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

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!!

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 6:23:34 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

No
No in fact they engaged in a shouting match proclaiming that they were not going to leave
Their actual application of force does not come into play.
Only to those with a very superficial understanding of the situation.
Has it still escaped you that at no point have I argued that Crocker was innocent.
It seems that since you didn't get your pound of flesh in the Zimmerman case you are going off the deep end with this one.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 361

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 8:20:32 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

No

So trying to calm a situation is a capital offense? Bullshit!

quote:

No in fact they engaged in a shouting match proclaiming that they were not going to leave

Yes. The guy who had left the easement had left when told to. After that they had no obligation or ability to retreat.

You continue defending the guy with the gun and it is truly bizarre. By his own admission he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 362

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 8:27:28 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

No

So trying to calm a situation is a capital offense? Bullshit!

quote:

No in fact they engaged in a shouting match proclaiming that they were not going to leave

Yes. The guy who had left the easement had left when told to. After that they had no obligation or ability to retreat.

You continue defending the guy with the gun and it is truly bizarre. By his own admission he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

Moving on the man with a gun is not going to calm the situation. A ranger would know that.
At the time of the shooting Crocker was being advanced upon.
None of that exonerates him.
And no he has not confessed to 2nd degree murder any more than Zimmerman did.
That absurd Canard didn't fly there what makes you think it will here?
You continue to fail to comprehend that I am not defending Crocker.
And all that seems to matter is that he had a gun, you would have, by your own statement, been ok with tem beating him to death even though long before it reached that point they would have passed the need for violence.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 363

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 8:41:01 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder.

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 364

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 9:02:19 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder.

You clearly have no tactical acumen.
Even a modicum of understanding of tactics would tell you how silly that statement is.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 365

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 11:19:38 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder.

You clearly have no tactical acumen.
Even a modicum of understanding of tactics would tell you how silly that statement is.

Tactics would indicate you don't let anyone approach you while armed. Since he had no need to shoot and an avenue of retreat was available to him that is what he should have done. The floaters had no such option. their backs were literally to a river. Their rafts were not powered and likely didn't even have much in the way of oars, that's why they're called floaters.

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 366

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 11:38:25 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder.

You clearly have no tactical acumen.
Even a modicum of understanding of tactics would tell you how silly that statement is.

Tactics would indicate you don't let anyone approach you while armed. Since he had no need to shoot and an avenue of retreat was available to him that is what he should have done. The floaters had no such option. their backs were literally to a river. Their rafts were not powered and likely didn't even have much in the way of oars, that's why they're called floaters.

His only demand was that they leave floating away would have satisfied that at the time he shot even Darts wife admitted that they were moving toward him. The officers who arrested Crocker said they appeared to be drunk, alcohol makes people very brave and very stupid. They had already done what they claimed to have come ashore for you would think that getting back in the boats and leaving was what they would do, assuming they are telling the truth.
When four drunks are coming for you it may well be to late to retreat.
And before your selective memory tells you otherwise I still think he is guilty of manslaughter unless something dramatic comes out.
You just want the blood of a gun owner.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 367

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/27/2013 11:57:22 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

You do realize voluntary manslaughter requires him to fulfill a burden of proof.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 368

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 5:27:54 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

the scumbag murderer said he shot the one closest. He made no claim that that person had put him in any sort of imminent danger so it is simply murder.

You clearly have no tactical acumen.
Even a modicum of understanding of tactics would tell you how silly that statement is.

Tactics would indicate you don't let anyone approach you while armed. Since he had no need to shoot and an avenue of retreat was available to him that is what he should have done. The floaters had no such option. their backs were literally to a river. Their rafts were not powered and likely didn't even have much in the way of oars, that's why they're called floaters.

His only demand was that they leave floating away would have satisfied that at the time he shot even Darts wife admitted that they were moving toward him. The officers who arrested Crocker said they appeared to be drunk, alcohol makes people very brave and very stupid. They had already done what they claimed to have come ashore for you would think that getting back in the boats and leaving was what they would do, assuming they are telling the truth.
When four drunks are coming for you it may well be to late to retreat.
And before your selective memory tells you otherwise I still think he is guilty of manslaughter unless something dramatic comes out.
You just want the blood of a gun owner.

Bullshit.
He had just fired at one of them after the person he had demanded leave his property had done so and instead of being satisfied had gone and gotten a weapon and then shot at one of the group. You want them to turn their backs on the crazy murdering asshole? Really?
I want a person who has gone to incredible lengths to justify a clear cut illegal killing simply because the guy had a gun to acknowledge that this is clearly 2nd degree murder and prove he isn't just defending the guy with a gun again.

