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

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726088](in fact, court precedence endorses the use of lethal force even against [I]police[/I] if you are wrongfully put in harm's way).[/QUOTE] citation needed (to satisfy my curiosity)

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;36726142]citation needed (to satisfy my curiosity)[/QUOTE] Starr v. United States, if I recall. I don't remember the precise deets but I think it was over an illegal search and seizure which escalated to violence. EDIT: Scratch that, officer was serving a legal warrant and opened fire on the suspect without announcing himself. The suspect returned fire and killed the officer. The officer was found in error and the suspect was exonerated on the charge of murder. This case is partially why officers must ALWAYS announce themselves multiple times before opening fire. 1894 case but no further precedence as I understand it.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;36726142]citation needed (to satisfy my curiosity)[/QUOTE] Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary. [B]Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. [/B]This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case:[B] [B]John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529[/B][/B]

Three people burst into my house, two of which are armed. Obviously killing them in self defense is inhumane and I'd be a scumbag for shooting at the armed intruders.

I like how FP, in the case of Anders Breivik, who murdered practically all of the 60-80 people including teenagers who were in an island, calls for him to be treated right, given all the attention he needs, rehabilitate him, and take good care of him, and not just straight away kill him as a punishment. But for FP, if you break in their homes, you gon' get shot and killed, because boy nobody steals their computers, [B]no one[/B]. How do you people miss Lankist's point all the time. How do you actually formulate your thoughts?

[QUOTE=gnisasas;36726305]I like how FP, in the case of Anders Breivik, who murdered practically all of the 60-80 people including teenagers who were in an island, calls for him to be treated right, given all the attention he needs, rehabilitate him, and take good care of him, and not just straight away kill him as a punishment. But for FP, if you break in their homes, you gon' get shot and killed, because boy nobody steals their computers, [B]no one[/B]. How do you people miss Lankist's point all the time. How do you actually formulate your thoughts?[/QUOTE] If you had read the opposing points, you'd see that many people were talking about the invader threatening their lives, not just their property.

[QUOTE=gnisasas;36726305]I like how FP, in the case of Anders Breivik, who murdered practically all of the 60-80 people including teenagers who were in an island, calls for him to be treated right, given all the attention he needs, rehabilitate him, and take good care of him, and not just straight away kill him as a punishment. But for FP, if you break in their homes, you gon' get shot and killed, because boy nobody steals their computers, [B]no one[/B]. How do you people miss Lankist's point all the time. How do you actually formulate your thoughts?[/QUOTE] any community is going to have people who don't have their standards or priorities in place

So wait, how is it good that someone got shot in the head over what seems to be an unarmed robbery? Or is it just Facepunch venting it's anger against the gender that has rejected it for so long?

[QUOTE=acds;36726404]So wait, how is it good that someone got shot in the head over what seems to be an unarmed robbery? Or is it just Facepunch venting it's anger against the gender that has rejected it for so long?[/QUOTE] OP makes the girl sound like a victim, when she was leading a robbery against someone else. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ownederd;36726378]any community is going to have people who don't have their standards or priorities in place[/QUOTE] You mean who might have different priorities or standards.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726088]You could potentially be found to be the aggressor in that scenario. Criminals also have the privileges of self defense as bystanders (in fact, court precedence endorses the use of lethal force even against [I]police[/I] if you are wrongfully put in harm's way). If you threaten to kill a burglar, and thereby escalate the situation to violence [I]yourself[/I], it does not constitute self defense. You were the aggressor, not the defender. Defense requires you don't make the first move, and actively escalating a situation to violence is the easiest way to sabotage a self defense plea. You probably won't go down for murder charges, but you'll face a nickle or a dime for manslaughter. You will also, as an ex-convict, be prohibited from possessing a firearm when your incarceration ends, and any future cases of self defense utilizing a firearm will probably see you catching murder charges. Convicts aren't allowed to have guns, so think of it like this, gun nuts: If you're in a situation like this, is taking the shot worth going to prison and losing your individual gun rights for the rest of your life? Is the situation severe enough to give up that gun forever and your freedom for over a decade? If yes, then you might just be justified.[/QUOTE] Would there be a distinction between drawing it on a burglar or invader and having come into the room with it held in your hands?

[QUOTE=acds;36726404]So wait, how is it good that someone got shot in the head over what seems to be an unarmed robbery? Or is it just Facepunch venting it's anger against the gender that has rejected it for so long?[/QUOTE] Two of the intruders were armed. And I do think it's funny that the article made her out to be a hero, who just happens to commit armed robbery.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36726372]If you had read the opposing points, you'd see that many people were talking about the invader threatening their lives, not just their property.[/QUOTE] I've read the last 5 pages and I feel for Lankist. Everyone's just basically said 'If anybody breaks in my house, I'm killing him straight away'. Worst of all, they justify it by saying it was a 'worthless life and no one will mis him'. People feel life-threatened just by someone entering their private property, and for them that justifies murder. They'd end a life rather than let the burglar steal your shit, or run away, avoid conflict and call the cops.

