quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR
How nice that all the pro-gun people feel that shooting down someone simply because you thought they might be dangerous is okay. Most white males in this country vote Republican; they are definitely dangerous to my well-being; I guess I should just start taking them out. What am I waiting for. Seriously, this is what some of your arguments sound like. Hope all of you pro-gun types will be happy defending me when I shoot the next Republican I meet. What a sad state of affairs…..

A completely irrational assessment of our position.

Not at all. And as the thread continues the pro-gun folks are getting more and more ridiculous.

I am sorry but I truly fail to see how an old man on one's doorstep constitutes imminent danger that necessitates fatal self-defense. My analogy is right on point.

As for those who are asking how does one verify if the person is old - how about looking with one's eyes? Does this person not have a light on the porch/door? Are people seriously trying to say they don't know how to identify that someone is OLD? wtf. Again, you pro-gun types are sounding seriously stupid. You want us all to believe that it is impossible to identify that someone is old.

Here are homicide offenders by age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime (meaning a HOMICIDE -please look at the graph) as a child under the age of 14. I hope very much that all of you pro-gun people never have a child approach you for help. Because according to your arguments, you would perceive a threat and put a bullet into a 5 year old's head.

Seriously, what is the threat here from an old man? And now this poor man is DEAD. If this were my parent, I would want the shooter behind bars for life. Who does this? This is as awful as killing a child. Any of you who think otherwise are not using any kind of rational fact based argument to support your position.


edited to make clear the graph I posted is about HOMICIDES because some people on this thread can't read or interpret graphs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

When did simple trespassing become a capital crime in Georgia? Punishable when committed?

You have hit the nail on the head.

I don't know how it is in Georgia but around here unless there are signs it's not trespassing. If you call the cops they'll escort the people off your land but that's the end of it. There are no charges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

A point I haven't seen mentioned is that the anti self defense people on here
have to assume the cops don't know what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't
have let Hendrix go.
And at the same time say Hendrix should have depended on those same grossly incompetent
cops for his safety.

The cops let the murderer go because he was just barely inside the law. It doesn't make murdering that man right. The fact remains if he had simply turned on a porch light or a flashlight the man would still be alive.

The fact remains that you either warn them or give them first strike

I want you to imagine yourself in a situation, you've been in a car accident on a rural road. Your phone is smashed and your jaw is broken.  You need assistance and head to the nearest home. Do you hope the person turns on the porch light and renders you aid or draws their pistol and starts issuing warnings?

Even with my jaw broken I would co-operate.
If he starts threatening to shoot me I would at a minimum do what he said so he wouldn't feel threatened putting my hands up for example
Not being stupid I would not advance on him.

Sorry you're still dead. In the dark there is absolutely no way to discern any of that. You're just a shape in the dark and raised hands could as easily be a prelude to an attack as an act of surrender.

Wrong as usual. Backing up would not be confused with advancing.
For your fantasy to work I would have to keep advancing in spite of the warnings, remember that's what got him shot
no way I am going to do that.
Just curious you keep saying you believe in self defense if there is a real threat but you have never
said what is needed to meet that criteria.
What does it take other than giving him first strike to meet your fair and sane criteria.

Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult.

As to what would have proven he was a threat, turning on a fucking light for the tenth or so time. Not a completely useless and pointless verbal warning. If the area had been illuminated he could have correctly assessed the situation and not killed a 72 year old man who was confused and was no danger to him or anyone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

So it's better said as reality based response vs. paranoid delusions.

Reality: A confused old man needed help.

Imaginary: Deadly attacker will break down the door with his murder club.

Well Said. What I have seen here is that the subjective state of mind seems more important to gun proponents. Combine this with lying. The clean-shootists take the shooters statement as fact -- and not as either delusional, paranoid, or self serving. The shooter's statement is uncorroborated by other witnesses. Reality stands at stark odds with the shooter's behavior and decisions.

Reality is dismissed by the clean-shootists as 'unknowable' and 'hindsight knowlege.' Finding out that the man was 71, lost, and confused is for the clean-shootists -- a feat requiring either "super-powers" or "high risk to one's own personal safety."

Overall impression: Reality based arguments v. paranoid, fear-based, subjectivist retorts go in endless circles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the denials of ronnie not being senile/ alzheimers /dementia still continue dont they?

quote:

What planet are you on?

quote:

SYG has resulted in MANSLAUGHTER.

quote:

So allowing Hendrix to get away with this means someone in a SYG state is equally justified in shooting down a 5 year old claiming fear of being killed.

quote:

Shouldn't fear be based on something at least remotely real??? Because otherwise, we can claim fear for anything - including the 5 year old.

quote:

And my post is about ascertaining risk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult.


