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

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:14:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 So what is your threshold for using force in self defense? After being hit with a rock? After being stabbed with a knife? After more than one person puts their hands on you? Should people be required to carry 2 guns, and only use one after the first has been taken away? My threshold for self defense is when some punk ass motherfucker pulls out a gun and starts shooting at me for taking a piss. Maybe we should take it slow till we get more facts. There has to be more to this.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:15:51 PM)
quote: My threshold for self defense is when some punk ass motherfucker pulls out a gun and starts shooting at me for taking a piss. Again one million dollars with your name on it, all you have to do is prove those mind reading claims in a controlled test.

popeye1250 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail If it is anything like minnesota, he would not be defending his property, if it can be reached within a few feet from the navigable waterway (I think ours is 30 feet). He would go down, that is DNR (and therefore public) right of way. snort DNR not DMV. "DNR?" "Do not resusitate?" Oh 'Tail, you are aware that Chris Mathews "appologised" for you for the Zimmerman verdict right? You should send him a thankyou card.

thompsonx -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:32:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The rock, contrary to popular opinion did not kill Goliath, he was killed with his own sword after being incapacitated by the stone, so rocks are clearly not lethal weapons.l Contrary to popular opinion rocks are lethal weapons. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. The Guinness record for slinging a stone: 437.10 m (1,434 ft 1 in), using a 129.5 cm (51.0 in) long sling and a 52 g (1.8 oz) ovoid stone, set by Larry Bray in Loa, Utah, USA on 21 August 1981. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)

thompsonx -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 quote: My threshold for self defense is when some punk ass motherfucker pulls out a gun and starts shooting at me for taking a piss. Again one million dollars with your name on it, all you have to do is prove those mind reading claims in a controlled test. What mind reading claims have I made?

Nosathro -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:43:53 PM)
Just another law abiding gun owner exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.[sm=lol.gif]

slvemike4u -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie The gun toter is in deep deep doo doo. His defending property from a floater taking a leak ain't gonna wash. Hows that work ? Didn't a man just walk after shooting a young man for walking while black ? Oh,never mind ,that was Florida.....everythings different in Florida [8\|]

slvemike4u -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 5:55:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave People need to learn not to try to grab other people's guns. And here I was thinking that people should learn to be a little more discriminate about brandishing weapons.......silly me [:)]

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 6:47:19 PM)
quote: After being hit with a rock I believe they would have to throw the rock first... Unless of course I was a mind reader and knew he was going to throw the rock and my mine was admissible in court....don't you think that reasonable. Butch

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 7:08:19 PM)
Why would you cut and paste that question out of context, remove the question mark, and try to pretend that I said something I didn't? Seriously, that's all you've got? quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: After being hit with a rock I believe they would have to throw the rock first... Unless of course I was a mind reader and knew he was going to throw the rock and my mine was admissible in court....don't you think that reasonable. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 7:10:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The rock, contrary to popular opinion did not kill Goliath, he was killed with his own sword after being incapacitated by the stone, so rocks are clearly not lethal weapons.l Contrary to popular opinion rocks are lethal weapons. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood. It is universally known the ancients employed slingers in all their engagements. The Guinness record for slinging a stone: 437.10 m (1,434 ft 1 in), using a 129.5 cm (51.0 in) long sling and a 52 g (1.8 oz) ovoid stone, set by Larry Bray in Loa, Utah, USA on 21 August 1981. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon) Sorry, forgot to use the sarcasm font.

kdsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 7:22:18 PM)
I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat. I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law. Butch

thatsub -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 7:43:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub ... One of the men picked up rock from the bar and another stepped in front trying to defuse the situation. ... The man trying to defuse the fight put his arm out to push the gun aside.... As I understand the situation, we have several agitated people, one is armed with a gun the rest with rocks. They are all arguing. They don't like each other at that moment. There is conflict. Nobody knows what the other person will do next. One of the men while this whole adrenaline-high argument is happening is making a sudden movement towards the gun. Ask yourself, do you want to be the man holding a gun at that moment? Do you want to risk a possibility to no longer have a gun in the next moment? This is not about protecting property or stand-your-ground, this is a self-defense case. Granted the land owner can be still charged for making a warning shot, which was not legal. There are a lot of things that could have went differently if both parties acted rationally and made an attempt to back away from the fight. Several things went wrong here, not just one, and not just one person is guilty of stupidity. Food for thought. During your next encounter with a police officer, try to "defuse" the situation by placing your hand on his hand that is hovering above his gun. You will be shot, or if you are lucky tasered and charged with assaulting an officer.

