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

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729418]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.[/QUOTE] Pride is one thing, but if you can kill someone and feel absolutely no form of remorse or even thinking about it as anything more than an event, that's kinda fucked up.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729418]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.[/QUOTE] If you feel prideful at the thought of killing someone, you should seriously seek help. There's nothing proud about it. It's an incredibly traumatizing experience for those who do so out of necessity and not of insanity.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729538]If you feel prideful at the thought of killing someone, you should seriously seek help. There's nothing proud about it. It's an incredibly traumatizing experience for those who do so out of necessity and not of insanity.[/QUOTE] It was a joke.

[QUOTE=Dori;36728983]shouldn't you be out physically assaulting kids or something[/QUOTE] Wow because that totally adds to the conversation. What the hell is wrong with you people? Is it really that hard to [I]not[/I] call someone mentally insane?

[QUOTE=ZF911;36729574]It was a joke.[/QUOTE] One that you should not be making in this context if you want anyone to take you seriously. There's a reason why you never ask a soldier if they'd killed. It's not the sort of ordeal sane people look back on with anything but remorse.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729597]One that you should not be making in this context if you want anyone to take you seriously. There's a reason why you never ask a soldier if they'd killed.[/QUOTE] I never would ask a soldier that, I know better. When he said "feel nothing," the first thing that came to mind was that there are worse ways to feel than not at all after taking a life.

i don't understand about what's so hard about not killing someone unless you absolutely, positively have no other option and your life is in imminent danger. shooting the first thing that kicks through the door does not cover that.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36729858]i don't understand about what's so hard about not killing someone unless you absolutely, positively have no other option and your life is in imminent danger. shooting the first thing that kicks through the door does not cover that.[/QUOTE] I'm still not sure how to feel about this. I mean there's no way he could have known for sure that she was armed, and the article doesn't even make it clear who shot first. But she had no business breaking into his house and when you have a family to protect, there's no good guy or bad guy here.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36731042]I'm still not sure how to feel about this. I mean there's no way he could have known for sure that she was armed, and the article doesn't even make it clear who shot first. But she had no business breaking into his house and when you have a family to protect, there's no good guy or bad guy here.[/QUOTE] I believe what SgtCr4zyGunz is saying is that, even if the law backs you up, you shouldn't shoot someone based solely on them breaking into your house. If you're going to shoot a home invader, you better be CONVINCED that your life or the life of your family is in immediate peril. It's a lot easier to justify lethal self-defense (both legally and morally) if the invader was making violent threats, behaving aggressively, or outright showing intent to kill, than it is to shoot someone based purely on the fact they broke in.

[QUOTE=krazipanda;36716323]wow, surprisingly accurate shot if it was only one and a direct hit to the head.[/QUOTE] at self defense ranges, that's an easy shot. Guns aren't as hard to use as you think. it's easy as pointing at that distance.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36731260]I believe what SgtCr4zyGunz is saying is that, even if the law backs you up, you shouldn't shoot someone based solely on them breaking into your house. If you're going to shoot a home invader, you better be CONVINCED that your life or the life of your family is in immediate peril. It's a lot easier to justify lethal self-defense (both legally and morally) if the invader was making violent threats, behaving aggressively, or outright showing intent to kill, than it is to shoot someone based purely on the fact they broke in.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, and it's not clear if they drew their gun first or not, so, lots of questions about this case still need to be answered. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36731745]at self defense ranges, that's an easy shot. Guns aren't as hard to use as you think. it's easy as pointing at that distance.[/QUOTE] Could have been luck, too.

I'm not going to kill someone if they merely broke into my house. But if I have family and kids, and the person is also brandishing a firearm? He's going down. Also reading this thread has been quite a treat, specifically from Lankist, his arguments are always pretty funny.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36731745]at self defense ranges, that's an easy shot. Guns aren't as hard to use as you think. it's easy as pointing at that distance.[/QUOTE] Actually guns aren't accurate at all during a defensive situation, even at close range. During stressful confrontations, particularly when any party is moving, trained police officers have the accuracy of Hellen Keller. Police statistics back this up. You can multiple that by magnitudes for civilians. Also factor in that bullets fired which don't hit their intended targets [I]keep going[/I], and you've made an incredibly dangerous situation by opening fire. It is incredibly difficult to hit a target when you're in a direct confrontation, let alone when you're on the defensive. Even at close range. When the adrenaline is pumping and someone is bearing down on you, you're WAY less accurate than you would think. Soldiers are trained for years on weapons, and their shots fired / targets hit ratio in combat is STILL ludicrously low. Accuracy is a crapshoot in direct confrontation. You can think of it hypothetically as being easy, but the reality is you probably wouldn't hit target five feet away with an entire clip if you aren't trained. Hence why flight is almost universally preferable to fight when it comes to defensive use of firearms by civilians. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Human physiology under extreme duress is not adept at using firearms. Like, at all. We're actually pretty shitty at using our own weapons when we most need them.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36731997]Fair enough, and it's not clear if they drew their gun first or not, so, [/QUOTE] I don't think that even matters, a group with a gun isn't very likely to stand down with just a warning, and they didn't, the girl wasn't killed on the first shot, they could have ran away instead of gunfighting with the owner.

