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

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733538][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and year, but even [I]trained[/I] officers rarely go up to even 50% accuracy.[/QUOTE] Can you link something not so out of date?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733493]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] So that's great, it means that i can't go around killing everyone and claiming self-defense, now how does that change anything related to this ?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;36733551]Can you link something not so out of date?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all[/url] Eleven years of statistics for the NYPD. Roughly 34% accuracy (which is noted as being a product of the NYPD having extremely disciplined trigger fingers.) And they're highly trained. Also note that, in most of those instances, nobody was shooting at the officers. You aren't going to hit on the mark with anything less than pure luck. Hitting a target in a truly perilous situation is nigh impossible for an untrained layman. When the shit hits the fan you might as well be throwing rocks, honestly. At least that way a bystander won't eat a stray bullet. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36733570]So that's great, it means that i can't go around killing everyone and claiming self-defense, now how does that change anything related to this ?[/QUOTE] You are not understanding the distinctions between fundamental and non-fundamental rights. I am not explaining them to you.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733571] You are not understanding the distinctions between fundamental and non-fundamental rights. I am not explaining them to you.[/QUOTE] You explained those and i just understood them, now can you tell me why it matters ?

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36733602]You explained those and i just understood them, now can you tell me why it matters ?[/QUOTE] Because you can't argue that restricting self defense is unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise wrong while simultaneously arguing that criminals don't have that right. Fundamental rights apply to everyone equally and relatively unrestricted. Non-fundamental rights can be restricted and regulated as much as the facts and history determine they should be. e.g. driving straddles the line between a non-fundamental right and a privilege. You can restrict who gets to drive and you can strip people of that right for a shitload of reasons because it isn't fundamental. Contrarywise, voting is a fundamental right, and you can't impose broad restrictions upon the process. Self defense is treated as a non-fundamental right, because there are broad restrictions upon what does and does not constitute self defense. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional or infringing about telling people what they need to do before they employ violence as a means of defense.

Lankists points on being able to handle a firearm under duress are fairly accurate according to some of the books I've read talking about the subject. I can't cite the book I read a couple years back but it was a great read about how soldiers in the military (ie highly trained physically and mentally to wield firearms and kill human beings) have terrible accuracy because of the actual situation itself and the psychological aspect of taking another human life. Also a lot of excerpts I've read from various gun ownership articles and books have seen only call for using deadly force when deadly force is going to be used against you, and that choosing to open fire with a gun at the wrong time could have dire consequences for everyone involved. Unfortunately I don't really have citations for any of these things so it wouldn't really hold up in a debate. Just throwing in my 2 cents.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733621]Because you can't argue that restricting self defense is unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise wrong while simultaneously arguing that criminals don't have that right. Fundamental rights apply to everyone equally and relatively unrestricted. Non-fundamental rights can be restricted and regulated as much as the facts and history determine they should be. e.g. driving straddles the line between a non-fundamental right and a privilege. You can restrict who gets to drive and you can strip people of that right for a shitload of reasons because it isn't fundamental. Contrarywise, voting is a fundamental right, and you can't impose broad restrictions upon the process.[/QUOTE] What i'm asking is what that means to the case at hand. I don't recall anyone saying that cops should give the guy a high-five and then everyone goes home, this isn't unrestricted self-defense, i don't think anyone suggested that.

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36733661]What i'm asking is what that means to the case at hand. I don't recall anyone saying that cops should give the guy a high-five and then everyone goes home, this isn't unrestricted self-defense, i don't think anyone suggested that.[/QUOTE] Self defense is irrelevant to this case because the homeowner didn't actually hit anyone. (going back to accuracy.) [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;36733656]Lankists points on being able to handle a firearm under duress are fairly accurate according to some of the books I've read talking about the subject. I can't cite the book I read a couple years back but it was a great read about how soldiers in the military (ie highly trained physically and mentally to wield firearms and kill human beings) have terrible accuracy because of the actual situation itself and the psychological aspect of taking another human life. Also a lot of excerpts I've read from various gun ownership articles and books have seen only call for using deadly force when deadly force is going to be used against you, and that choosing to open fire with a gun at the wrong time could have dire consequences for everyone involved. Unfortunately I don't really have citations for any of these things so it wouldn't really hold up in a debate. Just throwing in my 2 cents.[/QUOTE] One of the reasons why deadly force in the form of discharging a firearm is an absolute last resort is due the accuracy issues coupled with the fact that every bullet that [I]doesn't[/I] hit its target is still plenty lethal, and it keeps on going. Every time you miss, you might be ruining some innocent bystander's day. It is a [I]LAST[/I] resort. As in, it's either roll the dice with the gun and hope you get lucky or die. Anyone who thinks they've actually got a reasonable chance of hitting something in that scenario doesn't understand what that scenario is like. It is an absolute crapshoot, literally.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36733672]Self defense is irrelevant to this case because the homeowner didn't actually hit anyone. (going back to accuracy.) [/quote] I could swear it was relevant four hours ago... hm, i suppose i should get some sleep.

dear salty waters please invest that title money in a college education. community college tuition is very reasonable

[QUOTE=Lankist;36734182]dear salty waters please invest that title money in a college education. community college tuition is very reasonable[/QUOTE] $10 or $20 isn't going to net him shit at a community college as far as education goes. And last I checked titles didn't cost $100.

I wish someone bought me a title because they were mad at the shit I said on an internet forum.

