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

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739315]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.[/QUOTE] Can you prove that's why they gave him probation, or do you just think that is why?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739278]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.[/QUOTE] Seems stupid, if a guy goes to attack a person, unarmed or not, a person should be allowed to defend themselves in whatever way they want.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739315] 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.[/QUOTE] No I'm just wondering if federal law overrules everything else(including castle), why weren't these people convicted?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739351]Seems stupid, if a guy goes to attack a person, unarmed or not, a person should be allowed to defend themselves in whatever way they want.[/QUOTE] No. You don't get to kill someone unless you have to, period. You don't get the legal authority to murder someone who slaps you upside the head, for instance. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36739357]No I'm just wondering if federal law overrules everything else(including castle), why weren't these people convicted?[/QUOTE] (They didn't have enough evidence or grounds to prosecute without Duty to Retreat.) Now you answer: Why have you used the worst outcomes of Castle as a defense? You do realize that the people who championed Castle Doctrine didn't want to get these people off. The tampa assistant attorney wanted to take these people down, and couldn't. How is this a good thing? What have you won here, exactly? [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] You've basically proven my point why we need to get rid of Castle Doctrine.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739367]No. You don't get to kill someone unless you have to, period. You don't get the legal authority to murder someone who slaps you upside the head, for instance. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] (They didn't have enough evidence or grounds to prosecute without Duty to Retreat.) Now you answer: Why have you used the worst outcomes of Castle as a defense? You do realize that the people who championed Castle Doctrine didn't want to get these people off. The tampa assistant attorney wanted to take these people down, and couldn't. How is this a good thing? What have you won here, exactly?[/QUOTE] Well you've said if you shoot an unarmed person you are likely to go to prison. Here are three cases where you are proven wrong because of castle doctrine. If I live in Texas, I can shoot someone for simply being in my house uninvited, and the castle doctrine protects me does it not?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739367]No. You don't get to kill someone unless you have to, period. You don't get the legal authority to murder someone who slaps you upside the head, for instance. [/QUOTE] Yeah but a slap and lunging at someone are two different things, I mean what else am I supposed to do against someone lunging at me?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739367] You've basically proven my point why we need to get rid of Castle Doctrine.[/QUOTE] This whole time you've been saying it has no effect because it is overruled through supremacy, which is clearly not the case.

Regardless if it was a dumb idea to break into someone's house it's still tragic that she died.

Robbers don't always take being noticed calmly. Granted while some do flee, others choose the "fight" method in order to make sure help cannot be called/them being verified. This can either lead to the robber just hurting and tying up the homeowner or killing them. And not knowing how the robber will react, homeowners should not just think they won't be harmed at all. There was a cold case years ago where a man broke into a house so he could find a place to sleep (he thought it was empty because the lights were off). The sound of him entering woke up the 70 year old (in that area) woman occupant who went to investigate if it was her son coming back home from being away. The man panicked and ran up the stairs to her and stabbed her to death. So take your pick.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739454]Yeah but a slap and lunging at someone are two different things, I mean what else am I supposed to do against someone lunging at me?[/QUOTE] Someone tends to get desperate when you point a sawed-off shotgun at them. Kid only "lunged" (little evidence that he actually did) when he was threatened. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36739461]This whole time you've been saying it has no effect because it is overruled through supremacy, which is clearly not the case.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it had no effect. You need to go back and read, because evidently you've been arguing with an imaginary Lankist in your head. I said it's shitty and it defies national precedence. (It's also being challenged consistently on those grounds.)

[QUOTE=Potus;36739643]Robbers don't always take being noticed calmly. Granted while some do flee, others choose the "fight" method in order to make sure help cannot be called/them being verified. This can either lead to the robber just hurting and tying up the homeowner or killing them. And not knowing how the robber will react, homeowners should not just think they won't be harmed at all. There was a cold case years ago where a man broke into a house so he could find a place to sleep (he thought it was empty because the lights were off). The sound of him entering woke up the 70 year old (in that area) woman occupant who went to investigate if it was her son coming back home from being away. The man panicked and ran up the stairs to her and stabbed her to death. So take your pick.[/QUOTE] It has been said a lot in this thread that robbery or breaking in to a house is not enough to retaliate in lethal force on the federal level.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36739445]Well you've said if you shoot an unarmed person you are likely to go to prison.[/QUOTE] You're right. You can shoot an unarmed man in Tampa and get away with it. Explain to me how that's a good thing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739736]You're right. You can shoot an unarmed man in Tampa and get away with it. Explain to me how that's a good thing.[/QUOTE] Never said it was a good thing. All I said was if they were breaking the law and you did kill an unarmed person, some states will not convict you of murder.

[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 is sitting in prison for possessing an illegally modified firearm. Sawed off shotguns are not legal. He is not in jail for the homicide. The article clearly states that the court decided that the homicide was justified. Please read. If he would have used a legal firearm, he would not be in jail. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36739736]You're right. You can shoot an unarmed man in Tampa and get away with it. Explain to me how that's a good thing.[/QUOTE] And now you refute your original claim that you cannot use lethal force to defend your home. Thank you.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36740050]He is sitting in prison for possessing an illegally modified firearm. Sawed off shotguns are not legal. He is not in jail for the homicide. The article clearly states that the court decided that the homicide was justified. Please read. If he would have used a legal firearm, he would not be in jail.[/quote] Al Capone sat in prison for tax evasion. You don't understand how prosecution works. [quote]And now you refute your original claim that you cannot use lethal force to defend your home. Thank you.[/QUOTE] I'm giving the benefit of the doubt as a means to demonstrate that, even if you win this argument, you lose. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZF911;36739960]Never said it was a good thing. All I said was if they were breaking the law and you did kill an unarmed person, some states will not convict you of murder.[/QUOTE] You've spent two days defending Castle Doctrine and now you accept that it's fundamentally flawed and Duty to Retreat exists for a reason? Would you agree that Castle needs to be federally repealed so as to keep people like those three cases from getting away with voluntary manslaughter or murder 2?

