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

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;36727047]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] yes no one is discussing that case anymore

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36727055]I thought we were talking about home invasions exclusively here...[/QUOTE] This is ALL self defense. If your defense ends a life, you go to court. What happens in court is up in the air, but you do have charges filed against you.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727060]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] If someone breaks into your house and you kill them, as long as you didn't shoot/stab them 20 times, and only shot once or twice you'll be exonerated almost always no matter what.

are you still on this, lankist? I thought i already explained to you that people have the right to defend themselves against acts of aggression as defined by NAP.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36727064]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.[/QUOTE] oh my god you have no idea how justice systems work. There is a REASON we have courts. We don't rule on cases BEFORE they're in a court. The court fucking exists to determine whether or not the facts "add up." The prosecutors don't just go "oh, well we're pretty sure this is chill, so we don't need to use the systems we have exclusively for determining the truth to determine the truth." You're making two fatal errors here: 1. You're assuming every case of self defense ends in fatality. 2. You are equating charges with conviction. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36727090]If someone breaks into your house and you kill them, as long as you didn't shoot/stab them 20 times, and only shot once or twice you'll be exonerated almost always no matter what.[/QUOTE] No, not always. If they were unarmed, or you shot them in the [I]back[/I], you go to fucking prison. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36727095]are you still on this, lankist? I thought i already explained to you that people have the right to defend themselves against acts of aggression as defined by NAP.[/QUOTE] Read the thread. We're on the legal criteria for self defense and procedures by which justified self defense is determined.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727114]oh my god you have no idea how justice systems work. There is a REASON we have courts. We don't rule on cases BEFORE they're in a court. The court fucking exists to determine whether or not the facts "add up." The prosecutors don't just go "oh, well we're pretty sure this is chill, so we don't need to use the systems we have exclusively for determining the truth to determine the truth." You're making two fatal errors here: 1. You're assuming every case of self defense ends in fatality. 2. You are equating charges with conviction. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] No, not always. If they were unarmed, or you shot them in the [I]back[/I], you go to fucking prison.[/QUOTE] ecsactly they are humans and deserv to live

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727114]Read the thread. We're on the legal criteria for self defense and procedures by which justified self defense is determined.[/QUOTE] I see. 139 posts since I last checked the thread, so I just read the last few. seemed like the same subject. my bad.

[QUOTE=Wispa;36727134]ecsactly they are humans and deserv to live[/QUOTE] omg ur so eloqent

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36727156]I think we're all just a little confused here. I think some people have made it seem like (Or they actually meant) they were implying that they would shoot an attacker on site without doing anything first. I thought we were only talking exclusively about home invasions here but I think we're covering self-defense in general now.[/QUOTE] glad I'm not the only one.

Well in my state there is no duty to retreat if you are in your home, meaning I can stand my ground. You are allowed to use deadly force to prevent criminal attack. The intruder does not need a weapon, if he even attempts to grab me in a violent manner I can shoot.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36727156]I think we're all just a little confused here. I think some people have made it seem like (Or they actually meant) they were implying that they would shoot an attacker on site without doing anything first. I thought we were only talking exclusively about home invasions here but I think we're covering self-defense in general now.[/QUOTE] Necessity is important to determine in home invasion cases. In a home invasion case if you, for instance, shoot a man in the back, then you were clearly not in imminent danger from that particular individual (e.g. they were fleeing), therefore you are not justified. There's a whole slew of ways investigators can determine you were in danger, which would be presented in a courtroom and, if the evidence is insurmountable, the prosecution may even simply drop the charges after formal hearings have been conducted. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36727189]Well in my state there is no duty to retreat if you are in your home, meaning I can stand my ground. You are allowed to use deadly force to prevent criminal attack. The intruder does not need a weapon, if he even attempts to grab me in a violent manner you can shoot.[/QUOTE] Not by federal law you aren't. Scroll up. Read the federal criteria for self defense that I have posted seven times. Supremacy Clause dictates federal precedence overrules any state precedence. If a federal case ruled that such a means was unnecessary, so are your means on a state level.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727072]This is ALL self defense. If your defense ends a life, you go to court. What happens in court is up in the air, but you do have charges filed against you.[/QUOTE] It actually depends on the state laws. In Ohio, for example, it's up purely to the state and agency to prove that you reacted inappropriately. If they can not - then they can not touch you or press charges. However. If you ever have to defend yourself, expect to be disarmed, placed in cuffs, and likely taken to station to be questioned thoroughly of course. Lawyer up before talking about the incident.

looke at it thus way the girl wantd to feed her famly and this man shot her fore it

[QUOTE=HkSniper;36727212]It actually depends on the state laws. In Ohio, for example, it's up purely to the state and agency to prove that you reacted inappropriately. If they can not - then they can not touch you or press charges. However. If you ever have to defend yourself, expect to be disarmed, placed in cuffs, and likely taken to station to be questioned thoroughly of course. Lawyer up before talking about the incident.[/QUOTE] They still determine that in formal hearings. In a lot of the more clear-cut cases a direct verdict from a jury is never given. Prosecution just drops charges or never fully files them, but you are scrutinized to hell and back by the justice system. If the case is iffy (which many fatal cases are,) you'll be seeing the inside of a full-fledged courtroom. Now, if we're talking about a case in which deadly force is not employed? It'll probably never go that far. States don't waste time on bumps and bruises unless you really go overboard. Like, if you mutilate someone, you're going to be under some pretty heavy scrutiny. But if you give them a few bumps on the head, nobody particularly cares. The permanent repercussions of your self defense determine scrutiny. If everyone is going to make a full recovery, who gives a shit? No harm no foul. If somebody ends up dead, you need to answer to questioning.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717062]except nobody's life was being threatened. this is such bullshit logic, you can use it to justify shooting anyone for any reason.[/QUOTE] Let's take this scenario. I'm in my bedroom when the door is pried open. I grab my pistol and order them out of the house before I start firing. They continue advancing, and I open fire, killing one of them. They failed to heed clear instructions.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;36727317]Let's take this scenario. I'm in my bedroom when the door is pried open. I grab my pistol and order them out of the house before I start firing. They continue advancing, and I open fire, killing one of them. They failed to heed clear instructions.[/QUOTE] You would have a difficult time proving imminent danger in such a simplistic scenario. Ambulation in your direction does not constitute threat on its own merits. And your instructions do not carry weight of law.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727335]You would have a difficult time proving imminent danger in such a simplistic scenario.[/QUOTE] Actually unless there was video surveillance of the event I don't think it would be very difficult.

