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

[QUOTE=Lankist;36728995]UK has imperfect self defense laws too, as a note.[/QUOTE] I'm looking through them now and they seem far longer and convoluted than the US ones

[QUOTE=sdwise;36729005]Wow. You are a fucking lie factory. Like MSNBC, Fox News level lie factory. Fuck you and your stupid ass assumptions, I don't have to deal with spitfucks like you taking my words out of context. I'm out.[/QUOTE] Toodles.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36728936]It's not about Ego. It's about whats right. You want to bend over backwards for the state, thats your business. I prefer to call a spade a spade, and tyranny tyranny wherever I see it.[/QUOTE] Oh lord, you're killing me over here. And what's hilarious is that me - an European-style Libertarian, a Left Anarchist - has to put up with your condescending bullshit.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36729005]Wow. You are a fucking lie factory. Like MSNBC, Fox News level lie factory. Fuck you and your stupid ass assumptions, I don't have to deal with spitfucks like you taking my words out of context. I'm out.[/QUOTE] You're essentially saying killing is right, and you're just further digging yourself in with denial. You really won't get anywhere in life with that attitude, just a tip. Among many more things you've said.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36729005]Wow. You are a fucking lie factory. Like MSNBC, Fox News level lie factory. Fuck you and your stupid ass assumptions, I don't have to deal with spitfucks like you taking my words out of context. I'm out.[/QUOTE] dude we left the 11th century a long time ago just saying

An Act straight from Texas: [quote]The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) [b]unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;[/b] (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, [b]robbery, or aggravated robbery[/b];[/quote] [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [url]http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=James*;36728974]Erm you can't kill someone just for being in your house dude[/QUOTE] You can if they've broken in and aren't fleeing.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729150]An Act straight from Texas: [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [url]http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Not a case. Supremacy Clause dictates Texas law can go fuck itself.

[QUOTE=James*;36729009]I'm looking through them now and they seem far longer and convoluted than the US ones[/QUOTE] The main problem with them is the whole "reasonable force" part, which is so unclear it's impossible to know whether what you're doing is going to get you arrested or not.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36729182]The main problem with them is the whole "reasonable force" part, which is so unclear it's impossible to know whether what you're doing is going to get you arrested or not.[/QUOTE] If you kill someone, you're getting arrested no matter what.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729178]Not a case.[/QUOTE] It's the law there. It says plainly you can kill someone who breaks into your house and/or attempts to rob you. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36729178]Not a case. Supremacy Clause dictates Texas law can go fuck itself.[/QUOTE] Explain why the Texas law exists in the first place if it isn't used.

I like how the second someone actually makes a valid case against Lankist he just says "no u". You're like a male version of Wendy Wright.

Lads that would murder someone just because they're in their property have you thought about, like, instead of going the radical way and killing neutralizing the 'intruder' ? Crazy, I know right

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729190]If you kill someone, you're getting arrested no matter what.[/QUOTE] You'll be charged and then the court determines whether it was reasonable force or not. By arrested I meant convicted.

Neutralizing by not killing or permanently crippling, of course

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729191]Explain why the Texas law exists in the first place if it isn't used.[/QUOTE] Because it's Texas. They do shit like that all of the time. Federal law overrides it. Now cite cases. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36729237]You'll be charged and then the court determines whether it was reasonable force or not. By arrested I meant convicted.[/QUOTE] Well those two are very different things. If you kill someone you'll probably face charges no matter what, too.

[QUOTE=_jesterk;36729232]I like how the second someone actually makes a valid case against Lankist he just says "no u". You're like a male version of Wendy Wright.[/QUOTE] thanks for your vital contribution to this thread

just shoot the weapon out of the attackers/intruders hands and call police problem solved

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729244]Because it's Texas. They do shit like that all of the time. Federal law overrides it. Now cite cases. [/QUOTE] Good job bulldozing over his argument.

[QUOTE=_jesterk;36729232]I like how the second someone actually makes a valid case against Lankist he just says "no u". You're like a male version of Wendy Wright.[/QUOTE] Yeah okay. His argument was that nobody abides by [B]Supreme Court[/B] precedence, and he has "plenty of cases" to prove it. Refuses to cite any cases. I don't give two shits what Texas law says. That has nothing to do with what he claimed. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=_jesterk;36729265]Good job bulldozing over his argument.[/QUOTE] Whoops sorry I forgot none of you people have ever read the US Constitution silly me. Yeah that Supremacy Clause, the basis of our Federal government, what a fucking COP OUT BULLDOZE.

[QUOTE=gnisasas;36729234]Lads that would murder someone just because they're in their property have you thought about, like, instead of going the radical way and killing neutralizing the 'intruder' ? Crazy, I know right[/QUOTE] I personally would try to take them down non-lethally, I'm just trying to say doing it lethally wont get you in trouble in Texas, and certain other places.

[QUOTE=Dori;36729261]thanks for your vital contribution to this thread[/QUOTE] I don't get it. You've made several uninformative posts throughout the thread.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729244] Well those two are very different things. If you kill someone you'll probably face charges no matter what, too.[/QUOTE] Well of course you'll face charges since the court needs to determine whether you were defending yourself or just killed a guy for no reason. I said arrested because I'm not linguistic ball today.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729280]I personally would try to take them down non-lethally, I'm just trying to say doing it lethally wont get you in trouble in Texas, and certain other places.[/QUOTE] That's cool. Please cite cases to prove your claim that Supreme Court precedence is not enforced.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729244]Because it's Texas. They do shit like that all of the time. Federal law overrides it. Now cite cases. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Well those two are very different things. If you kill someone you'll probably face charges no matter what, too.[/QUOTE] Texas isn't the only state with a law like that which directly contradicts the federal laws. Michigan has a similar one.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729307]Texas isn't the only state with a law like that which directly contradicts the federal laws. Michigan has a similar one.[/QUOTE] I don't give a shit. You said this: [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] Back it up. I want cases. Not Michigan or Texas legislation. That doesn't prove fuck all about this claim. You said there are multiple cases. I want multiple cases.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729307]Texas isn't the only state with a law like that which directly contradicts the federal laws. Michigan has a similar one.[/QUOTE] Suddenly Michigan is also a shithole so it doesn't matter.

Isn't Lankist's point that the laws from states like Texas or Michigan, when they contradict federal law, they're essentially meaningless and it's judged by federal law? What's so hard to understand, unless I really am not getting it. And he's been asking for cases which you haven't brought up yet for a long while, I can't even remember what your arguement was about. Just bring those up and continue the discussion for the sake of its sanity, and get it over. And it's fucked up that while you wouldn't use lethal force, some people here have stated that they would, without a single remorse.

If you can kill someone and literally feel nothing, you should probably seek help.

[QUOTE=_jesterk;36729412]If you can kill someone and literally feel nothing, you should probably seek help.[/QUOTE] What if you only feel pride? [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] As far as I'm aware state courts go by state laws unless they get appealed up to the supreme court or conflict the Constitution.