RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case

RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:22:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You forget that England got much of it's law from the French, remember that William guy? Slave isn't a Latin word, does that mean that Rome had no slaves. Yes I do - he was an asshole that didn't exactly reign for very long either. And England had a lot of it's own laws and customs and actually owned quite a good portion of France as well. I dispute that England, a complete mish-mash of Norse, Celt, and Saxon, got much of it's laws from France as they were well established long before the French learned to sail across the channel. France appears to have gotten most of it's history from various conquerers and a lot of the laws are based on catholicism. His grandson still spoke only French, you remember him Richard pronounced ri shard

moapaadom -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:23:32 PM)
why cant we see any quotes of what the Judge "clearly stated"?

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:23:45 PM)
And England had a lot of it's own laws and customs and actually owned quite a good portion of France as well Via the claims of William.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:28:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maestro702 The bordars and cottagers did not own their draught oxen or horses. The Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders, 35% serfs or villeins, 30% cotters and bordars, and 9% slaves.[13] 12% freeholders. Villeins were a free people. Cotters were also free people. And my maths tells me there's a big chunk not accounted for in the % figures. So I'm guessing they were the lords and landowners? Not many 'serfs' then.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:30:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD His grandson still spoke only French, you remember him Richard pronounced ri shard And because he only spoke french - the country was ruled by the English lords and certainly had fuck all to do with the fench and their laws.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And England had a lot of it's own laws and customs and actually owned quite a good portion of France as well Via the claims of William. Long before William was even born. ETA: Most of Britain was owned and ruled by either Saxons, Celts or Norse. Norsemen held French territory as early as the 8th century as well as parts of Britain. Ergo, British landowners also owned French territories too. Ownership of French lands was not confined to William at all.

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:52:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Stand Your Ground Law = License to Kill Stand Your Ground Law = Best Thing Ever Happened to Law-Abiding Citizens 'hawk

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 3:57:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD he instead fired straight into the 1992 Honda of Darrell Niles, who was unarmed. Niles was killed instantly. You would expect the bullet to take a round about route? The 'magic bullet' in Dallas did...why not this one? 'hawk

Politesub53 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 4:48:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If anyone doeant want to sure anything because they are obsessed, it sure isnt Lucy. I have plenty of sympathy for the guy who pulled the trigger, but at the end of the day, he fired the fatal shot, not the thugs, not the dead chap. I also doubt any jury would find the girls guilty of first degree murder. That's because you don't live here. Ah, the standard reply to non Americans (well one of many) The girls didnt kill anyone, Scott did. If the girls fired a shot and killed someone you may have a point, but it will be hard to prove they were involved when they had already driven off.

AdorkableAiley -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 4:54:46 PM)
The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake? Ailey

PeonForHer -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 4:57:31 PM)
quote: “All that matters is that Mr. Scott felt his life was in jeopardy,” Rutherford said. I'm just trying to get my head around this. Say you're driving by some bloke who has his gun out and is standing his ground, aiming that gun vaguely in your direction. You don't know that he's actually aiming at somebody in a car just behind you. You're scared he's about to shoot you. On the basis of SYG, are you therefore legally OK to shoot this man who seems to be aiming at you? And if you do, would man, say, standing five degrees to the right of that man also be legally OK to shoot you, on the same basis?

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:00:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If anyone doeant want to sure anything because they are obsessed, it sure isnt Lucy. I have plenty of sympathy for the guy who pulled the trigger, but at the end of the day, he fired the fatal shot, not the thugs, not the dead chap. I also doubt any jury would find the girls guilty of first degree murder. That's because you don't live here. Ah, the standard reply to non Americans (well one of many) The girls didnt kill anyone, Scott did. If the girls fired a shot and killed someone you may have a point, but it will be hard to prove they were involved when they had already driven off. It has been pointed out by several posters that the person committing a crime is legally responsible for any harm done by any person. That is the law here. In this case it was the girls committing the crime so it is they who are legally responsible for the death.

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: “All that matters is that Mr. Scott felt his life was in jeopardy,” Rutherford said. I'm just trying to get my head around this. Say you're driving by some bloke who has his gun out and is standing his ground, aiming that gun vaguely in your direction. You don't know that he's actually aiming at somebody in a car just behind you. You're scared he's about to shoot you. On the basis of SYG, are you therefore legally OK to shoot this man who seems to be aiming at you? And if you do, would man, say, standing five degrees to the right of that man also be legally OK to shoot you, on the same basis? And I was accused of hiding behind a bunch of ifs

