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

[QUOTE=sdwise;36727532]please don't do that to your argument. actual forensic academies say the majority of that show is bullshit. my cousin went to one.[/QUOTE] uh the point is that forensics actually determine everything he just pointed out, shows like CSI just magic a bit more things and get results much faster.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36727532]please don't do that to your argument. actual forensic academies say the majority of that show is bullshit. my cousin went to one.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;36727482]Obviously it's hollywood science, but real forensic investigation can turn up remarkable information from very minute details.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;36727482]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] Nothing proves you had to defend yourself like a fresh wound.

[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] Sometimes fellow criminals will be charged with someone's murder because their actions put the deceased in that predicament.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727546]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.[/QUOTE] 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=sdwise;36727588]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] Just because your anecdotal grandma would have been hypothetically justified does not change the law. Seriously, though, dude. Don't use that for this. This is an internet discussion. You aren't going to win anything here. It's somewhat shameful to turn a personal incident like that into a tool to win an argument, and it forces me to question your grandma's very existence as an anecdote and thus opens the door for you to get all mad and self-righteous. Let's not go down that road. Stick to verifiable facts, not personal anecdotes.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727669]Just because your anecdotal grandma would have been hypothetically justified does not change the law. Seriously, though, dude. Don't use that for this. This is an internet discussion. You aren't going to win anything here. It's somewhat shameful to turn a personal incident like that into a tool to win an argument, and it forces me to question your grandma's very existence as an anecdote and thus opens the door for you to get all mad and self-righteous. Let's not go down that road. Stick to verifiable facts, not personal anecdotes.[/QUOTE] It's funny because you talked about how you got mugged, yet other people are apparently wrong to tell personal stories.

Holy shit is this argument still going. You are the most long-winded individuals I have ever seen.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;36727723]It's funny because you talked about how you got mugged, yet other people are apparently wrong to tell personal stories.[/QUOTE] the difference being he was asked specifically if he had ever been mugged and didn't just bring it up as evidence.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36727669]Just because your anecdotal grandma would have been hypothetically justified does not change the law. Seriously, though, dude. Don't use that for this. This is an internet discussion. You aren't going to win anything here. It's somewhat shameful to turn a personal incident like that into a tool to win an argument, and it forces me to question your grandma's very existence as an anecdote and thus opens the door for you to get all mad and self-righteous. Let's not go down that road. Stick to verifiable facts, not personal anecdotes.[/QUOTE] it isn't just a personal anecdote. also, I haven't given any personal information about her for a reason. it is a commentary on aggression. the initial aggressor has committed a threatening act simply by right of having destroyed someone's property (breaking and entering). this threat can and should be matched in whatever way the victim deems appropriate. you prefer appeasement, which is fine. I prefer force, which is also fine. they are each ways of defending against the initial aggressor.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36727761]the difference being he was asked specifically if he had ever been mugged and didn't just bring it up as evidence.[/QUOTE] He actually used it to say that doing nothing is safer when being mugged.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36727566]Sometimes fellow criminals will be charged with someone's murder because their actions put the deceased in that predicament.[/QUOTE] yeah, the article really never says who shot who though, but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually shot her.

Wait, who shot first, the intruders or the homeowner?

I'm just wondering Lankist. Have you ever seen a case where someone was sentenced to murder because the body wasn't found to be in a threatening pose when the person died?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36727953]Wait, who shot first, the intruders or the homeowner?[/QUOTE] Unknown. Also, doesn't matter. The intruders were armed and dangerous. And it is likely it was one of the girl's accomplices who shot her.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;36727723]It's funny because you talked about how you got mugged, yet other people are apparently wrong to tell personal stories.[/QUOTE] Somebody asked me if I'd ever been mugged and I answered. I never solicited stories about anyone's grandmother. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dogmachines;36727773]He actually used it to say that doing nothing is safer when being mugged.[/QUOTE] Yes and I also accompanied that with statistics which irrefutably demonstrate that fact across 3,000,000 cases of robbery. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;36727768]it isn't just a personal anecdote. also, I haven't given any personal information about her for a reason. it is a commentary on aggression. the initial aggressor has committed a threatening act simply by right of having destroyed someone's property (breaking and entering). this threat can and should be matched in whatever way the victim deems appropriate. you prefer appeasement, which is fine. I prefer force, which is also fine. they are each ways of defending against the initial aggressor.[/QUOTE] Your commentary is irrelevant. Your grandmother is irrelevant. The law is what it is, despite how much pity you can accrue by using your own grandmother to win an internet argument. I was civil when I asked you to stop bringing up your grandmother for your own sake. Now I'm to the point where I just have to point out that nobody gives a shit about your grandma. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36727993]I'm just wondering Lankist. Have you ever seen a case where someone was sentenced to murder because the body wasn't found to be in a threatening pose when the person died?[/QUOTE] You mean a case in which someone committed murder, attempted to pass it off as self defense and was convicted? There's a lot of those, dude. You think no murderer has ever tried saying it was self defense? I already cited a current case in which a mofucker was charged with voluntary manslaughter and up to 11 years.

I believe in that case you said the guy was stabbed over a dozen times, I understand punishment for that. And I wasn't talking murder where the guy tries to say it was self defense, I'm talking self/home defense that went to court and it was found the fatally wounded individual had broken in but technically wasn't in a hostile position.

