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

[QUOTE=ZF911;36738789]I didn't read serious injury or death.[/QUOTE] Serious injury or death is the only thing that justifies lethal force by all precedence. You can tackle or mace a motherfucker for breaking down your door. You can't kill them for anything less than to stop (NOT PREVENT) a life-threatening altercation.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36738841]Serious injury or death is the only thing that justifies lethal force by all precedence. You can tackle or mace a motherfucker for breaking down your door. You can't kill them for anything less than stopping a life-threatening altercation.[/QUOTE] Says who? If you're a young woman with a child and you shoot an intruder because you are scared out of your mind, you wont get convicted of murder.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36738859]Says who?[/QUOTE] Says the fucking courts. Says the case after case after case of precedence I've cited. Says Clause 2 which dictates only force which is necessary may be employed. Killing someone is only a necessity if they are an immediate threat to your own life, how the fuck can you think otherwise?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36738841]Serious injury or death is the only thing that justifies lethal force by all precedence. You can tackle or mace a motherfucker for breaking down your door. You can't kill them for anything less than to stop (NOT PREVENT) a life-threatening altercation.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that depend on the physical ability of the person, for example is you have breadstick arms like myself there's not much you can do melee wise.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36738898]Wouldn't that depend on the physical ability of the person, for example is you have breadstick arms like myself there's not much you can do melee wise.[/QUOTE] Mace, stun gun, baseball bat. You aren't obligated to "melee", those are all options if you can't flee. Running away is the preferable option in all cases. No violence, no altercations, nobody gets hurt. That being said, whapping a burglar with something a few times tends to get them out of your house. Most burglaries which are interrupted just end with the burglar beating feet, not with a showdown. They don't want to fuck with you, they just want stuff.

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-15292428[/url] She was not convicted of murder.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36738914]Mace, stun gun, baseball bat. You aren't obligated to "melee", those are all options if you can't flee. Running away is the preferable option in all cases. No violence, no altercations, nobody gets hurt.[/QUOTE] Still sounds like a bit of a gamble on the part of the victims life, quite frankly someone should be legally allowed to use lethal force if after warnings, the aggressor does not flee.

State castle doctrines do not contradict federal laws, so they are upheld in each individual state.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36738926][url]http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-15292428[/url] She was not convicted of murder.[/QUOTE] Find the casefile, not some ABC news video. There are literally no details there.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36738818]I've already cited cases in which they have. You've failed to cite any in which they haven't.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36[/url] [b]No charges were filed[/b] [url]http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_26[/url] [b]Charge of manslaughter dismissed[/b] [url]http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_60[/url] [b]Justifiable homicide[/b] I don't have time to go swamping through tons of more cases, but this is what I was able to retrieve in 5 minutes.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36738957]Still sounds like a bit of a gamble on the part of the victims life, quite frankly someone should be legally allowed to use lethal force if after warnings, the aggressor does not flee.[/QUOTE] so what happens if they don't do anything and just stand there and call your bluff? you're just gonna kill them right there?

[QUOTE=ZF911;36738859]Says who? If you're a young woman with a child and you shoot an intruder because you are scared out of your mind, you wont get convicted of murder.[/QUOTE] Here is a court case that specifically says that robbery does not justify killing the robber. [url]http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9453688974621954070&q=robbery,+lethal+force&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44[/url] More specifically here is the paragraph that says it specifically. We have no doubt that robbery is a serious crime deserving serious punishment. It is not, however, a crime "so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 184 (footnote omitted). "[I]t does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, [robbery] by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person. The murderer kills; the [robber], if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the [robbery] victim, life . . . is not over and normally is not beyond repair." Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S., at 598 (footnote omitted).

Also that was in janurary. Of course no charges have been filed, do you realize how long it takes for that to happen?

Okay, 3 cases were posted above. And like I said castle doctrine does not interfere with or contradict the federal laws. The only provide specific definitions for the state and provide insight.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36738982]so what happens if they don't do anything and just stand there and call your bluff? you're just gonna kill them right there?[/QUOTE] If they advance towards you then you should be allowed to fire, if they stand there then it should be counted as fleeing, although the home owner should still have the right to physically attempt to remove them from the house and if the person attempts to fight then if they're killed it should be counted as self defence

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739040]If they advance towards you then you should be allowed to fire, if they stand there then it should be counted as fleeing, although the home owner should still have the right to physically attempt to remove them from the house and if the person attempts to fight then if they're killed it should be counted as self defence[/QUOTE] this is already how it works.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36738977][url]http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36[/url] [b]No charges were filed[/b] [url]http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_26[/url] [b]Charge of manslaughter dismissed[/b] [url]http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_60[/url] [b]Justifiable homicide[/b] I don't have time to go swamping through tons of more cases, but this is what I was able to retrieve in 5 minutes.[/QUOTE] Haha, you realize the state WANTED to prosecute the first case there, but couldn't because of their own castle doctrine? [I]"It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino, according to the Citrus Daily.[/I] Second case: "Warning shot" killed someone unintentionally. [I]The assistant state attorney said, "The stand your ground law has ramifications that the Legislature did not envision. It oft-times slaps the face of grieving families."[/I] Third case was convicted on a technicality and the motherfucker is in prison, despite the state having their hands tied in these cases. Did you even READ those? The state WANTED to prosecute but COULDN'T. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36739039]Okay, 3 cases were posted above. And like I said castle doctrine does not interfere with or contradict the federal laws. The only provide specific definitions for the state and provide insight.[/QUOTE] Uhh no, you don't get to mooch off someone else's bullshit. I already responded to those. You cite yours.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36739082]this is already how it works.[/QUOTE] Isn't that pretty much what happened in the thread article?

