quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
not going after the "thuggettes" but who actually committed the crime of killing a person for mistake (call it manslaughter instead os murder but still a crime) would mean declaring a gun is not a toy and it brings responsibilities with it. I don't think that being entitled to shoot whatever it moves on a public raod because you're scared increase safety. Than if the point is that if only responsible person would buy a gun smith and wesson would go broke it's another matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

no court files available, IM guessing thats because its being appealed, but the man has an interesting record,

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You have stated repeatedly that the mere displaying of a weapon constitutes felony assault and even one argued that it would have justified beating the man to death so he couldn't shoot any one. I almost let you get away with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Wrong. Under self defense the duty to retreat is that you cannot use force until you have exhausted every avenue of escape.

And if taking one step backwards is all I can safely do before I believe every avenue of escape has been exhausted?

quote:


Now let me be sure I have this straight, someone has committed 2 felonies (brandishing and making terroristic threats), 3 if by barring your way he's illegally detaining you. He has a visible weapon that can be readied in just a few seconds. (It takes about 1.5 seconds to clear a holster, so maybe 3 seconds out of a waist-band?) So, when exactly is it ok to shot this person? Are you saying that I have to sit and wait till his weapon clears his pants before I can defend myself?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

no court files available, IM guessing thats because its being appealed, but the man has an interesting record,

Really? Do tell.

PS: I asked the writer of that article if he knows what happened to the girls. I'll let you know if I get any reply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Wrong. SYG laws were designed to make it less likely that damn fool concealed carriers who misused their weapons would be charged for the crimes they commit. We know this because these laws came out of ALEC and the NRA at the behest of the gun manufacturers.



Wrong this is pure propaganda spouted by gun grabbers and force fed to people in places like Chicago and D C till they believe i.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Wrong. Under self defense the duty to retreat is that you cannot use force until you have exhausted every avenue of escape.

And if taking one step backwards is all I can safely do before I believe every avenue of escape has been exhausted?

quote:

Legally your opinion does not matter what matters is what would a reasonable person believe.

quote:

Now let me be sure I have this straight, someone has committed 2 felonies (brandishing and making terroristic threats), 3 if by barring your way he's illegally detaining you. He has a visible weapon that can be readied in just a few seconds. (It takes about 1.5 seconds to clear a holster, so maybe 3 seconds out of a waist-band?) So, when exactly is it ok to shot this person? Are you saying that I have to sit and wait till his weapon clears his pants before I can defend myself?

Note the differences between the two scenarios you present as identical. In the first someone simply showed a gun and made a threat. In the second he also prevents you from leaving. A strawman of your own creation is awfully easy to attack now try dealing with the original statement and response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

I wish America could be gun free, but that is just not going to happen and you know what even if it did things would get way worse before they would ever get better. Like drugs people would find ways to have guns anyway only then with them not being legal average Joe has no gun to protect himself against someone else who illegally has a gun.

In one paragraph you clarified the entire reason behind the right to keep and bear arms argument.

And it is complete poppycock as the UK and Australia proved beyond doubt when they did it at a stroke.

last time I checked both those countries were ISLANDS, and didn't share a border with a country whose major export is drugs!

yeahhh lets ignore that lil detail!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Wrong. SYG laws were designed to make it less likely that damn fool concealed carriers who misused their weapons would be charged for the crimes they commit. We know this because these laws came out of ALEC and the NRA at the behest of the gun manufacturers.



Wrong this is pure propaganda spouted by gun grabbers and force fed to people in places like Chicago and D C till they believe i.

You're claiming these laws were not pushed by ALEC and the NRA with gun manufacturer money?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/21/alec-has-pushed-the-nras-stand-your-ground-law/186459
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166978/how-alec-took-floridas-license-kill-law-national#
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/04/13/the-secretive-corporate-outfit-behind-stand-your-ground/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
not going after the "thuggettes" but who actually committed the crime of killing a person for mistake (call it manslaughter instead os murder but still a crime) would mean declaring a gun is not a toy and it brings responsibilities with it. I don't think that being entitled to shoot whatever it moves on a public raod because you're scared increase safety. Than if the point is that if only responsible person would buy a gun smith and wesson would go broke it's another matter.