I don't understand how anyone can argue for the side of the robbers in any of these scenarios. A home isn't just some arbitrary, imagined line in the sand, it's a real fucking house, with doors and walls. Coming into a house that isn't yours, unannounced and uninvited, is an unsafe and stupid thing to do. How are those people supposed to know what your intentions are? Are they supposed to just let thieves get away and do nothing? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke"]Edmund Burke[/URL] What's especially stupid about all of this is that if thieves don't want to risk getting shot, they can just not break into people's houses. It's not like that's not a viable choice.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728120] Your commentary is irrelevant. Your grandmother is irrelevant. The law is what it is, despite how much pity you can accrue by using your own grandmother to win an internet argument. I was civil when I asked you to stop bringing up your grandmother for your own sake. Now I'm to the point where I just have to point out that nobody gives a shit about your grandma. [/QUOTE] Fucking stupid much? She didn't even come up in the post to which you replied other than to set up the larger commentary about a persons right to respond to aggression. And apparently your understanding of law in reference to humanity is fucked up, so let me set you straight. [b]Law. Is. Ever. Changing.[/b] What is the law today will not be the law in all years to come. Law is a human construct and, by that right, flawed. For instance, today the second amendment stands (in whatever capacity it stands) but recently the UN has been trying to get countries to adopt a resolution banning the ownership and sale of most commercially-available firearms, including all semi-automatic handguns. Is this law legitimate? Is a law banning gay marriage or abortion or marijuana legitimate? Is any law legitimate? Are no laws legitimate? You must stop this narrow habit you have of thinking inside the confines of what is today considered "law." It will cloud and has clouded your judgment as to what is actually [i]right[/i]. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] And remember, Civil Disobedience is a thing for a reason.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728265]And remember, Civil Disobedience is a thing for a reason.[/QUOTE] uhh killing people isn't civil disobedience alright now i get it im talking to a crazy person. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] I'm not responding to the rest because it's insane drivel by someone who doesn't understand how law works.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728347]uhh killing people isn't civil disobedience alright now i get it im talking to a crazy person.[/QUOTE] Did I ever say it was? Or did you assume I just want to kill people to make a point? Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your ass you'd realize that Civil Disobedience is proof that law can be and [b]is[/b] flawed and sometimes must be disregarded for the greater good or to prevent further evil. That's the point I'm making. Must I hold your hand through every exchange we have?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728384]Did I ever say it was? Or did you assume I just want to kill people to make a point?[/QUOTE] considering civil disobedience is the act of breaking a law to protest it in a civil manner, and you are implying homicide laws can be changed via civil disobedience, yes you're crazy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728347] I'm not responding to the rest because it's insane drivel by someone who doesn't understand how law works.[/QUOTE] You are so self righteous it makes me want to puke. If you are so far above me, you should have no problem picking apart what I've said. So come on, lord Lankist. Enlighten me.

in the brainpan.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728417]considering civil disobedience is the act of breaking a law to protest it in a civil manner, and you are implying homicide laws can be changed via civil disobedience, yes you're crazy.[/QUOTE] Did I [b]ever[/b] say a [b]single spitfucking thing[/b] about killing as civil disobedience???

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728419]You are so self righteous it makes me want to puke. If you are so far above me, you should have no problem picking apart what I've said. So come on, lord Lankist. Enlighten me.[/QUOTE] I already have, you just ignore everything I say, bring up your pretend dead grandma and then start trying to talk stupid bullshit philosophy in place of actually recognizing the reality of the law. No. I'm through coddling you. You're a crazy person and you're going to end up in prison some day if you actually live up to your bullshit.

fyi questions marks aren't a mark of thoughtfulness

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728432]I already have, you just ignore everything I say, bring up your pretend dead grandma and then start trying to talk stupid bullshit philosophy in place of actually recognizing the reality of the law. No. I'm through coddling you. You're a crazy person and you're going to end up in prison some day if you actually live up to your bullshit.[/QUOTE] I never said she was dead either, fucktard. Another stupid assumption. Read a history book. After that, a bit of Thoreau, Bastait, Locke, and some Aristotle for good measure. Afterward, you'll be right as rain.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728432] No. I'm through coddling you. You're a crazy person and you're going to end up in prison some day if you actually live up to your bullshit.[/QUOTE] "I don't agree with you but I can't win this argument so I'm going to insult you and walk away"

know what'd be cool is if you took your own advice and read the shit i posted and stopped talking about your make-believe grandma long enough to actually contribute to a discussion that was going very well and remained extremely civil in your absence :) [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36728508]"I don't agree with you but I can't win this argument so I'm going to insult you and walk away"[/QUOTE] Yeah okay [QUOTE=Lankist;36726883]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.[/QUOTE] Respond to this, then. I give no shits about your imaginary grandmas. Neither does the law. I'm not going down another red fucking herring rabbit hole just so you can talk about your nonexistent grandmother victim complex. This is the law. This is how the law works. You can think whatever the fuck you want about it, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter. If you want to proclaim victory because I deny the existence of your grandmother, have at it! I'm sure that will hold up very well in court.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728529]know what'd be cool is if you took your own advice and read the shit i posted and stopped talking about your make-believe grandma long enough to actually contribute to a discussion that was going very well and remained extremely civil in your absence :) [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Yeah okay Respond to this, then. I give no shits about your imaginary grandmas. Neither does the law.[/QUOTE] Sorry but there have been multiple cases where intruders were shot and killed without those two criteria being met. The law is more flexible than you think.