Just to make the point manslaughter requires some mitigating factor. He was not under the sort of provocation sufficient to make a reasonable person lose control. He was not defending himself. He does not have a diminished capacity to understand right and wrong. He did not accidently kill (in the law any use of a deadly weapon is assumed to include the intent to kill). There is simply no mitigating factor to lower the charge to manslaughter. He might if the prosecutor simply wants to save money and time get a manslaughter plea but a trial which follows the law would convict this scumbag of 2nd degree murder and quite possibly first degree (he did leave and fetch a weapon, it could be argued that does show intent and a plan).

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 369

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 5:32:38 AM

Charles6682

Posts: 1820
Joined: 10/1/2007
From: Saint Pete,FL
Status: offline

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law Here is a list from the local newspaper where I live about the real history of "Stand Your Ground" laws here in Florida. This law has already been abused by too many of the wrong people.

< Message edited by Charles6682 -- 7/28/2013 5:34:18 AM >

_____________________________

Charley aka Sub Guy

http://www.Facebook.com/SubGuy

https://Twitter.com/SubGuy6682

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 370

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 6:25:58 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law Here is a list from the local newspaper where I live about the real history of "Stand Your Ground" laws here in Florida. This law has already been abused by too many of the wrong people.

Of course the law has been abused. It is meant to be abused.

(in reply to Charles6682)

Post #: 371

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 10:38:38 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

DomKen I have often wondered at the reason for or the need of such laws. It is like going back to the lawless days of the old west. What could be the reason?

I hate to say it but I think it is no confidence in the ability of our law enforcement to keep us safe. To me... I believe it is the result of overly liberal laws of the last 50 years that make it hard for law enforcement to gather information and evidence. Otherwise personal rights demanded by both the right for privacy and the left for personal liberties under the law have made it easier for criminals to prey on innocents.

This view of crime in Americas is a false perception I believe but perception is the same as reality. People feel they must arm themselves to be safe... And to some extent I believe they are right. The trouble of course is arming the responsible for a feeling of security and not letting guns fall into the hands of the Zimmermans' and Crockers' of this world.

I don't believe it is the answer, if nothing else just by reading the stories of children killed in gun accidents. But I understand it and can see where it will not be easy to overturn these new SYG laws.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 372

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 10:53:45 AM

eulero83

Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

DomKen I have often wondered at the reason for or the need of such laws. It is like going back to the lawless days of the old west. What could be the reason?

I hate to say it but I think it is no confidence in the ability of our law enforcement to keep us safe. To me... I believe it is the result of overly liberal laws of the last 50 years that make it hard for law enforcement to gather information and evidence. Otherwise personal rights demanded by both the right for privacy and the left for personal liberties under the law have made it easier for criminals to prey on innocents.

This view of crime in Americas is a false perception I believe but perception is the same as reality. People feel they must arm themselves to be safe... And to some extent I believe they are right. The trouble of course is arming the responsible for a feeling of security and not letting guns fall into the hands of the Zimmermans' and Crockers' of this world.

I don't believe it is the answer, if nothing else just by reading the stories of children killed in gun accidents. But I understand it and can see where it will not be easy to overturn these new SYG laws.

Butch

I think reasons are more deep and about the relationship between individual and society, this law says that individual needs are above pubblic safety, and this case is an example, the problem I see is allowing to defend also against percived and not only actual threat.

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 373

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 11:34:18 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

DomKen I have often wondered at the reason for or the need of such laws. It is like going back to the lawless days of the old west. What could be the reason?

I hate to say it but I think it is no confidence in the ability of our law enforcement to keep us safe. To me... I believe it is the result of overly liberal laws of the last 50 years that make it hard for law enforcement to gather information and evidence. Otherwise personal rights demanded by both the right for privacy and the left for personal liberties under the law have made it easier for criminals to prey on innocents.

This view of crime in Americas is a false perception I believe but perception is the same as reality. People feel they must arm themselves to be safe... And to some extent I believe they are right. The trouble of course is arming the responsible for a feeling of security and not letting guns fall into the hands of the Zimmermans' and Crockers' of this world.

I don't believe it is the answer, if nothing else just by reading the stories of children killed in gun accidents. But I understand it and can see where it will not be easy to overturn these new SYG laws.

Butch

The reasons are at the very heart of the gun subculture in America.

The gun manufacturers control the NRA and want to sell guns. Fewer people hunt and target shoot and the decline is ongoing. Guns are fairly durable so there should be little demand for lots more guns.