[QUOTE=gnisasas;36726506]I've read the last 5 pages and I feel for Lankist. Everyone's just basically said 'If anybody breaks in my house, I'm killing him straight away'. Worst of all, they justify it by saying it was a 'worthless life and no one will mis him'. People feel life-threatened just by someone entering their private property, and for them that justifies murder. They'd end a life rather than let the burglar steal your shit, or run away, avoid conflict and call the cops.[/QUOTE] this is the why the generally non-lethal self-defense market exists (tasers/capsicum spray) what you're saying is right: it's immoral to take someone's life if they're simply going to pose a threat to your propety [QUOTE=acds;36726404]So wait, how is it good that someone got shot in the head over what seems to be an unarmed robbery? Or is it just Facepunch venting it's anger against the gender that has rejected it for so long?[/QUOTE] this thread has nothing to do with misogyny

[QUOTE=gnisasas;36726506]I've read the last 5 pages and I feel for Lankist. Everyone's just basically said 'If anybody breaks in my house, I'm killing him straight away'. Worst of all, they justify it by saying it was a 'worthless life and no one will mis him'. People feel life-threatened just by someone entering their private property,[/QUOTE] Someone? Try three people who are armed. [QUOTE]and for them that justifies murder. They'd end a life rather than let the burglar steal your shit, or run away, avoid conflict and call the cops.[/QUOTE] I hold my life and my family's life higher than people who rob houses with guns, if they threaten my life, I'll do whatever I can to protect it, nonviolent options exist but they aren't always the correct solution. If you bring a gun, that shows you are willing to end life. I at that point think it is justifiable to respond with deadly force.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;36726546]this is the why the generally non-lethal self-defense market exists (tasers/capsicum spray) what you're saying is right: it's immoral to take someone's life if they're simply going to pose a threat to your propety[/QUOTE] And isn't that what people should be suggesting and thinking to do, instead of radically murdering someone? Seriously, some people in this thread equated human life to meaningless and worthlessness (holy shit is this word weird). That attitude was seriously messed up.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726434]Two of the intruders were armed. And I do think it's funny that the article made her out to be a hero, who just happens to commit armed robbery.[/QUOTE] The article calls her 'criminal', 'robber' and 'mastermind'... I don't see hero. Although this editor clearly has a stiffy for her.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36726630]In the end, it's all subjective. Opinions of what's right/not right, justifiable/unjustifiable, or immoral/moral, differ from person to person.[/QUOTE] But what the law thinks isn't subjective, that's the point Lankist has been trying to do, basically nobody gives a shit about what you think in front of the law. You may go ahead and murder the intruder, nobody stops you from doing that, but the law won't be as kind and let you walk away.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726601]I hold my life and my family's life higher than people who rob houses with guns, if they threaten my life, I'll do whatever I can to protect it, nonviolent options exist but they aren't always the correct solution[/QUOTE] Good luck fighting the law.

Sorry, but shooting someone in the head without firing off a warning shot first (which the article doesn't mention) is unjustifiable unless the robbers are evidently intent on murder and not robbery (like running around with their guns pointed).

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36726630]In the end, it's all subjective. Opinions of what's right/not right, justifiable/unjustifiable, or immoral/moral, differ from person to person.[/QUOTE] The law isn't. I've laid out precisely what the law is and if any of you ever lived up to your word, you'd be going to prison for voluntary manslaughter. That's the fact of the matter. You can have your opinion. The law does not agree.

People here are simply acting in the 'eye for an eye' way. That doesn't make you any better nor justifies murder. Not all of you are talking like this, but quite a vocal group are, and there's no words for it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726669]Good luck fighting the law.[/QUOTE] I'd rather sit in prison than in a grave.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36726422]OP makes the girl sound like a victim, when she was leading a robbery against someone else.[/QUOTE] Does not give you the right to shoot to kill without warning.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726706]I'd rather sit in prison than in a grave.[/QUOTE] Your call. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36726710]Of course, that can depend on what the law is. I decided to look up at which states have Castle Law. To my surprise, it's quite a large list, and a lot of them do allow you to meet force with force. (With evidence)[/QUOTE] Oh my god, read the thread. Castle Doctrine is state-level. It does not override federal precedence.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726706]I'd rather sit in prison than in a grave.[/QUOTE] Or you give a warning first and sit in neither.

How is her being beautiful relevant? Sure it's sad and all but atleast compliment her personality.

[QUOTE=acds;36726748]Or you give a warning first and sit in neither.[/QUOTE] I never said I would shoot on sight. I would give warning if possible.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717788]You don't know that. You know nothing except that they are present.[/QUOTE] Even if they were forced to do it, the owner of the home deserves to defend him or herself. Sometimes the preservation of life is impossible, and it is killed or be killed.

[QUOTE=FPChris;36726754]How is her being beautiful relevent? Sure it's sad and all but atleast compliment her personality.[/QUOTE] Because she's a teenage white girl with youth and innocence and she could have been anything.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726706]I'd rather sit in prison than in a grave.[/QUOTE] I'd rather be tried by twelve then carried by six.