|
Pulpsmack -> RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours (7/16/2006 12:33:56 PM)
|
quote:
More blather from you know who:
Actually if one makes statements about being a vigiliante on the internet, makes statements about the willingness to take a life when that life is "throwing things", talks about taking a life because it is "his freedom" on the line could be called on statements like these if they were read in front of a jury. Law enforcement and the legal system tend to frown on private citizens taking the law into their hands and becoming enforcers of the law instead of calling them. People have been put on trial for being vigilantes before.
When you use such a big word before people who you are trying to communicate with do your self a favor and look it up first. You have no idea how foolish you look when you misuse it. Carrying a gun doesn't make you a vigilante, nor does having the will to use it. A vigilante is one who takes the law into their own hands WHEN THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO. A neighborhood watch is not a group of vigilantes, even if they are a roving patrol canvasing their neighborhood. When they come upon a crack dealer and beat the hell out of then (thus operating outside of the scope of the law) they are then vigilantes, exacting illegal "street justice". A lawfully armed citizen lawfully protecting his life from an attacker or the life of another is not a vigilante.
quote:
Someone making these statements goes and "looks for" a fight while they carry a concealed weapon is probably going to find one. If a prosecutor can link internet statements to an act of vigilante violence and show a pattern of behavior of looking for "bad guys" to shoot... yes it could happen. But these are all just hypotheticals.
While somebody who goes and looks for a fight may very well find one, your second statement is utter nonsense. Some people need to take a vacation from CSI and Law & Order every now and then. If a person blows some stranger away on the street and there are facts in dispute as to whether it was self defense, escalation, or something else, the liklihood the DA is going to confiscate his computer, scan his internet activity, phone log, and bank records is next to nil. He has 28 cases pending and unless (as somebody mentioned) he has a hardon to make your life miserable (in which all bets are off) these unnecessary steps will NEVER come to light.
quote:
But... they search home PCs for other evidence of crimes, so why not people that have shot others several times in "self defense"?
Because there is something known is RELEVANCE. it's sort of important in this thing you argue (yet know nothing about) called law. sex offenses, pecuniary crimes, and crimes in which the accused may have solicited the internet for advice and information are relevant. An internet search regarding a crime in which the accused shot a stranger in a chance encounter with a stranger is extremely unlikley to be fruitful and the DA won't waste time there. Everything looks important on TV. They have instant DNA tests and the detective is versed in latin and every lead is chased down to the bitter end providing plot twists and intrigue to keep your fat ass glued to the couch long enough for vagisil and Ford to entice you with their wares. In real life resources are thin, time is finite and crimes go unnoticed and unsolved. The best investigated crimes are the high priority ones which are flooded with media attention and give the people a false sense that all crimes are investigated as such. Even then, Look how badly they botched OJ's investigation. Take Joe Nobody ventilating some assailent's head where there is a dispute of escallation or not and you've got nothing.
quote:
I do not believe in vigilantism, or in people that think it is ok for them to enforce justice in civil society by pulling out their concealed weapon and firing randomly at people.. but that is just me and I could be wrong
We already heard your beliefs and your understandings therof. Picking them apart is even less challenging than stomping on an anthill. Nice close by the way. Could you be less original?
quote:
You fire into a group of kids with baseball bats or bottles they are throwing, you miss them and hit an innocent person... WTF are you at that point??? You murdered someone to prove how tough you are with a gun. You could have called the cops, but no,.. you pulled out your 6 shooter and murdered an innocent person... hypothetically. Everytime you fire at people you take the risk of shooting an innocent.. unacceptable, and it has NOTHING to do with your example.
As usually peanut gallery commentary from one who doesn't know what she speaks of. These "kids" hurled a barrage of deadly/dangerous missiles at passers by from a ridge and closed upon them. Most of these people were cut off and had nowhere to run to. Many jumped into a river. Others caught on the bank were beaten to a pulp by these kids who struck blow after blow with baseball bats. Senseless violence that could have resulted in drownings and murders. Grow up Julia, Having a gun, carrying a gun or using it to defend yourself from someone who id trying to seriously hurt or kill you or another isn't about being tough. It's about defense. Instead of vacuously parroting your Dom's sig line, you should be absorbing the important things like what he says about WHEN it is time to fight, and WHY.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Caretakr
The law requires one to withdraw, and seek a public safety officer in these situations.
Only when in imminent fear of you life, are you allowed to act in using deadly force in self defense.
Exactly, and if you will read the thread you will see where someone talked about shooting at the group of kids, which is the reason I brought it up
Not "exactly". Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Deadly force is generally authorized upon the imminent fear of yout life OR the threat of GREAT BODILY HARM and the privilege extends to the lives of others around you provided they qualify for the privilege (in other words, you can't use deadly force on cops going rodney king on a perp, because self defense is not permissible to those who are being lawfully arrested -even if lawlessly executing it). Retreat doctrines (the duty to retreat from a threat) is not the case in most places. this varies by state, so these inane pronouncements of law by anyone here show how little in fact they understand it. My state varies from his varies from theirs. And the kooks in CA have the most ridiculous laws of all, much of which does not apply to the other states.
|
|
|
|