[QUOTE=lavacano;36734408]$10 or $20 isn't going to net him shit at a community college as far as education goes. And last I checked titles didn't cost $100.[/QUOTE] depends on where you live. a year's tuition is like $100 in spain last I checked. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;36734424]I wish someone bought me a title because they were mad at the shit I said on an internet forum.[/QUOTE] should have at least picked something less nonsensical, considering citation is like the most basic component of rhetoric. You'd get better mileage calling me a gay mexican. At least that's true.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36716314]Her life didn't deserve to end that day. Without stand your ground laws she would probably still be alive.[/QUOTE] Oh get off your high horse. She orchestrated a robbery and led the criminals into breaking into someone elses home to steal shit. The home owner defended his home and his property. There's nothing wrong with the Castle Doctrine. She lived in Texas. Texas is a notorious Castle Doctrine state. She should have known better.

You're saying the robbers who broke in with weapons should be able to defend themselves if the home owners are able to? I'm sorry sir but the law does not care about what you consider a fundamental right.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36735237]You're saying the robbers who broke in with weapons should be able to defend themselves if the home owners are able to? I'm sorry sir but the law does not care about what you consider a fundamental right.[/QUOTE] To the best of my understanding, they can defend themselves all they want but they don't have a legal right to do so as, through both trespassing and burglary, they are currently breaking the law. Additionally, in regards to an earlier topic, the only party that is legally required to flee in a case like this would be the invaders, not the homeowner. Stand Your Ground does not apply to the party that is breaking the law.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36720485]I would have shot her too. Also I'm going to buy one of these soon for the express purpose of home defense. [IMG]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/295/0/4/AMD_65_by_Drake_UK.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I think it's stupid people are able to own assault weapons, or at least military spec ones It's completely unnecessary, a shotgun or even a handgun would do the job just as well as that could

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36735344]I think it's stupid people are able to own assault weapons, or at least military spec ones It's completely unnecessary, a shotgun or even a handgun would do the job just as well as that could[/QUOTE] Well they're only legal if they're semi-auto in America are they not? Automatic weapons are illegal afaik I don't see the difference between a Pistol, Submachine Gun, and an Assault Rifle when in the end they're going to be semi-auto either way

[QUOTE=Lankist;36729190]If you kill someone, you're getting arrested no matter what.[/QUOTE] If you think about it, that's not true. You won't get arrested [I]no matter what.[/I]

[QUOTE=RAG Frag;36720819]You're going to buy a gun that's too big to carry around a house. ?[/QUOTE] [thumb]http://www.hungariae.com/img/Amd65.jpg[/thumb] AMD-65 Length - 648 mm (folded) Weight - 3.21 kg [thumb]http://www.urbanarmament.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MP50411.jpg[/thumb] Mossberg 500 (aka the generic shotgun) Length - 1.2m Weight - 3.4 kg [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Lankist, how exactly does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over my house to charge me for shooting a robber? [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=WhatAmI;36735344]I think it's stupid people are able to own assault weapons, or at least military spec ones It's completely unnecessary, a shotgun or even a handgun would do the job just as well as that could[/QUOTE] Okay bro, I'm buying this for home defense now. [IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/HK33K/AMD65.jpg[/IMG] It's a handgun according to the Federal Government!

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;36735344]I think it's stupid people are able to own assault weapons, or at least military spec ones It's completely unnecessary, a shotgun or even a handgun would do the job just as well as that could[/QUOTE] Non military spec assault weapons, eh? Also, some people just like guns. What's necessary is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=VaSTinY;36735366]Well they're only legal if they're semi-auto in America are they not? Automatic weapons are illegal afaik I don't see the difference between a Pistol, Submachine Gun, and an Assault Rifle when in the end they're going to be semi-auto either way[/QUOTE] Full-Autos are legal, they are just expensive as fuck, on top of all being nearly 30 years old a minimum.

[QUOTE=VaSTinY;36735366]Well they're only legal if they're semi-auto in America are they not? Automatic weapons are illegal afaik I don't see the difference between a Pistol, Submachine Gun, and an Assault Rifle when in the end they're going to be semi-auto either way[/QUOTE] They fire different rounds. It's not like the only reason you'd use one gun over another is because one is semi-automatic whilst the other is fully automatic.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36735696] Okay bro, I'm buying this for home defense now. [IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y143/HK33K/AMD65.jpg[/IMG] It's a handgun according to the Federal Government![/QUOTE] Haha really wtf why? also its not a personal attack on you personally broksi, i'm sure you're a respectable citizen

[QUOTE=Laferio;36716438]I wonder what made her think that breaking into somebody's house in texas was ever a good thing.[/QUOTE] #YOLO

Man, read like 5 pages, skimmed ahead a bit and Lankist is still being dumb about this. You know she's not going to date you right? She's dead. Sad to hear that her friends shot her (I'm kind of wondering how that worked really) but the home owner didn't technically kill anyone so there you go. (Seriously did one of the crooks just turn around and start firing the wrong way? What did I miss here?)

[QUOTE=Lankist;36723402]Do you know what homicide is?[/QUOTE] I meant murder, sorry. Since didn't the article say the shooter was being charged? Or was it the perpetrators? Too damn confusing.

Am I the only one disturbed by the whole 'I'd kill anyone breaking into my house' idea?

[QUOTE=Squeaken;36735886]Am I the only one disturbed by the whole 'I'd kill anyone breaking into my house' idea?[/QUOTE] Yes. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] Probably yes

[QUOTE=Squeaken;36735886]Am I the only one disturbed by the whole 'I'd kill anyone breaking into my house' idea?[/QUOTE] Only people I've ever thought of killing upon breaking in are zombies. Seriously I've got a plan mapped out for those bastards.