Politesub53 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:03:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie That has to be one of the most disingenuous statements about the law from someone who wasn't getting paid to make it, that I've seen in years. The duty to retreat in English Common Law based legal systems comes from chattel law... serfs and peasants were property of the crown, and had no right to raise their hand against the Crown or its agents. Same concept which held that a woman had no right to deny sex to her husband. Some of the former colonies drew on it in the form of Apartheid, and Jim Crow, and Terra Nullius prohibitions against certain groups. Here in America, this was undone by the 13th and 14th Amendments and ensuing court decisions... perhaps you missed the memo? Dear oh dear. We had an ex poster who used to make up shit about English law, and now we have another one.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:05:15 PM)
Seems a fine way to do assassinations with no issues. OK in public, no jail, no bail, you just have a 'reasonable fear' some homeless person was about to attack you and Somehow, you missed the 'attacker'. The real fun starts with people SYG with weapons a lot less discriminate that hand or shoulder guns. Sounds to me like it's legal to use a flame thrower that 'just happened to be handy from some weeding job' to stop an imagined attack with a school bus unloading just behind the illusory criminal. The obvious fix to an incredibly stupid law is SYG is balanced by criminal responsibility for any and all even remotely forseeable 'unintended consequences'. Biggest one would be an awareness of the great limitations of hand guns for 'defense' more than about 7' away. Police miss most of these, untrained people so far worse. 21' is a common limitation for effective hits by well trained shooters with careful aim. They do much better in movies and on TV, of course.

BamaD -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake? Ailey The law is clear it is the girls who are legally responsible. Scott is only guilty of trying to defend his family. Does this make it ok that Neil was killed of course not, so me one person who says it is. And don't tell me that not wanting to nail Scott for this means it is ok because it doesn't.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The duty to retreat is based on common sense. If a confrontation occurs and it is possible to get away that is what you should do. It's worked for 500 years. Now SYG is less than a decade old and we have people killing boys because of loud music and for just being in the wrong place. If you cannot see that the problem is giving people a license to kill rather than requiring that deadly force be used only in the direst circumstance. The problem with this argument is that "common sense" isn't all that common or always sensible. It's also based on details that are quite subjective. What constitutes retreating? Technically, taking one step backwards is a retreat. Who decides if your effort to retreat is sufficient? If that one step back is all I feel I can safely take, I have to rely on a prosecutor to agree with me or face charges. What constitutes a threat of grave bodily harm? If someone shows me a gun in their waste-band and then says "I'll kill you if... " Is that sufficient, or do I have to wait till the gun is in their hand? How about if the person has a knife in hand and says "I'm going to kill you" , but isn't quite close enough to stab me? How about a 5'2", 110lbs woman confronted by a 6'4", 250lbs man, who is unarmed, but is acting aggressively. What if the aggressor is a child? Some folks here seem to think that an adult should never kill a child, even if the child is armed and threatening their life. SYG laws were supposed to take some of this subjectiveness out of the equation. Of course we're now seeing that they've added all new factors that are just as subjective. The difference, as I see it though at any rate, is that now it's tilted further towards the defender as opposed to the aggressor. This case seems to be an aberration, where someone completely uninvolved in the incident was killed. Unfortunately, we don't have all the facts. We have articles, some with an agenda, some as news. Some accounts say that shots were fired. Some say that shots were still being fired when Scott was on the lawn. That implies that the SUV was still in front of the house when Scott exited, but that remains unclear. Basically, until we get more facts, or see the judges ruling, we're all just guessing.

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:18:15 PM)
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?

AdorkableAiley -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:24:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: AdorkableAiley The main problem here is a boy is dead, a boy that was not a threat or danger and only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a boy is dead and no one is paying for that. That is a problem. Someone needs to take responsibility. if it was your child would you not want some form of justice? The man that pulled the trigger is responsible weather or not he meant to kill the boy is immaterial to the fact that he did indeed kill him. No one is even questioning the fact that he killed him the question here is should it be ok that he killed him. Well no it is not ok and there should be some sort of penalty for having shot the wrong person. I don't care what law he used to wiggle out of his culpability he was wrong in who he shot and he should have to pay for that. What is just an oh well situation where its ok that a kid died because it was just a mistake? Ailey The law is clear it is the girls who are legally responsible. Scott is only guilty of trying to defend his family. Does this make it ok that Neil was killed of course not, so me one person who says it is. And don't tell me that not wanting to nail Scott for this means it is ok because it doesn't. The girls weren't even there anymore there for no crime was going on at the time he pulled the trigger there for the girls cannot be held responsible as the crime was already over when he fired. It was a mistake I will grant that much but that doesn't mean he still shouldn't have to pay for hitting the wrong target. Should there be no justice for this child simply because the man shot first and thought later?

Politesub53 -> RE: Innocent bystander killed in SYG case (10/13/2013 5:33:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And England had a lot of it's own laws and customs and actually owned quite a good portion of France as well Via the claims of William. Long before William was even born. ETA: Most of Britain was owned and ruled by either Saxons, Celts or Norse. Norsemen held French territory as early as the 8th century as well as parts of Britain. Ergo, British landowners also owned French territories too. Ownership of French lands was not confined to William at all. Dont start him off or I will have to explain how Brittany got its name again. As I stated on another thread recently, English Common law started under Henry II. Pror to that most laws were local and not countrywide. The ownership of France as a whole wasnt confined to William either, thats why he was called The Duke of Normandy and not King of France. [;)].

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625