Actually my night vision must be so much better than yours as to make you assertions seem absurd.
You must be virtually night blind if you think that.
And you are saying then that Hendrix would naturally seen an attack coming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So as always you were full of it. Good to know. Why do you interject yourself in conversations in which you know nothing?

DING DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
No you are dodging the question, when you have turned on the light what would tell you it was reasonable
to take violent defensive action. Don't give me a mindless platitude tell me what criteria would allow you to shoot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult.


Actually my night vision must be so much better than yours as to make you assertions seem absurd.
You must be virtually night blind if you think that.
And you are saying then that Hendrix would naturally seen an attack coming.

Wrong. Full night vision takes a long time to come up after being in light so this guy was likely operating mostly blind.

And no ones night vision is so good that they can defy the physical reality of how their eyes work.

Special forces operators train to work at night specifically because people who do not have vision enhancements and/or extensive training working at night are terrible at it. If you had any such training you'd know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult.


Actually my night vision must be so much better than yours as to make you assertions seem absurd.
You must be virtually night blind if you think that.
And you are saying then that Hendrix would naturally seen an attack coming.

Wrong. Full night vision takes a long time to come up after being in light so this guy was likely operating mostly blind.

And no ones night vision is so good that they can defy the physical reality of how their eyes work.

Special forces operators train to work at night specifically because people who do not have vision enhancements and/or extensive training working at night are terrible at it. If you had any such training you'd know that.

So once again your opinion trumps what I have experienced.
Although your argument about adjusting to different light is the reason I would not blind myself by turning on the outside light
instead I turn off the inside light. That is part of the reason that I am not defying the laws of physics.
Last night I stepped out of my house and instantly found the one thing that didn't fit. I identified a cat hiding behind a bush so don't tell me what I can do.
I have never been anyplace other than a bar where it was dark enough to have those effects.
Even in the country there is some light, enough to work by.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult.


Actually my night vision must be so much better than yours as to make you assertions seem absurd.
You must be virtually night blind if you think that.
And you are saying then that Hendrix would naturally seen an attack coming.

Wrong. Full night vision takes a long time to come up after being in light so this guy was likely operating mostly blind.

And no ones night vision is so good that they can defy the physical reality of how their eyes work.

Special forces operators train to work at night specifically because people who do not have vision enhancements and/or extensive training working at night are terrible at it. If you had any such training you'd know that.

So once again your opinion trumps what I have experienced.
Although your argument about adjusting to different light is the reason I would not blind myself by turning on the outside light
instead I turn off the inside light. That is part of the reason that I am not defying the laws of physics.
Last night I stepped out of my house and instantly found the one thing that didn't fit. I identified a cat hiding behind a bush so don't tell me what I can do.
I have never been anyplace other than a bar where it was dark enough to have those effects.
Even in the country there is some light, enough to work by.

You saw a shape. You could not have judged whether it was moving toward or away from you until it had moved a lot and if it was a danger that would have been too late. That is a fact. People are terrible in low light situations.

As the man who shot a 72 year old man with dementia proved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR
How nice that all the pro-gun people feel that shooting down someone simply because you thought they might be dangerous is okay. Most white males in this country vote Republican; they are definitely dangerous to my well-being; I guess I should just start taking them out. What am I waiting for. Seriously, this is what some of your arguments sound like. Hope all of you pro-gun types will be happy defending me when I shoot the next Republican I meet. What a sad state of affairs…..

A completely irrational assessment of our position.

Not at all. And as the thread continues the pro-gun folks are getting more and more ridiculous.

I am sorry but I truly fail to see how an old man on one's doorstep constitutes imminent danger that necessitates fatal self-defense. My analogy is right on point.

As for those who are asking how does one verify if the person is old - how about looking with one's eyes? Does this person not have a light on the porch/door? Are people seriously trying to say they don't know how to identify that someone is OLD? wtf. Again, you pro-gun types are sounding seriously stupid. You want us all to believe that it is impossible to identify that someone is old.

Here are homicide offenders by age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg

A person 71 years old is about as likely to commit a crime (meaning a HOMICIDE -please look at the graph) as a child under the age of 14. I hope very much that all of you pro-gun people never have a child approach you for help. Because according to your arguments, you would perceive a threat and put a bullet into a 5 year old's head.

Seriously, what is the threat here from an old man? And now this poor man is DEAD. If this were my parent, I would want the shooter behind bars for life. Who does this? This is as awful as killing a child. Any of you who think otherwise are not using any kind of rational fact based argument to support your position.


edited to make clear the graph I posted is about HOMICIDES because some people on this thread can't read or interpret graphs.