Well you've been saying this whole time that castle doctrines don't have an affect, when they clearly do. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36739086] Uhh no, you don't get to mooch off someone else's bullshit. I already responded to those. You cite yours.[/QUOTE] What I'm trying to say is castle doctrines are all different and are law when it comes to court cases.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36739106]What I'm trying to say is castle doctrines are all different and are law when it comes to court cases.[/QUOTE] You don't even know what Castle Doctrine fucking is. All Castle Doctrine establishes is that you don't have a duty to retreat and you can't be sued for action which was justified. It does not change the precedence for what constitutes necessity.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739157]You don't even know what Castle Doctrine fucking is. All Castle Doctrine establishes is that you don't have a duty to retreat and you can't be sued for action which was justified.[/QUOTE] No, it clearly states that you are justified by the law to use force(lethal or otherwise)in different situations depending on the state.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739040]If they advance towards you then you should be allowed to fire, if they stand there then it should be counted as fleeing, although the home owner should still have the right to physically attempt to remove them from the house and if the person attempts to fight then if they're killed it should be counted as self defence[/QUOTE] The third article which Funcoot cited in an attempt to prove me wrong actually proves that wrong. Dude's sitting in prison for four years because he blasted a teenager who "lunged" at him. The kid was unarmed and hadn't even invaded his home. He was just standing on the dude's driveway and got blasted by a sawed-off.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739189]The third article which Funcoot cited in an attempt to prove me wrong actually proves that wrong. Dude's sitting in prison for four years because he blasted a teenager who "lunged" at him. The kid was unarmed and hadn't even invaded his home. He was just standing on the dude's driveway and got blasted by a sawed-off.[/QUOTE] Well thats not in the home, I'm sure if the kid was in his home it would have been a different story. Although if the kid did lunge at him on his property it shouldn't be classed as manslaughter, so really that needs amending.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36739180]No, it clearly states that you are justified by the law to use force(lethal or otherwise)in different situations depending on the state.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. jeeeeesus christ, you don't even know what we're talking about. Castle Doctrine says nothing about necessity, just that you don't have a duty to retreat and you are legally protected when you are justified.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739189]The third article which Funcoot cited in an attempt to prove me wrong actually proves that wrong. Dude's sitting in prison for four years because he blasted a teenager who "lunged" at him. The kid was unarmed and hadn't even invaded his home. He was just standing on the dude's driveway and got blasted by a sawed-off.[/QUOTE] He was sentenced to four years [b]probation[/b] for using a modified shotgun. The homicide itself was justified. Please read it again.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739220]Well thats not in the home, I'm sure if the kid was in his home it would have been a different story.[/QUOTE] Unarmed? No, it wouldn't have. The old man pulled out an illegal weapon and threatened the kid, then shot him. It wouldn't have mattered where it went down. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36739239]He was sentenced to four years [b]probation[/b] for using a modified shotgun. The homicide itself was justified. Please read it again.[/QUOTE] You read it again. Read all of them. The state wanted to prosecute all three cases, but didn't have the means by which to prosecute them. You shouldn't be using these people as beacons when the assistant attorney says "this is not what we made Castle Doctrine for. These people should have been prosecuted."

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739251]Unarmed? No, it wouldn't have. The old man pulled out an illegal weapon and threatened the kid, then shot him. It wouldn't have mattered where it went down. [/QUOTE] Are you sure the charge wasn't more because of the fact that he used an illegal weapon?

Also Al Capone was brought down on tax evasion. They gave the dude a sentence because he killed a motherfucker, not because of the gun. They used whatever stuck.

Regardless, the castle doctrine protected them in these cases, even though according to what you say federal law would have overridden it and gotten them a conviction.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739273]Are you sure the charge wasn't more because of the fact that he used an illegal weapon?[/QUOTE] Positive. Prosecutors will use any charge they can when they can't get a primary charge to stick. Read the articles. The attorney's office wanted to put all three people behind bars for homicide charges, but due to castle and a lack of evidence in favor of prosecution they had to stick with lesser charges to actually get the one dude any time. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36739287]Regardless, the castle doctrine protected them in these cases, even though according to what you say federal law would have overridden it and gotten them a conviction.[/QUOTE] And you think that's right? [I]The state wanted to prosecute them but couldn't[/I]. For curiosity's sake, let's say you're right (you aren't.) I hypothetically concede my point. Are these the people you want to be protecting from the repercussions of their actions? Because Florida sure as shit isn't to happy with how things played out. Don't you find it a bit odd that you defend your position by citing its worst outcomes?