[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36727265]I have one word for you. Spelling. Also, they never did give an exact reason for the robbery in the article did they... Though judging from the photos of that girl, I can probably guess they only did it for fun/stealing shit.[/QUOTE] and, unless something's changed, they didn't shoot her for it either.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36727349]Actually unless there was video surveillance of the event I don't think it would be very difficult.[/QUOTE] Yes it would. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable evidence. If your account of events is the only evidence in favor of defense, you will probably face conviction. Especially if crime scene analysis turns up against you (e.g. they were unarmed, they were passive, they weren't in hostile posture, they were mentally incapacitated, etc.) Self defense is not proven via first-hand witness statements of the defender. It's proven by analysis of the scene. If they've got a bloody hatchet in their hand and they fell in such a way that indicates hostile posture, you'll be exonerated. If they're unarmed and they left a blood trail after the shooting implying they fled, you're probably in trouble. This is all assuming they die. If they survive, you'll be facing much less scrutiny. As I said, the permanence of the repercussions following your actions determines how much your actions are scrutinized.

1 word fore you: shutt up

here's the problem with your premise of "imminent danger." lets go back to m great grandmother. someone intruded in her home, she hesitated before firing, and this gave her unarmed assailant enough time to attack and rape her. now, had she shot the unarmed assailant, her only defense would be his initiation of aggression by breaking and entering, a violation of property rights. sorry, but ill take a man killed over breaking and entering over my brutalized great grandmother any day. [editline]time[/editline] sorry about any spelling or punctuation mistakes. I'm on mobile.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727380]Yes it would. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable evidence. If your account of events is the only evidence in favor of defense, you will probably face conviction. Especially if crime scene analysis turns up against you (e.g. they were unarmed, they were passive, they weren't in hostile posture, they were mentally incapacitated, etc.) Self defense is not proven via first-hand witness statements of the defender. It's proven by analysis of the scene. If they've got a bloody hatchet in their hand and they fell in such a way that indicates hostile posture, you'll be exonerated. If they're unarmed and they left a blood trail after the shooting implying they fled, you're probably in trouble.[/QUOTE] i wasn't aware falling bodies made hostile postures

[QUOTE=acds;36726673]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] You're a fucking dumbass. Where the fuck is the warning shot going? You don't know. You could hit some innocent bystander, or someone in the house next door. The law has said that warning shots are bad, because you pulled a gun and didn't fear for your life at that point.

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36727424]i wasn't aware falling bodies made hostile postures[/QUOTE] Haven't you ever watched CSI? Obviously it's hollywood science, but real forensic investigation can turn up remarkable information from very minute details. You can tell a lot just by how the body fell. Did they fall forward or backward? If they fell forward and left a blood smear where they fell, they were probably moving toward the defender quickly. How does this factor into the force of the bullet's impact, etc. etc. Blood spatter and ballistics can determine the angle at which the bullet impacted, and when you combine the victim's lying position, wounds and ballistic analysis (e.g. angle of the wounds, trajectory of the shot), you can get a very good idea of their posture before they were shot. Not to mention the importance of what was on their person. If they've got a knife in their hand, especially if it's held in as if to imply a stabbing motion, yeah it's pretty obvious what's going on. Those are some really really specific and obscure ways of proving justification. Usually it's as simple as "they have a gun in their hand" or "they had a physical altercation with the victim."

[QUOTE=Wispa;36727409]1 word fore you: shutt up[/QUOTE] everyone stop

[QUOTE=ZF911;36727030]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.[/QUOTE] The law makes exemptions for disparity of force. If you are being harassed by multiple people who intend to do harm to you, but do not pull a weapon, you are typically protected if you shoot them, because you could not fight off multiple attackers with your fists.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727482]Haven't you ever watched CSI?[/QUOTE] please don't do that to your argument. actual forensic academies say the majority of that show is bullshit. my cousin went to one. even if the rest of the post is legitimate, starting it with that is suicide.

[QUOTE=Wispa;36727409]1 word fore you: shutt up[/QUOTE] Now that's just mean. Lankist is just going to bawl his eyes out.

[QUOTE=Wispa;36727409]1 word fore you: shutt up[/QUOTE] wurdz 2 live buy

[QUOTE=Ridge;36727518]The law makes exemptions for disparity of force. If you are being harassed by multiple people who intend to do harm to you, but do not pull a weapon, you are typically protected if you shoot them, because you could not fight off multiple attackers with your fists.[/QUOTE] They must be provably life-threatening to justify a fatal result, though. Gun-shot wounds don't always end in death, however, and as I've said, the permanence of the results determines scrutiny.