-snip- It's useless and pointless. Just pay attention to jury cases. Time and time again, people have been acquitted from there charges for defending their homes. I don't have time to argue any longer about this on lunch break.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36740143]-snip- It's useless and pointless. Just pay attention to jury cases.[/QUOTE] You cited three cases which detail how the state WANTED to prosecute but couldn't. You aren't getting why that's a bad thing?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36740169]You cited three cases which detail how the state WANTED to prosecute but couldn't. You aren't getting why that's a bad thing?[/QUOTE] The opinion of the assistant state attorney is not the opinion of the state. I happen to disagree with your opinion, but I don't think your opinion is crazy or anything, I understand it. The fact is that juries have time and time again supported the defendants in these types of cases.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36739704]Someone tends to get desperate when you point a sawed-off shotgun at them. Kid only "lunged" (little evidence that he actually did) when he was threatened. [/QUOTE] So ? it's a dumbfuck move, you're forcing yourself into a killed or be killed situation and the guy with the gun will have no other choice. That's like charging at a police officer with a knife or a blunt object and expecting him to go karate on your ass instead of unloading an entire magazine on your chest. You don't attack when an armed guy threatens you, you get the fuck out.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36739351]Seems stupid, if a guy goes to attack a person, unarmed or not, a person should be allowed to defend themselves in whatever way they want.[/QUOTE] Blowing someone away with a shotgun is overkill, at all times unless someone is going at you with a gun or a blade and is intent on your demise, that might not be law but it should be everywhere.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36740180]The opinion of the assistant state attorney is not the opinion of the state. I happen to disagree with your opinion, but I don't think your opinion is crazy or anything, I understand it. The fact is that juries have time and time again supported the defendants in these types of cases.[/QUOTE] first of all, juries didn't do shit in those cases. They were never taken in front of a jury. You need to stop saying juries did something when there never [I]was[/I] a jury in your examples. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36740232]That's like charging at a police officer with a knife or a blunt object and expecting him to go karate on your ass instead of unloading an entire magazine on your chest.[/QUOTE] The kid was unarmed, buddy. Police get into deep shit if they shoot someone who is unarmed. They have non-lethal weaponry for that purpose.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36740132]You've spent two days defending Castle Doctrine and now you accept that it's fundamentally flawed and Duty to Retreat exists for a reason? Would you agree that Castle needs to be federally repealed so as to keep people like those three cases from getting away with voluntary manslaughter or murder 2?[/QUOTE] I don't think it needs to be repealed. I don't feel bad for any of the so called "victims." Do I think robbery warrants the death penalty, not necessarily. But if someone breaks into my house I'm not letting them get away with my stuff, and I'm also not going to assume they mean no harm to me. All of these deaths could have been avoided if they didn't break the law in the first place.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36740288]I don't think it needs to be repealed. I don't feel bad for any of the so called "victims." Do I think robbery warrants the death penalty, not necessarily. But if someone breaks into my house I'm not letting them get away with my stuff, and I'm also not going to assume they mean no harm to me. All of these deaths could have been avoided if they didn't break the law in the first place.[/QUOTE] The kid in the third case didn't break any laws at all and he died. You're vilifying innocent people as criminals when they didn't commit any crimes, let alone capital offenses. You wonder why I said you're fucked in the head?

[QUOTE=ZF911;36740288]I don't think it needs to be repealed. I don't feel bad for any of the so called "victims." Do I think robbery warrants the death penalty, not necessarily. But if someone breaks into my house I'm not letting them get away with my stuff, and I'm also not going to assume they mean no harm to me. All of these deaths could have been avoided if they didn't break the law in the first place.[/QUOTE] Nice to know you rate some trinkets and shit higher than someones life, good job man.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36740261]first of all, juries didn't do shit in those cases. They were never taken in front of a jury. You need to stop saying juries did something when there never [I]was[/I] a jury in your examples.[/QUOTE] Did these not fall before the U.S. District Courts?

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36740318]Did these not fall before the U.S. District Courts?[/QUOTE] Successful self defense cases usually don't fall in front of a jury at all. They're heard by a judge in a closed court. The prosecution usually decides to drop charges at that point if the evidence is substantial enough to support self defense. If you end up in front of a jury, you didn't win a self defense plea.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36740314]Nice to know you rate some trinkets and shit higher than someones life, good job man.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sorry but I care more about my expensive PC than some scumbag thief.

[QUOTE=ZF911;36740357]Yeah I'm sorry but I care more about my expensive PC than some scumbag thief.[/QUOTE] You are sabotaging yourself. Third case wasn't a thief. He didn't break and enter. He was standing in a driveway and he died for it.

Like I've said before, I wouldn't shoot to kill unless I thought I had to. That doesn't mean I'm letting him run off with my stuff.

[QUOTE=Kabstrac;36740370]He didn't say "If they try to steal from me, I'll kill them!" He simply said he's not going to let them get away with his stuff and assume they could attempt to harm him.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ZF911;36740357]Yeah I'm sorry but I care more about my expensive PC than some scumbag thief.[/QUOTE] This is what he said. Don't defend him.