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

[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 :) 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] You assume she isn't real, you assume I haven't read what you've said (just because I still vehemently disagree with you), you even assume that laws are always just, apparently. You need to do a bit of mental housecleaning. Start with the Thoreau.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36728587]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.[/QUOTE] Cite them. No more hearsay anecdotal bullshit. I'm not taking your word for it. I've cited every single goddamn thing I've put forward, and all you people can do is say "there are cases" without ever once citing a case. [I]Not a news story.[/I] A case file. They're all available free online. Do some research. Cite them. I'm done taking you at your word.

This thread has grown like shit! What is going on. Oh, Lankist.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728588]You assume she isn't real, you assume I haven't read what you've said (just because I still vehemently disagree with you), you even assume that laws are always just, apparently. You need to do a bit of mental housecleaning. Start with the Thoreau.[/QUOTE] I don't give two fucks if you disagree with me. You can disagree with the law all you want. Doesn't change what it is, cowboy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728616]I don't give two fucks if you disagree with me. You can disagree with the law all you want. Doesn't change what it is, cowboy.[/QUOTE] It will change itself, eventually. What do you not understand about that? Law grows and shifts. We see it every day.

Doesn't a certain law say if you're feeling your life is at risk, that you're allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself? I'm not assuming the owner in this situation was under risk of his life being in danger, but this dumb argument seems like we can't kill if someone is breaking into our house, stealing and etc. If someone is in my house stealing/robbing/etc, I wouldn't have a problem using lethal force.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728632]It will change itself, eventually. What do you not understand about that? Law grows and shifts. We see it every day.[/QUOTE] Then when the law changes you can feel free to play cowboy. Feel free to predict the future, oh wise mystic. Not today.

Cite a case where someone killed an intruder and was convicted of murder. Not when the guy was fleeing, and not the 2 dozen stab wounds. I'm talking one fatal shot to an intruder who was either unarmed or not technically hostile.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728641]Then when the law changes you can feel free to play cowboy. Feel free to predict the future, oh wise mystic. [/QUOTE] [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] Stop

[QUOTE=ZF911;36728650]Cite a case where someone killed an intruder and was convicted of murder. Not when the guy was fleeing, and not the 2 dozen stab wounds. I'm talking one fatal shot to an intruder who was either unarmed or not technically hostile.[/QUOTE] I already cited cases of imperfect self defense. You cite your cases. I never made claims as to the frequency of cases. You did. You said there are "plenty of cases" with the fucking SUPREME COURT criteria for self defense were not met and went unpursued. Find them. Stop trying to push the burden of proof on me. Your argument boils down to PROVE ME WRONG. You made a claim. You back it up. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36728656]Stop[/QUOTE] No. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, leave.

Holy shit what's taking these lads so much time and difficulty to comprehend the very basic stuff about law. Hell, I don't know shit about law, but even I can understand basic stuff like that. Especially, after it has been repeated multiple times through the last pages. Hasn't Lankist studied law? That should tell you a thing or two. This situation is just pointless

[QUOTE=zerothefallen;36728637]If someone is in my house stealing/robbing/etc, I wouldn't have a problem using lethal force.[/QUOTE] You are either lying or a sociopath

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728641]Then when the law changes you can feel free to play cowboy. Not today.[/QUOTE] What is right is above law and above reproach. Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, even fucking Gandhi broke laws in order to do what was right. You cannot assume law is just. If you do, you are a blind man, and I can't speak sight unto the blind. You'll just have to find out for yourself.

[QUOTE=zerothefallen;36728637]Doesn't a certain law say if you're feeling your life is at risk, that you're allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself? I'm not assuming the owner in this situation was under risk of his life being in danger, but this dumb argument seems like we can't kill if someone is breaking into our house, stealing and etc. If someone is in my house stealing/robbing/etc, I wouldn't have a problem using lethal force.[/QUOTE] Actually, "In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels that their own life, the lives of their family, or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger." and also "Some countries agree that it may be lawful for a citizen to resort to violence to protect valuable property, usually defined as one's own." I would.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728683]What is right is above law and above reproach. Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, even fucking Gandhi broke laws in order to do what was right. You cannot assume law is just. If you do, you are a blind man, and I can't speak sight unto the blind. You'll just have to find out for yourself.[/QUOTE] How are the things they fought against comparable to homicide law. Segregation and the Rajj is a completely different realm of debate then when it's lawful to shoot someone.

