Teenage Girl Shot And Killed In Texas Because Of Stand Your Ground Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719346] "Law is fad." I'm not acknowledging that. You've no fucking clue what you're talking about and you just don't want to admit you don't understand the law.[/QUOTE] And for all your big, altruistic talk, you do not understand mankind. Now please, respond like an adult.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719346]Since _jesterk seems to have pimped away, the two criteria for self defense are: (1) a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend himself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force and (2) the use of no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Both of these must be proven in court for a charge of murder or manslaughter to be mitigated as self defense. Note #1. "against IMMEDIATE use of unlawful force." The fact that someone is in your house doesn't qualify. It must be demonstrable that you had legitimate reason to think they were going to harm you beyond your own paranoia. On #2, this is the most important in terms of lethal force. If someone is running at you unarmed, you aren't justified in shooting them eight times in the face. Similarly, if they flee the scene, you CANNOT shoot them. If they are incapacitated, you cannot kill them. Your goal should never be to kill them, for that matter, merely to stop them.[/QUOTE] Is this still applicable with castle doctrine?

[QUOTE=James*;36719371]Is this still applicable with castle doctrine?[/QUOTE] As a Texan, I believe it is not. But I may be wrong.

[QUOTE=James*;36719371]Is this still applicable with castle doctrine?[/QUOTE] Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat, which is state-level precedence. Those two requisites are Supreme Court precedence. They apply over all cases. Even in cases of Texan self defense, unnecessary force is unnecessary force. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36719376]As a Texan, I believe it is not. But I may be wrong.[/QUOTE] Supreme Court precedence applies to Texas too, despite how much Texas seems to think otherwise.

[QUOTE=Frisk;36716214]It does. Beautiful people don't need to turn to a life of crime when their beauty is able to provide everything they need.[/QUOTE] omg thats deep [editline]edit[/editline] wait what the fuck page 16

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719379]Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat, which is state-level precedence. Those two requisites are Supreme Court precedence. They apply over all cases. Even in cases of Texan self defense, unnecessary force is unnecessary force. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Supreme Court precedence applies to Texas too, despite how much Texas seems to think otherwise.[/QUOTE] I said I may be wrong, sir. Also, a response to my previous post (#618) would be dandy.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719392]I said I may be wrong, sir. Also, a response to my previous post (#618) would be dandy.[/QUOTE] What are you trying to say with "liberty is humanity" there isn't even consensus on what liberty is

Its not best to shoot the person dead. Shoot a leg or something. That would immobilise the criminal, and that's when you can resolve the situation easier.

[QUOTE=James*;36719408]What are you trying to say with "liberty is humanity" there isn't even consensus on what liberty is[/QUOTE] We, as humans, have certain liberties that are ours by right of being human. John Locke wrote quite a bit about them. Thomas Jefferson was directly inspired by Locke. And Locke by older philosophers and so on.

[QUOTE=shackleford;36719413]Its not best to shoot the person dead. Shoot a leg or something. That would immobilise the criminal, and that's when you can resolve the situation easier.[/QUOTE] I know facepunchers all consider themselves expert marksmen but that's a lot harder than you think [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36719421]We, as humans, have certain liberties that are ours by right of being human. John Locke wrote quite a bit about them. Thomas Jefferson was directly inspired by Locke. And Locke by older philosophers and so on.[/QUOTE] So are north koreans not human

[QUOTE=James*;36719427] So are north koreans not human[/QUOTE] According to their government, or according to me?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719441]According to their government, or according to me?[/QUOTE] According to you I get the impression you are saying liberty is something inherent but it isn't, it is provided by law. Or in the case of North Korea, not

[QUOTE=shackleford;36719413]Its not best to shoot the person dead. Shoot a leg or something. That would immobilise the criminal, and that's when you can resolve the situation easier.[/QUOTE] all shots are potentially lethal, which is why you're told not to shoot unless you intend to kill. if you shoot somebody in the leg they will probably bleed out

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719421]We, as humans, have certain liberties that are ours by right of being human. John Locke wrote quite a bit about them. Thomas Jefferson was directly inspired by Locke. And Locke by older philosophers and so on.[/QUOTE] The only consensus as to what liberty is exists in the form of law. Nobody cares what your personal view of liberty is, especially when it involves the freedom to kill unjustly.

