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

[QUOTE=acds;36726748]Or you give a warning first and sit in neither.[/QUOTE] Warning shots aren't recognized. In fact, they're criminal negligence. Warning shots often end in bystanders getting killed. You warn or you run. Discharging a weapon is always deadly force, no matter where the bullet goes. There was an article here recently about a woman who was charged because she fired a "warning shot" which ended up blasting through an infant's room.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726706]I'd rather sit in prison than in a grave.[/QUOTE] Well go ahead, be our guest, just make sure to write us once you get in prison, we look forward to your moronic self-righteous adventures.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36726768]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] Nope. Read the last five pages. The law disagrees with you.

[QUOTE=gnisasas;36726788]Well go ahead, be our guest, just make sure to write us once you get in prison, we look forward to your moronic self-righteous adventures.[/QUOTE] Well go ahead and do nothing, our psychic will stand at the ready to hear what you say when you're dead.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726783]Warning shots aren't recognized. In fact, they're criminal negligence. Warning shots often end in bystanders getting killed. You warn or you run. Discharging a weapon is always deadly force, no matter where the bullet goes.[/QUOTE] True enough, stray bullets into the air have killed in the past (shooting into the pavement isn't a good idea either). Still, a warning of any kind (anything other than shooting someone in the head for lockpicking your backdoor) is kind of expected.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726795]Nope. Read the last five pages. The law disagrees with you.[/QUOTE] The law isn't the same as logic, or probability, or reality, it isn't always correct.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726783]Warning shots aren't recognized. In fact, they're criminal negligence. Warning shots often end in bystanders getting killed. You warn or you run. Discharging a weapon is always deadly force, no matter where the bullet goes. There was an article here recently about a woman who was charged because she fired a "warning shot" which ended up blasting through an infant's room.[/QUOTE] Because verbal warnings don't exist?

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36726829]The law isn't the same as logic, or probability, or reality, it isn't always correct.[/QUOTE] The law is what's going to put you in prison for eleven years for playing cowboy. That's the fact of the matter, buddy. You argue your little opinion all you want. I'm sure your cellmate will empathize.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36726829]The law isn't the same as logic, or probability, or reality, it isn't always correct.[/QUOTE] But when it's your opinion against the law, the law kinda takes priority.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726834]Because verbal warnings don't exist?[/QUOTE] Did I say anything about verbal warnings? No. I said discharging a firearm is always deadly force, and discharging it with the intent to [I]miss[/I] is criminal negligence.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726834]Because verbal warnings don't exist?[/QUOTE] He's right actually, I specifically said (without really thinking about it) "warning [B]shot[/B]".

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726836]The law is what's going to put you in prison for eleven years for playing cowboy.[/QUOTE] I really, really, just don't see any logic within this statement. Of course it could end someone in prison, but not for the right reasons or on a fair basis.

People here think the law is daddy who'll protect them from everything. Because they're important, they matter, they're especial, and daddy cares about them.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36726838]Now look, i'm still trying to catch up with what's been said on the last ten pages so bare with me... But haven't there been tons of stories in the past about people defending themselves in situations like these and the law doing absolutely nothing to them?[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer, but I'm quite sure those have been cases where there was a good reason to kill, or warnings had been given. If someone bashes down your door with an assault rifle, shooting them probably won't net you a prison sentence, but shooting someone for lockpicking your backdoor without warning them will.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;36726858]I really, really, just don't see any logic within this statement. Of course it could end someone in prison, but not for the right reasons or on a fair basis.[/QUOTE] Feel free to disagree with the law. It gets you nowhere. What you're saying you would do is a crime. You would go to prison for voluntary manslaughter. You can rationalize it all you want in your own little world. I would still recommend you get a good grip on that soap. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=acds;36726882]I'm not a lawyer, but I'm quite sure those have been cases where there was a good reason to kill, or warnings had been given. If someone bashes down your door with an assault rifle, shooting them probably won't net you a prison sentence, but shooting someone for lockpicking your backdoor without warning them will.[/QUOTE] One more time: 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. They brandished a weapon at you. They pursued you. They said "I'm going to fucking kill you." They fell in a hostile posture. etc. etc. 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. All of these people saying they would kill? Yeah. Those people would be violating provision #2 and they would be going to prison for intent to kill and not to stop.

