quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

so your point is that SYG laws are good because lunatics of any ethnicity can feel authorized to kill everyone whose presence bother them, not like in the 50's when it was privilege of caucasian nuts.

Your extreme exaggeration is amusing. SYG only says you're not obligated to retreat if facing a deadly assault or serious bodily harm, nothing more, nothing less. They were passed, mainly because of anti gun overzealous prosecutors prosecuting gun owners that hadn't ought to have been prosecuted. Lawyers will use any excuse to get their clients off. Sometimes murderers get away with it like OJ or Casey Anthony. I don't believe for one second that those who have used SYG to get away with murder wouldn't have used some other excuse to get away with it had SYG not been a factor. I would also think a good lawyer factors into it as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

If they refused to leave the guy should have pulled out a cell phone not a gun, and called the police. Floaters usually have a designated place they turn in their tubes at the end, the police could have got them for public intox and possibly trespassing too. If they had been vandalizing his land in some way, I might feel different about the whole thing. I doubt it though, carving a tree or gathering flowers still doesn't merit the aggression. Most times its best to keep your gun in your pants, among other things......LOL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

so your point is that SYG laws are good because lunatics of any ethnicity can feel authorized to kill everyone whose presence bother them, not like in the 50's when it was privilege of caucasian nuts.

Your extreme exaggeration is amusing. SYG only says you're not obligated to retreat if facing a deadly assault or serious bodily harm, nothing more, nothing less. They were passed, mainly because of anti gun overzealous prosecutors prosecuting gun owners that hadn't ought to have been prosecuted. Lawyers will use any excuse to get their clients off. Sometimes murderers get away with it like OJ or Casey Anthony. I don't believe for one second that those who have used SYG to get away with murder wouldn't have used some other excuse to get away with it had SYG not been a factor. I would also think a good lawyer factors into it as well.

glad to know you found amusing, it was irony so... that's ment to amuse. It's just that 10 posts about KKK looked off topic to me, anyhow I wrote "feel authorized" not that they are for real.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

To no greater extent than any other law.
What is your opinion of the Roderick Scott case?

Scott is a murderer who should not have gotten off because he sought the confrontation. He could have simply called the police and been safe n his home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.


I want someone seems to think that gun owner = murderous scum to show me one case of self defense he agrees with to prove that he has something approaching an open mind.

Again your characterization of me is wrong stupid and insulting.
Since when did manslaughter become a legal killing.
The floaters story is flawed to say the least.

A self defense case where the defender did not seek the confrontation is actual self defense. Some jackass with a gun out looking for trouble forfeits that right IMO.

The floaters were legally on the public way, the one guy who wasn't had retreated when told to. The murderer then went and got a deadly weapon and went back down to the river. He then fired at one of the group. That is all the law is concerned with. After that point the floaters had every right to defend themselves and every action he took besides retreating was criminal.

The only reason to see it differently is to defend the scum because he had the gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Scott is a murderer who should not have gotten off because he sought the confrontation. He could have simply called the police and been safe n his home.

You and I will disagree on this. It was his property being robbed. He had the right, legally and morally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Scott is a murderer who should not have gotten off because he sought the confrontation. He could have simply called the police and been safe n his home.

You and I will disagree on this. It was his property being robbed. He had the right, legally and morally.

See what I mean to him the fact that you have a gun makes you guilty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Scott is a murderer who should not have gotten off because he sought the confrontation. He could have simply called the police and been safe n his home.

You and I will disagree on this. It was his property being robbed. He had the right, legally and morally.

See what I mean to him the fact that you have a gun makes you guilty.

Sometimes I get that impression too though in this Missouri case from what can tell so far (subject to changing my mind based on any new information) this guy deserves a vigorous prosecution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.


I want someone seems to think that gun owner = murderous scum to show me one case of self defense he agrees with to prove that he has something approaching an open mind.

Again your characterization of me is wrong stupid and insulting.
Since when did manslaughter become a legal killing.
The floaters story is flawed to say the least.

A self defense case where the defender did not seek the confrontation is actual self defense. Some jackass with a gun out looking for trouble forfeits that right IMO.

The floaters were legally on the public way, the one guy who wasn't had retreated when told to. The murderer then went and got a deadly weapon and went back down to the river. He then fired at one of the group. That is all the law is concerned with. After that point the floaters had every right to defend themselves and every action he took besides retreating was criminal.

The only reason to see it differently is to defend the scum because he had the gun.

Not a general statement give me a specific case where you find justified self defense I gave one, and there have been others, where I thought the shooter was guilty. Since you clearly ignored that the Rodrigues case in TX.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.


I want someone seems to think that gun owner = murderous scum to show me one case of self defense he agrees with to prove that he has something approaching an open mind.

Again your characterization of me is wrong stupid and insulting.
Since when did manslaughter become a legal killing.
The floaters story is flawed to say the least.

A self defense case where the defender did not seek the confrontation is actual self defense. Some jackass with a gun out looking for trouble forfeits that right IMO.

The floaters were legally on the public way, the one guy who wasn't had retreated when told to. The murderer then went and got a deadly weapon and went back down to the river. He then fired at one of the group. That is all the law is concerned with. After that point the floaters had every right to defend themselves and every action he took besides retreating was criminal.