[QUOTE=James*;36719451]According to you I get the impression you are saying liberty is something inherent but it isn't, it is provided by law. Or in the case of North Korea, not[/QUOTE] We differ there. Rights are not provided by law, they are meant to be protected by law. Essential Liberties are part of being human, oppressive government or not. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36719467]The only consensus as to what liberty is exists in the form of law. Nobody cares what your personal view of liberty is, especially when it involves the freedom to kill unjustly.[/QUOTE] You still haven't answered my question. #618.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36719195]That isn't justice. That's murder.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but if someone broke into my home, I'd be fearing for my life, and would take appropriate action as such.

[QUOTE=shackleford;36719413]Its not best to shoot the person dead. Shoot a leg or something. That would immobilise the criminal, and that's when you can resolve the situation easier.[/QUOTE] Y'know whats actually fucked is that IF they do survive the gunshot to the leg. Some criminals would have the audacity to press a law suit against you. Oi lankist what would you do if you were in said situation of robber inside your house etc.

Well, it appears I won't be getting a straight answer today. Just as well, it's time for me to get ready for work anyway. Gentlemen.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36719468]We differ there. Rights are not provided by law, they are meant to be protected by law. Essential Liberties are part of being human, oppressive government or not. [/QUOTE] Rights are provided by law. Without law, rights do not exist.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;36716319]Did you look at the source? [t]http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/237727/slide_237727_1205388_free.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/237727/slide_237727_1205393_free.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Looks like someone tapped that... with a gun. (also she has an iPhone 4. You cant exactly be short on cash with that.)

[QUOTE=Unsmart;36719685]Looks like someone tapped that... with a gun. [/QUOTE] did you really type this out and think it was okay to post

Can't say I feel sorry for the bitch really

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36716318]EDIT: As someone said above, it's more "Castle Doctrine" law (I forgot that it's separate from Stand Your Ground) we're talking about here. She broke into someone's house and the owner (understandably) shot her. She may not have been shot because of the law, but the law ensures that the owner won't face criminal prosecution for defending his home and life.[/QUOTE] It's actually more of violence legimatimisation - I am under attack or can assume that I will be under attack, so I use violence to defend myself.

Not sure if Lankist is still here but, if you were to enter my home without permission with the intent to steal things I own. I would shoot you. Am I a terrible person for that? No, I'm simply defending my property.

[QUOTE=Starship;36720001]Am I a terrible person for that?[/QUOTE] Yes Your possessions are not worth more than human life

[QUOTE=James*;36720131]Yes Your possessions are not worth more than human life[/QUOTE] Depends on the life, Its not like you are shooting some random hardworking guy.

[QUOTE=James*;36720131]Yes Your possessions are not worth more than human life[/QUOTE] So I'm supposed to let them walk off with my stuff? If someone broke into my house unarmed I'd use a gun to threaten them but not to kill. If they pulled a weapon on me I'd [i]try[/i] to shoot non-lethally but who knows what would end up happening in the chaos.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36720223]So I'm supposed to let them walk off with my stuff?[/QUOTE] Depends, in the US I'd probably recommend that yes [QUOTE=ZF911;36720223]who knows what would end up happening in the chaos[/QUOTE] You pretty much explained yourself why this is a stupid thing to do

[QUOTE=James*;36720256]Depends, in the US I'd probably recommend that yes You pretty much explained yourself why this is a stupid thing to do[/QUOTE] I wouldn't let anyone take my prized possessions without a fight. That is a stupid thing to say. "Aw, take my computer, i don't want to shoot you I can't be bothered to see what happens in the end"

[QUOTE=James*;36720256]Depends, in the US I'd probably recommend that yes You pretty much explained yourself why this is a stupid thing to do[/QUOTE] Why would you recommend letting them walk away? Not only is robbery illegal, it's my stuff. Like I said I'd only fire my gun if a weapon was pulled on me. I'd try to spare them but if not they honestly had it coming.