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36732166]I don't think that even matters, a group with a gun isn't very likely to stand down with just a warning, and they didn't, the girl wasn't killed on the first shot, they could have ran away instead of gunfighting with the owner.[/QUOTE] You can't expect them to run away while simultaneously endorsing the other side to stand their ground. If you're saying the confrontation could have ended without death by one party leaving, you cannot then say it couldn't have been the [I]other[/I] party. They stood their ground and defended themselves in exactly the same way the home owner did. You cannot champion one and vilify the other. They both did the same thing for fear of their lives.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36732068]Human physiology under extreme duress is not adept at using firearms. Like, at all. We're actually pretty shitty at using our own weapons when we most need them.[/QUOTE] This is actually one of the reasons I support mandatory conscription, if we're going to have a second amendment we might as well make sure people are trained to use a firearm. It would reduce the number of accidents caused by firearms, especially dumbasses that leave their firearms unlocked around kids and if everyone had military training poeple would think twice before breaking and entering like the girl in the OP.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36732299]This is actually one of the reasons I support mandatory conscription, if we're going to have a second amendment we might as well make sure people are trained to use a firearm. It would reduce the number of accidents caused by firearms, especially dumbasses that leave their firearms unlocked around kids and if everyone had military training poeple would think twice before breaking and entering like the girl in the OP.[/QUOTE] you cant be serious

[QUOTE=Carnage2323;36732307]you cant be serious[/QUOTE] Well the biggest reason would be to cut down on the number of senseless wars and interventionism that the U.S. gets dragged into. But all of the above would be an added benefit.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36732235]You can't expect them to run away while simultaneously endorsing the other side to stand their ground. If you're saying the confrontation could have ended without death by one party leaving, you cannot then say it couldn't have been the [I]other[/I] party. They stood their ground and defended themselves in exactly the same way the home owner did. You cannot champion one and vilify the other. They both did the same thing for fear of their lives.[/QUOTE] I didn't champion anyone, the owner wasn't wrong, that's all, and the invaders could have avoided a death if they did run away, they were close to the door, after all, so a gunfight wasn't necessary since the owner wouldn't chase after them. Also wasn't the girl killed by her own friend by accident ? not sure who posted it and where, it's somewhere in the thread.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36732299]This is actually one of the reasons I support mandatory conscription, if we're going to have a second amendment we might as well make sure people are trained to use a firearm. It would reduce the number of accidents caused by firearms, especially dumbasses that leave their firearms unlocked around kids and if everyone had military training poeple would think twice before breaking and entering like the girl in the OP.[/QUOTE] go on.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36732595]go on.[/QUOTE] If people knew a thing or two about accountability and how to properly secure and maintain a firearm, the amount of accidents caused by gun owners leaving their guns lying around their kids or from improperly handling and cleaning a weapon, then probably 90% of gun accidents could be avoided. People can be fucking stupid, but if they practice good discipline at the most senseless casualties can be avoided. Likewise, if you know that a person's home you're about to enter most likely has military training and has been trained to shoot to kill, rather than Bubba in his pickup truck shooting beercans with the good ol' boys, then you're not going to fucking enter that home unless you have an army with you. I think simply having a stand your ground law isn't enough because most people that have a firearm don't know how to use it under stress or maintain it, hence all of the stories in the media about toddlers blowing their brains out with daddy's luger, and George Zimmerman.