I've seen stories of people using guns to defend themselves without meeting your exact criteria 100% like you're saying it has to be, and they didn't get punished. Sure the official law says you can only use deadly force as a last resort and you can't initiate by pulling your weapon first and all this, but unless you go overkill you wont get in trouble for 1 shot even if you don't fit 100% perfectly into the specific technicalities of the law.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726823]Well go ahead and do nothing, our psychic will stand at the ready to hear what you say when you're dead.[/QUOTE] why do you keep making the assumption that it's either murder the robber or get killed?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36726883] 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. They brandished a weapon at you. They pursued you. They said "I'm going to fucking kill you." They fell in a hostile posture. etc. etc. 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. All of these people saying they would kill? Yeah. Those people would be violating provision #2 and they would be going to prison for intent to kill and not to stop.[/QUOTE] #1. They had guns and were waving them around in a robbery attempt, I'm fairly sure that qualifies as brandishing a weapon. #2. Both parties were firing.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36726924]I've seen stories of people using guns to defend themselves without meeting your exact criteria 100% like you're saying it has to be, and they didn't get punished. Sure the official law says you can only use deadly force as a last resort and you can't initiate by pulling your weapon first and all this, but unless you go overkill you wont get in trouble for 1 shot even if you don't fit 100% perfectly into the specific technicalities of the law.[/QUOTE] I don't think you seriously want to argue that the law is so flexible. The same laws that prevent you from killing unnecessarily are the laws that justify defense and condemn attackers.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726954]#1. They had guns and were waving them around in a robbery attempt, I'm fairly sure that qualifies as brandishing a weapon. #2. Both parties were firing.[/QUOTE] We're talking about Castle Doctrine, not this specific case. This isn't a self defense case at all because ballistic evidence indicates the girl wasn't shot by the resident.

You're acting like every self defense event goes to court as a manslaughter/assault trial. It most certainly does not happen like that. You only go to court if there are obvious signs of overkill or you're found out to be lying to the police. I mean all you really have to do is tell the officer the invader said they had a weapon and threatened to kill you. I'm not advocating lying to the police or anything, I'm just saying the case wouldn't go to court if you say you thought you were going to die(whether you did or did not).

she was a human beng and deserved to live

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36726963]In a scenario where someone forces down your door (not just simply forcing the lock or something minor like that), they point a gun towards you the second they see you.[/QUOTE] The issue is that people are saying they would not wait until that gun is visible. They're saying they'd shoot the moment anyone stepped through their front door, not when they're legitimately in imminent peril.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36726924]I've seen stories of people using guns to defend themselves without meeting your exact criteria 100% like you're saying it has to be, and they didn't get punished. Sure the official law says you can only use deadly force as a last resort and you can't initiate by pulling your weapon first and all this, but unless you go overkill you wont get in trouble for 1 shot even if you don't fit 100% perfectly into the specific technicalities of the law.[/QUOTE] oh you've heard stories well fair enough then

[QUOTE=ZF911;36726984]You're acting like every self defense event goes to court as a manslaughter/assault trial.[/QUOTE] uhh that's because, when the defense ends in a fatality, they DO go to court on charges of manslaughter. Defense cases which end without serious damage don't have charges filed against the defender. But cases which end in a fatality are investigated and taken to court. Look at Zimmerman. Dude is going to court regardless of what the ruling is going to be because somebody ended up dead. If a self defense case ends in a fatality, you ARE going to be taken to a courtroom and have your case heard.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;36726769]Because she's a teenage white girl with youth and innocence and she could have been anything.[/QUOTE] future crime boss just look at that photo where she's got dosh everywhere

[QUOTE=James*;36726991]oh you've heard stories well fair enough then[/QUOTE] I mean I've watched security tapes on the news clearly showing shopkeepers and such pull his gun and shoot when there was no clear indication his life was in danger. No charges were pressed.

also, like said before, her accomplices shot her. "Fortenberry and Crumley were arrested and charged early this week with murder for their alleged role in the robbery." Fortenberry and Crumley were the other robbers.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36727032]Look, I'll find a couple of stories to cite for this if you want, but i'm pretty sure there's been dozens of scenarios in the past that have ended in that, and the defender didn't receive any punishment.[/QUOTE] Buddy, that's because they were exonerated in court. Fatal self defense cases go to court on charges of murder/manslaughter and point of contention is whether they are justified. If they are ruled to have been justified, they are not convicted of the charges.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727008]uhh that's because, when the defense ends in a fatality, they DO go to court on charges of manslaughter. Defense cases which end without serious damage don't have charges filed against the defender. But cases which end in a fatality are investigated and taken to court. Look at Zimmerman. Dude is going to court regardless of what the ruling is going to be because somebody ended up dead.[/QUOTE] Zimmerman is in court because his facts didn't add up and he's had a history of harassing minorities. The woman who killed a home invader protecting her child did not get sent to court.