[QUOTE=James*;36728681]You are either lying or a sociopath[/QUOTE] It really depends on opinion tbh :/

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728683]What is right is above law and above reproach. Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, even fucking Gandhi broke laws in order to do what was right. You cannot assume law is just. If you do, you are a blind man, and I can't speak sight unto the blind. You'll just have to find out for yourself.[/QUOTE] I don't give two shits about your goddamn personal opinion or your mystical predictions for the future. This is how the law is right fucking now. Stop denying it.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728491]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] You'd think after all this diligent reading on your part that you could've formed actually coherent thoughts. I mean, you bring up Civil Disobedience into the mix as proof that laws aren't definite and evolve through time and should be questioned and challenged. And then you segway from a completely legitimate point to the, "And remember, Civil Disobedience is a thing for a reason." You do realize that you are talking about killing someone in a situation such as the OP story as Civil Disobedience. Man, fuck you and your pseudo intellectual bullshit. First, THAT'S NOT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Second, I DON'T NEED A SECOND POINT. Your argument is so emotional and non-rational that it is so to the point of weeping hilarity.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;36728703]How is the things they fought against comparable to homicide law.[/QUOTE] Basic human rights. People get to protect their property and families, no matter what the law says.

You cited cases were people were shot in the back of the head while running, or stabbed 16 times unnecessarily, but not a single case of what we're trying to tell you is justified. You say someone if breaks into my house, and I shoot them out of fear for my life, I'll most likely be convicted if they aren't armed or they didn't take hostile action. I believe you are wrong, and I'd like you to show me a case where that has happened and ended in a murder conviction.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;36728703]How are the things they fought against comparable to homicide law. Segregation and the Rajj is a completely different realm of debate then when it's lawful to shoot someone.[/QUOTE] Note that this guy claimed that you can change homicide law through "civil disobedience," e.g. killing people.

[QUOTE=James*;36728681]You are either lying or a sociopath[/QUOTE] I care more about my crappy $20 craigslist TV than the safety of some pathetic criminal.

[QUOTE=zerothefallen;36728705]It really depends on opinion tbh :/[/QUOTE] Going for the former personally

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728721]Basic human rights. People get to protect their property and families, no matter what the law says.[/QUOTE] Right to life is a basic human right. In the US, right to life is a FUNDAMENTAL right. Right to self defense is a NON-FUNDAMENTAL right. Life takes precedence to defense. Then again, you probably don't know the difference between fundamental and non-fundamental rights. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36728722]You cited cases were people were shot in the back of the head while running, or stabbed 16 times unnecessarily, but not a single case of what we're trying to tell you is justified. You say someone if breaks into my house, and I shoot them out of fear for my life, I'll most likely be convicted if they aren't armed or they didn't take hostile action. I believe you are wrong, and I'd like you to show me a case where that has happened and ended in a murder conviction.[/QUOTE] I see no citations here. I'm not going to indulge you in "prove me wrong" bullshit. Cite your claims or drop them.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728714]I don't give two shits about your goddamn personal opinion or your mystical predictions for the future. This is how the law is right fucking now. Stop denying it.[/QUOTE] All I am predicting is that someday laws will change. Nothing more or less than that. And I'm not denying the existence of any laws, I'm calling into question their legitimacy.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728765]All I am predicting is that someday laws will change. Nothing more or less than that. And I'm not denying the existence of any laws, I'm calling into question their legitimacy.[/QUOTE] That's great. They haven't. This is how the law is right now. You question their legitimacy all you goddamn want. You'll question it all the way to prison.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728738]Right to life is a basic human right. In the US, right to life is a FUNDAMENTAL right. Right to self defense is a NON-FUNDAMENTAL right. Life takes precedence to defense. Then again, you probably don't know the difference between fundamental and non-fundamental rights. [/QUOTE] And what if ones life depends on self defence?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728725]Note that this guy claimed that you can change homicide law through "civil disobedience," e.g. killing people.[/QUOTE] And I did not claim that, you slandering motherfucker.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36728732]I care more about my crappy $20 craigslist TV than the safety of some pathetic criminal.[/QUOTE] The law doesn't. You make your own priorities. The law will not respect them. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36728785]And what if ones life depends on self defence?[/QUOTE] That is when life takes precedence. That's why self defense is so heavily scrutinized. You need to be able to prove you had no other recourse to protect your own life, and that you were in imminent and immediate peril. Not "shoot criminals because my grandma!" bullshit.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728779]That's great. They haven't. This is how the law is right now. You question their legitimacy all you goddamn want. You'll question it all the way to prison.[/QUOTE] And I will question it in prison, and when I'm set free, and when I land back in prison, and for the rest of my life or until things change. Ever read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail? Good read.