WebWanderer -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 7:44:10 PM)
Prior to the Zimmerman case, this would have been a no-brainer. Now that we live in the post-Zimmerman era, though... Zimmerman was found "not guilty" after he shot an unarmed teenager. Z's defense team successfully argued that the teenager wasn't unarmed at all - he was armed with the pavement! If the shooter in this case gets the same lawyers, I'm certain they'll be able to claim that the floaters were armed with rocks, thousands of gallons of water and 8 fists. We have already passed the line separating objectivity and absurdity. From this point on, all bets are off.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 8:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thatsub quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub ... One of the men picked up rock from the bar and another stepped in front trying to defuse the situation. ... The man trying to defuse the fight put his arm out to push the gun aside.... As I understand the situation, we have several agitated people, one is armed with a gun the rest with rocks. They are all arguing. They don't like each other at that moment. There is conflict. Nobody knows what the other person will do next. One of the men while this whole adrenaline-high argument is happening is making a sudden movement towards the gun. Ask yourself, do you want to be the man holding a gun at that moment? Do you want to risk a possibility to no longer have a gun in the next moment? This is not about protecting property or stand-your-ground, this is a self-defense case. Granted the land owner can be still charged for making a warning shot, which was not legal. There are a lot of things that could have went differently if both parties acted rationally and made an attempt to back away from the fight. Several things went wrong here, not just one, and not just one person is guilty of stupidity. Food for thought. During your next encounter with a police officer, try to "defuse" the situation by placing your hand on his hand that is hovering above his gun. You will be shot, or if you are lucky tasered and charged with assaulting an officer. I am not locking myself into saying the landowner was justified, but in the situation he had to think they were going to hurt or kill him. Firing the warning shots looks bad and didn't help any but it used to be that you were required to fire a warning shot if threatened. I also suspect we will find that there is much more to this. There was mention of a long standing dispute over land. No mention of what the floaters had to do with this if anything.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 8:11:16 PM)
All of our laws allow the possibility that a guilty person might get away, and more specifically that a guilty looking person might escape punishment. That's a given that doesn't exist in China. In spite of that, we have the West Memphis 3/Innocence Project type miscarriages of justice.. So again how do we want it? More convictions, including more wrongful ones? Or less convictions, including guilty ones? The only thing that the SYG laws do, is remove the old Jim Crow requirement to either run away or accept a beating or even a lynching without fighting back. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat. I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law. Butch

Powergamz1 -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 8:12:48 PM)
Zimmerman set no legal precedent of any kind. The only 'post Zimmerman era' is that hopefully, the next time the media tries to lynch someone for ratings, more people will be suspicious. quote: ORIGINAL: WebWanderer Prior to the Zimmerman case, this would have been a no-brainer. Now that we live in the post-Zimmerman era, though... Zimmerman was found "not guilty" after he shot an unarmed teenager. Z's defense team successfully argued that the teenager wasn't unarmed at all - he was armed with the pavement! If the shooter in this case gets the same lawyers, I'm certain they'll be able to claim that the floaters were armed with rocks, thousands of gallons of water and 8 fists. We have already passed the line separating objectivity and absurdity. From this point on, all bets are off.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 8:13:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WebWanderer Prior to the Zimmerman case, this would have been a no-brainer. Now that we live in the post-Zimmerman era, though... Zimmerman was found "not guilty" after he shot an unarmed teenager. Z's defense team successfully argued that the teenager wasn't unarmed at all - he was armed with the pavement! If the shooter in this case gets the same lawyers, I'm certain they'll be able to claim that the floaters were armed with rocks, thousands of gallons of water and 8 fists. We have already passed the line separating objectivity and absurdity. From this point on, all bets are off. If he is acquitted we will here that it's the wild west. If he is found guilty it will be because the victim was white. The left will be happy no matter what the outcome.

BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/23/2013 8:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat. I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law. Butch How many rocks does it take? One can disable. If thrown rocks don't justify self defense do you expect him to let them stone him, still a form of execution in some countries.

SadistDave -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/24/2013 3:17:44 AM)
~FR~ Missouri has been working on State House Bill 1692 since 2010 (It was originally written with a lot of weird inconsistencies) that was finally signed into law in March. The law, as passed, expanded Missouri's Castle Doctrine to include the land itself, rather than just buildings. According to current Missouri law, this may actually fall under Castle Doctrine and as someone pointed out earlier, it may ultimately hinge on the right of way on the gravel beach. Regardless, the boaters threatened him with rocks on his own property. One person attempted to disarm the land owner. Trying to grab or push a firearm away is, in point of fact, attempting to disarm him since a firearm must be pointed at a target to be effective. The lawyer for the defence should be able to make a pretty compelling case that when faced with multiple aggressors on his own property, Mr Crocker reacted in self-defence. If you know a person is armed with an inferior weapon, and another person attempts to render your weapon useless, the natural response is to consider the disarming tactic to be an attack. I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. With one armed man nearby and another attempting to disarm Crocker on his own property, this should be a win for the defendant under Missouri law. -SD-

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625