing that could be even remotely interpreted as requiring such by this scumbags own statement, "shot the closest one." In this case the right of self defense rests exclusively with the floaters. In the Zimmerman case you insisted that the gun toting wannabe cop was simply defending himself because you of course believe the proven liar. Now you try and make excuses for the murdering piece of filth that killed a man for no reason. The only commonality is that you are siding with the guy with the gun. That offends me and I'll keep pointing out your hypocrisy.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 3:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Warning shots are fired into the ground or otherwise safely not at the people being warned. Actually..... http://full-contact.military.com/2012/10/26/legal-self-defense-should-your-fire-a-warning-shot/ The ONLY time you should fire your weapon is in self defense when you feel your life is in danger. The “warning shot” myth that so many people think is ok, could be that one wrong move you make that could land you in prison for the rest of your life. I don't believe in warning shots period. But the fact remains they were required by law.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 3:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your disagreement is with the charge. How is the charge not appropriate? The matter of it being his property, the expert quoted by the Post Dispatch said it is decided on a case by case basis that will be a problem for the prosecution even if they decide it was easement. The confrontation clearly began on his property another problem. And he left the confrontation and the trespasser returned to the easement. He got his gun and re started the confrontation on the public way. Then he committed assault with a deadly weapon. Then he shot an unarmed man who by his own statement had taken no aggressive action. There is no way he was not in the wrong. Your desire to defend the guy with the gun is very telling. A shame you can't read I said that going to his car was going to hang him because that was when he should have dialed 911. You can't possibly get everything wrong so you must be doing it on purpose. I read what you write and you keep trying to say this guy isn't a murdering piece of crap and I have a problem with that. He killed an unarmed man who had done absolutely nothing that could be even remotely interpreted as requiring such by this scumbags own statement, "shot the closest one." In this case the right of self defense rests exclusively with the floaters. In the Zimmerman case you insisted that the gun toting wannabe cop was simply defending himself because you of course believe the proven liar. Now you try and make excuses for the murdering piece of filth that killed a man for no reason. The only commonality is that you are siding with the guy with the gun. That offends me and I'll keep pointing out your hypocrisy. You need to improve your comprehension. The fact that I think manslaughter is appropriate does not mean I am defending him. All of this is interesting coming from someone who thinks he should have been beaten to death.

tazzygirl -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 4:05:15 PM)
quote: I don't believe in warning shots period. But the fact remains they were required by law. http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/05/30/military-vet-faces-charges-for-firing-warning-shot-at-suspect-trying-to-break-into-home/ I cant seem to find where they are legal now anywhere.

MasterCaneman -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 4:51:56 PM)
They're not, and chances are, in the few places that a "warning shot" ordinance is still present, it's been eclipsed or rendered null by more recent laws. All a warning shot is, is stupid. Even discounting the reckless endangerment it causes, firing a shot might only add a spark to the gasoline, as it were.

igor2003 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 5:14:42 PM)
--FR-- Not really of much value as far as the debate goes, but of some possible interest just the same, here is, as near as I can tell, a link to a Google Map view of the area in question: https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.009017,-91.409426&spn=0.001864,0.003819&t=h&z=18

DomKen -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 5:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You need to improve your comprehension. The fact that I think manslaughter is appropriate does not mean I am defending him. All of this is interesting coming from someone who thinks he should have been beaten to death. Did the murderous filth fire a deadly weapon at a person who had done nothing deserving of such? Yes. Did he immediately retreat or otherwise indicate he wished to end the attack? No. Had the floaters retreated as best they could? Yes. Therefore the floaters were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and were entitled to use whatever force was needed to protect their lives. Exactly what you argued in the Zimmerman case except the floaters didn't have a gun.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 6:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD His firing the warning shots will be presented as proof that he didn't intend to hurt anyone. Actually it should be charged as assault with a deadly weapon. It showed a clear willingness to kill people who posed no physical threat to him or anyone else. Or it showed a desire to scare them off without hurting anyone. In Alabama until recently you could not claim self defense unless you had fired a warning shot so as usual you are so far off base you are on the soccer field. Warning shots are fired into the ground or otherwise safely not at the people being warned. The shot at the man's feet does not qualify. That was straight up assault with a deadly weapon and a case could be made for attempted murder. He shot near their feet no evidence that he was trying to hit them.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/27/2013 6:17:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman They're not, and chances are, in the few places that a "warning shot" ordinance is still present, it's been eclipsed or rendered null by more recent laws. All a warning shot is, is stupid. Even discounting the reckless endangerment it causes, firing a shot might only add a spark to the gasoline, as it were. The problem with warning shots are One you don't know where they will strike. Two they force you to give the tactical advantage to your attacker. When you pull the gun it should be too late to be concerned with escalation.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875