So how to sell more guns? First capitalize on the fear the media has created with their "if it bleeds it leads" news broadcasts. That created a fearful populace. It wasn't hard to convince some of those to buy a gun for home protection. Then the NRA and ALEC (a sleazy outfit that writes laws for sleazy corps and then feeds them to their pet state pols) started pushing expansion of concealed carry laws. Now frightened people could carry guns but they had to learn the law so in most states they were taught not to shoot except in the direst circumstances. So people questioned the need to carry at all. So the NRA etc. needed to make people feel even more afraid and need more guns. So they started pushing legislatures to expand the Castle Doctrine of common law to apply pretty much anywhere. Which makes gun nuts much more likely to feel entitled to shoot and to actually protect them in most cases.

In the end it boils down to this the NRA is funded and controlled by the gun manufacturers and those manufacturers benefit from more gun sales so we have CCW and SYG.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 7/28/2013 11:35:25 AM >

(in reply to kdsub)

Post #: 374

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 12:30:14 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The problem with warning shots are
One you don't know where they will strike.

If the person with the gun in their hand does not know where the bullet will strike would it be prudent to pull the trigger?
A warning shot in the air has to land somewhere...probably not a good idea in general.
A "warning shot" at the feet of ones intended victim is called adw in all jurisdictions.
A warning shot into the ground at your own location shows that you have a loaded firearm.

quote:

Two they force you to give the tactical advantage to your attacker.

With the gun still in your hand still loaded how is the shooter put at any sort of disadvantage?

quote:

When you pull the gun it should be too late to be concerned with escalation.

And yet there remains the disire to call this manslaughter or perhaps disturbing the peacehow droll.

(in reply to BamaD)

Post #: 375

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 12:33:17 PM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 376

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 1:41:42 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

NRA and ALEC behind CCW and SYG laws
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/26/not-just-kill-at-will-alec-helps-the-nra-push-g/185042
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Guns,_Prisons,_Crime,_and_Immigration
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 377

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 3:17:51 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

I have been a life member of the nra since the early sixties,I have a collection of the "american rifleman" that goes back to the early fifties. The covers were works of art. Each issue brought a color pic in great detail, inside were thoughtful discussions about the enginering difficulties imposed by the limitations on their current technology and how these inovative individuals went about solving these mechanical problems. Now it looks like any of a dozen or so "gun rags" on the rack at the supermarket. Look at their membership,stable for decades, then a burst, motivated by non issues that ignorant people then take up with religious fervor. It is what powers their machine. The machine which started as a way to foster civilian marksmanship and now has become a machine which offers some nebulous "they"who are gonna "get you" unless you vote for this candidate.
If you have an "issue" with the nra that you would like some help with you will get a recording about how the nra is fighting hard to yadda yadda yadda but please stay on the line. If you do not have a hard line and a speaker phone you get to pay by the minute for the priviledge of asking for some help on one of their fuck ups. Yes I would have to agree that the nra has its mouth firmly wrapped around the korporate kock.

(in reply to lovmuffin)

Post #: 378

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 4:20:08 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Ken I do believe the NRA has an inordinate influence on our legislatures both state and federal but I don't believe they are fear mongering. Their message is there is no need to be afraid if you are armed and being armed is the way to solve problems.

I really do believe it is the Republican party that is at fault with their Democrats want to take your guns away message. The NRA has just taken advantage of this message to increase their ranks. On top of this day after day our mass media just loves to put murder and mayhem at the front of every news cast. It didn't used to be this way. In fact I believe the media is more to blame than any one organization or political party. People see all this violence and believe they must arm themselves for protection.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 379

RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! - 7/28/2013 4:34:52 PM

lovmuffin

Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Way to go connecting all those dots there Ken. Ya got any studies, facts or statistics to back all that up ? What makes you think the NRA is in the pockets of gun manufacturers ?

NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171776/does-nra-represent-gun-manufacturers-or-gun-owners#

NRA and ALEC behind CCW and SYG laws
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/26/not-just-kill-at-will-alec-helps-the-nra-push-g/185042
http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Guns,_Prisons,_Crime,_and_Immigration
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground?page=1

The Huffington article is pretty much all supposition the same as your posting.

But that alliance, which has grown even closer in recent years -- and includes ties both financial and personal, a Huffington Post examination has found -- has led to mounting questions from gun control advocates about the NRA's priorities. Is the nation’s most potent gun lobby mainly looking out for its base constituency, the estimated 80 million Americans who own a firearm? Or is it acting on behalf of those that make and sell those guns?

What examination ? I would have to ask them the same thing I asked you.

And further down they state

The NRA declined to comment. In recent years, it has argued that defending gun owners and the gun industry is one in the same. Which is how I see it. At least it wasn't all one sided.

The Nation article is pretty much the same shit littered with facts that prove nothing. But I'll waste some more time and check out the rest of your links to see if I find anything that might support your notion.

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 380

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!!

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109