The only reason to see it differently is to defend the scum because he had the gun.

Not a general statement give me a specific case where you find justified self defense I gave one, and there have been others, where I thought the shooter was guilty. Since you clearly ignored that the Rodrigues case in TX.

The guy who shot his neighbor over a noisy party? Are you out of your mind? The guy got what he deserved.

The self defense cases I approve are not likely to make the news since it was a clear cut case without any of the nonsense of the cases you've cited.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Um, I am not sure if pissing on private property constitutes vandalism, and considering they were floating down a river, why did they have to come ashore to piss in the first place. Unless they were in canoes.

Now if the bar in question was separated from the main part of land by a channel of some sort, there is the question of if it was truly the property of the shooter, and according to the article, there is an issue as to where a property line is.

I noticed that the op said the person taking a piss was at the edge of the bar, however the statements indicate he went into the woods, which would have been trespassing no matter what.

If he had shot the man with the rocks, he might have a better case with self defense, but since he shot a man that was unarmed, that might prove to be a snag.

The point I clicked on was the statement that the bar was considered public right of way, so the shooting was not justified in that respect.

Now, according to Texas Law, you can use deadly force to protect your life and property IF there is reason to believe your own life is in jeopardy. Although I think it is still legal to shoot someone cutting your fences.

Bottom line, I am not sure if it is SYG or a case of a pissed off land owner tired of people littering his property that he has to clean up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

so your point is that SYG laws are good because lunatics of any ethnicity can feel authorized to kill everyone whose presence bother them, not like in the 50's when it was privilege of caucasian nuts.

Your extreme exaggeration is amusing. SYG only says you're not obligated to retreat if facing a deadly assault or serious bodily harm, nothing more, nothing less. They were passed, mainly because of anti gun overzealous prosecutors prosecuting gun owners that hadn't ought to have been prosecuted. Lawyers will use any excuse to get their clients off. Sometimes murderers get away with it like OJ or Casey Anthony. I don't believe for one second that those who have used SYG to get away with murder wouldn't have used some other excuse to get away with it had SYG not been a factor. I would also think a good lawyer factors into it as well.

glad to know you found amusing, it was irony so... that's ment to amuse. It's just that 10 posts about KKK looked off topic to me, anyhow I wrote "feel authorized" not that they are for real.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Again, you weren't there. The KKK only killed deer and rabbits? You've gone off the edge now.

I'd suggest that you try to educate yourself on what really happened in the old South, like Rosewood, but you've refused before.

Keep your fantasies, I won't waste anymore time on your smirking revisionist history.

No, the KKK killed off black people, and anyone who dared to support a black person against the KKK. But they didnt often waste their precious bullets to do so. Fear was part of their make up.

You are placing yourself up at the resident specialist on racism... lol... which I find hilarious as hell. Considering you cant read the content within a post for shit then attempt to pack pedal and change your views mid-stream.

And you can try all you wish to dismiss me, but you continue to lose argument after argument. You arent as smart as you think you are. Eventually you trip up in your rush of assumptions.

Its rather comical to watch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My agreement on that case disproves your assumption of a kneejerk reaction to defend the guy with the gun.
So you admit that if there is any question you want the guy with the gun to go away of be beaten to death.
The juries have consistently agreed with me that makes me mainstream and you out in left field.

quote:

I'll take your word that you find the thought of Rosewood, of Medgar Evers, of MLK being shot 'comical', while playing that R 2.0 game that guns weren't used against black people, and spinning that Jim Crow denier revisionist history.

The rest of your personal attacks have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the SYG laws and the right to self defense.

And we already know that you'll simply handwave away the request that you back up any of your accusations with a link.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My agreement on that case disproves your assumption of a kneejerk reaction to defend the guy with the gun.
So you admit that if there is any question you want the guy with the gun to go away of be beaten to death.
The juries have consistently agreed with me that makes me mainstream and you out in left field.

The standard in most places to sustain a self defense claim is by the preponderance of the evidence. So if there is strong doubt then yes the person should go away.

Juries and judges do not consistently agree with either of us. That is the problem with these SYG laws. Go back up thread and read that investigation bythe Tampa paper.

And the only time I've said a guy with a gun could have been legally beaten to death was this case. He had committed assault with a deadly weapon and was clearly in danger of escalating further. The floaters had no avenue of retreat so they had the legal right to kill to keep him from killing them. Their failure to take that action is what got one of them killed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I'll take your word that you find the thought of Rosewood, of Medgar Evers, of MLK being shot 'comical', while playing that R 2.0 game that guns weren't used against black people, and spinning that Jim Crow denier revisionist history.

The rest of your personal attacks have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is the SYG laws and the right to self defense.

And we already know that you'll simply handwave away the request that you back up any of your accusations with a link.

There ya go, reading what you want to read, twisting what you want to twist, all in the attempts to make yourself seem like the resident expert on racism.

When you can actually read a post without your own special brand of racist blinders on, do let me know. I get the feeling there is an intelligence within you that could be fascinating to get to know. But getting past the "everyone but me is a racist" barrier you wear is just too ridiculous.

quote:

And we already know that you'll simply handwave away the request that you back up any of your accusations with a link.