Ok, I'll try this again. Here in the US we have what's known as the Felony Murder Rule. I found a source that states this case is analogous to that law. Since the source is written by a lawyer, and one who specializes in self defense law, I'll accept his opinion. The felony murder rule is: A Rule of Law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

So, by way of example, if some men are robbing a store and the store owner shoots one of the robbers, the remaining robbers can be charged with the murder. Not the store owner, even though he was the one who actually pulled the trigger. If those men are robbing a store and one of them shoots the owner, all can be charged with the murder. If 50 men are committing a felony, and a police officer shoots one of them, the other 49 can be charged with the murder.

That's the law. It's not about guns as toys. It's not about irresponsible gun owners. You may not like it, and that's fine, but it is the law. We here don't always like or understand your laws, and that's fine too, since they aren't ours.

By the way, this wasn't an SYG case. Or at least that wasn't the argument put forth by Scott's lawyers at his pretrial hearing. It was SC's self-defense immunity statute §16-11-450. Had it gone to trial, SYG might have been argued, but the case never went to trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

victims fault eh..... tragic accident, eh.... that will help his mother

Never said it would, neither would crucifying an innocent man.

innocent????
How is Scott innocent
he killed an innocent man, oopth

While returning fire you want to crucify someone go after the thugetts who started the shooting.
My God it was the middle of the night and you demand perfection from him but have not one word of criticism for the feral teenagers who are responsible for the whole incident.

How would going after the feral teenagers help send the message that SYG is bad (or in one posters case the GOP/nra)? I am sure this is just sincere concern for the one who was killed over 3 years ago and has nothing to do with proving a point.

once again you miss "the point", by a glaring mile, the victim has been dead 3 years, and no justice for his death.
Not by the "thuglettes" not by the guy who fired the gun.
But keep on with your bad self, I guess hes been dead three years....who gives a shit that he was innocent fuck the victim and family, gotta protect a law that made it possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Ah, the standard reply to non Americans (well one of many)

Hmmm, as opposed to the standard if you only smartened up, got civilized, and did what we did argument from the other side of the pond?

This from somone who earlier in the thread said much the same as me. you would have issues on the SYG claim if the girls had indeed driven off.

As for your point, I have never told anyone not to comment on events in the UK, even if I have pointed out errors.

quote:

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said he shouldn't have justice. I think it would be great if I heard they had actually caught the girls responsible. But this thread isn't screaming for justice. It's trying to prove SYG is evil and that's all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.

Why do the anti gun people keep pretending that we think Neil's death is ok?
Nobody I repeat nobody says anything remotely resembling that.
Nothing makes the death better.
There is no indication he shot first.
Witnesses heard them shooting so pretending they didn't start it is nothing but a straw man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley

I wish America could be gun free, but that is just not going to happen and you know what even if it did things would get way worse before they would ever get better. Like drugs people would find ways to have guns anyway only then with them not being legal average Joe has no gun to protect himself against someone else who illegally has a gun.

In one paragraph you clarified the entire reason behind the right to keep and bear arms argument.

And it is complete poppycock as the UK and Australia proved beyond doubt when they did it at a stroke.

last time I checked both those countries were ISLANDS, and didn't share a border with a country whose major export is drugs!

yeahhh lets ignore that lil detail!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

So he was driving the girl home........only to get shot.......that makes it all better.
Or are you talking about shannon shot first, (shannon being the father???)and boo boos friend ?
Why does the defense chap rutherford, say....the mistake was made not arresting those female thugs who were going to do the drive by. Not, by the girls who did the drive by?
Something stinks.... im sorry, the mothers statement says to me that he should indeed be doing time.

Why do the anti gun people keep pretending that we think Neil's death is ok?
Nobody I repeat nobody says anything remotely resembling that.
Nothing makes the death better.
There is no indication he shot first.
Witnesses heard them shooting so pretending they didn't start it is nothing but a straw man.

Because it's easier to get people on your side if you can paint the other side as evil as possible. Doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as you can get some to believe it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The most reliable source is the judge, he said Scott wasn't at fault for the incident.
What reason do you have for not accepting this except that you don't like it.

And you were there to in person to back up that report?
Or have another creditible source for an identical report?

It is not a reliable source of info to quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
last time I checked both those countries were ISLANDS, and didn't share a border with a country whose major export is drugs!

yeahhh lets ignore that lil detail!

Australia is flanked to the north by the Philipines and Indonesia that is rife with drugs and human traffickers.
We are only a spit from the biggest occupied land mass of the world that can be bridged by a small boat and it is linked by a tunnel too.

The US is no more more than a big island that is much smaller than the land mass right next to us.

Yeah, perhaps we should forget that simple fact too!!