"Shot And Killed While Robbing House" - In Texas. "were trying to rob a home with at least five occupants" - In [B]TEXAS[/B] "The paper was told that Hidic may have known the occupants of the home, and may have tried to rob them previously" "Hidic's death and the revelations about her crime have left her Facebook friends with a mixture of emotion." - Not her real friends. Her [B]facebook[/B] friends. She could've been murdered, she could've been killed in self defense, but she should've seen some sort of gun coming. Honestly, I don't see why anyone gives a fuck.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36732235]You can't expect them to run away while simultaneously endorsing the other side to stand their ground. If you're saying the confrontation could have ended without death by one party leaving, you cannot then say it couldn't have been the [I]other[/I] party. They stood their ground and defended themselves in exactly the same way the home owner did. You cannot champion one and vilify the other. They both did the same thing for fear of their lives.[/QUOTE] Wait what? Are you suggesting that stand your ground is invalid because both parties have a right to stand their ground? This flaw is accounted for by every state with stand your ground laws. You need to have the legal right to be doing what you are doing and to be where you are supposed to be, for stand your ground to even begin to apply. So if you are, for instance, mugging someone, you might have a legal right to be on the street, but you do not have the legal right to threaten other folks in order to force them to give you their possessions. Or if you are breaking into a home, you lack both the legal right to be on the property, and the legal right to break and enter the premises. Stand your ground would most certainly not apply to the assailant in either case. Therefore they are the party that needs to flee. They have, through their actions which violate the law, brought about these circumstances and it is therefore their lives that are legally on the line and their duty to retreat.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36732948]Wait what? Are you suggesting that stand your ground is invalid because both parties have a right to stand their ground?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that, on one hand, you can't say one side has the inalienable right to defend their life while saying the other side deserves to die. Dude was saying that everything would have been fine if the assailants ran, when they did precisely what the homeowner did: opened fire under the pretense of defending their own lives. You can't condemn one and champion the other. By the time bullets are flying, it isn't about a burglary anymore--it's about not getting killed. The "defend your life" logic applies to both sides of the equation. If defending oneself through lethal means is a fundamental right (it isn't. It's treated as a non-fundamental right by the Supreme Court, but people have been treating it as though it were fundamental,) then both parties have that right.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733142]I'm saying that, on one hand, you can't say one side has the inalienable right to defend their life while saying the other side deserves to die. Dude was saying that everything would have been fine if the assailants ran, when they did precisely what the homeowner did: opened fire under the pretense of defending their own lives. You can't condemn one and champion the other. By the time bullets are flying, it isn't about a burglary anymore--it's about not getting killed. The "defend your life" logic applies to both sides of the equation. If defending oneself through lethal means is a fundamental right (it isn't. It's treated as a non-fundamental right by the Supreme Court, but people have been treating it as though it were fundamental,) then both parties have that right.[/QUOTE] I don't see how the poor armed robbers were just trying to defend themselves when they decided to besiege someone's house.

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36733458]I don't see how the poor armed robbers were just trying to defend themselves when they decided to besiege someone's house.[/QUOTE] thats because you aren't comprehending the point.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733470]thats because you aren't comprehending the point.[/QUOTE] And the point is ?

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36733480]And the point is ?[/QUOTE] You cannot argue self defense is a fundamental right without applying it to both sides. Either it's fundamental, and it cannot be restricted on either side, or it is non-fundamental, in which case bystanders may also face stringent restrictions on its use. You can't have it both ways. You can't say self defense may go unimpeded and unrestricted because it's fundamental, but at the same time strip criminals of that right. Criminals have all fundamental rights. If it is non-fundamental, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with restricting it on both sides of the equation.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36732068]Actually guns aren't accurate at all during a defensive situation, even at close range. During stressful confrontations, particularly when any party is moving, trained police officers have the accuracy of Hellen Keller. Police statistics back this up. You can multiple that by magnitudes for civilians. Also factor in that bullets fired which don't hit their intended targets [I]keep going[/I], and you've made an incredibly dangerous situation by opening fire. It is incredibly difficult to hit a target when you're in a direct confrontation, let alone when you're on the defensive. Even at close range. When the adrenaline is pumping and someone is bearing down on you, you're WAY less accurate than you would think. Soldiers are trained for years on weapons, and their shots fired / targets hit ratio in combat is STILL ludicrously low. Accuracy is a crapshoot in direct confrontation. You can think of it hypothetically as being easy, but the reality is you probably wouldn't hit target five feet away with an entire clip if you aren't trained. Hence why flight is almost universally preferable to fight when it comes to defensive use of firearms by civilians. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Human physiology under extreme duress is not adept at using firearms. Like, at all. We're actually pretty shitty at using our own weapons when we most need them.[/QUOTE] You ask people to cite shit.. then you don't cite anything.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;36733519]You ask people to cite shit.. then you don't cite anything.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_AELZzslIn7ZGMYrsSgJadJ;jsessionid=AE3525280525D9BA4E5522E3AC744DEE[/url] NYPD specifically only hit their targets roughly 8% of the time when discharging a weapon in 2005. Accuracy varies by area and year, but even [I]trained[/I] officers rarely go up to even 50% accuracy. The typical accuracy for police according to the spokesperson in that article is 20%. And they're trained.