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

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36749116]Better than aiming to kill.[/QUOTE] By definition every time you bring out a firearm you are preparing to kill someone. If you don't realize that I hope you don't have access to a gun.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36749165]any shot towards the human body is aiming to kill even if your intentions are to maim or disable, you have to accept the fact that 99% of the time, its probably going to end up with them dead.[/QUOTE] Personally, I'd say 50/50 instead of 99%. They'll either die, or they won't. Either way, it's still a big chance.

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36748824]I don't know what I would have done in this situation but I'd like to believe I'd shoot her in the legs. Scaring everybody else off with the sound, not killing her, and just leaving her there in excruciating pain until the police and paramedics come to help her. Nobody dies, she learns a DAMN GOOD LESSON, and will possibly never even think about trying it again if she has screwed up legs the rest of her life.[/QUOTE] I'm a supporter of self defense, but it's clear to me that you have no idea how guns work and how to use them in self defense. If you shoot at someone you are ALWAYS shooting to kill. A gun is a deadly weapon, and shooting at any part of a person is an attempt to take their life. Also it's clear that you didn't read the article at all. She wasn't participating in the gun fight. From what I've read she pretended to be the hostage of her accomplices. She was accidentally shot to death by those accomplices too. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Pretty much when it comes to using deadly force in self defense, if you even have the option to disable someone in self defense you do not need deadly force.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36743775]Your house abides by federal law before it abides by state law. [editline]12th July 2012[/editline] hahaha uhhhhhhh that's like saying a U.S. Marshall doesn't have jurisdiction within state borders. The United States of America is their jurisdiction. Jesus Christ you have no idea how this country works, do you? Read the fucking Constitution. States aren't sovereign.[/QUOTE] The supreme court of the United States disagrees with you. [B]Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) [/B]- The Federal Government Has no Jurisdiction to to prosecute private citizens and businesses for discriminatory behavior against other private citizens within the jurisdiction of a state. [B]United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)[/B] - The Federal Government has no Jurisdiction to prosecute state citizens for Murder or Assault that occurred within the jurisdiction of a state [B]United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)[/B] - The Federal Government has no Jurisdiction to prosecute state citizens for possession of a firearm within the jurisdiction of a state [B]United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)[/B] - Congress has no authority to enact legislation to authorize private citizens to sue other private citizens for crimes committed against them in a Federal Court. And to add, US Marshals have no arrest powers outside of Federal Property except against fugitives who are charged with federal crimes except for the application of the plain sight doctrine regarding federal laws enacted under the powers of the Commence Clause or Taxing power such as being in possession of cocaine or an unregistered machine gun.

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36748824]I don't know what I would have done in this situation but I'd like to believe I'd shoot her in the legs. Scaring everybody else off with the sound, not killing her, and just leaving her there in excruciating pain until the police and paramedics come to help her. Nobody dies, she learns a DAMN GOOD LESSON, and will possibly never even think about trying it again if she has screwed up legs the rest of her life.[/QUOTE] No. Goddamn, no. Has nobody every watched/read Massad Ayoob on defending yourself? 1 - Regardless of the armed state of the intruder, if you actively fear for your life of the life of someone in your care, you have permission (pending local laws on Castle Doctrine and the legality of the way you defend yourself) to respond to the threat in a manner that is equal to(and no more than will stop) the percieved threat. 2 - if you are going to defend yourself from a theoreticly lethal opponent, do not maim-to-defend. Not only does it call into question the actual lethality of the threat, it also leaves you open to litigation and lawsuit from the person you shot, and you can be sure they'll try and spin your case on it's heels. So by all accounts, if you are committed to this action, you must entirely pull through. 3 - You will be questioned by police, you will probably, for at least a time you will be accused of a crime. During this time, the police will be ascertaining whether a criminal case can be filed. Which is why #1 applies strongly. If you're anything less than 100% certain about the mortal danger of yourself or people in your care, or you don't think you can or should kill the person, you do not have the right to take anotherperson's life. If you're found not to be in mortal danger, it's at least manslaughter. If you defend against lethal threat with anything less than lethality, you are likely to be up for at least assault/greivous bodily harm/manslaughter. It is up to the police to determine whether the will pursue criminal charges in court. Seriously, if you're going to claim castle doctrine so lightly, at least read up on your damn recourses here.

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36749116]Better than aiming to kill.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sure bleeding to death with a blown open femoral artery would be a preferable death than just getting shot in the heart or lungs. The fact of the fucking matter is if you pull a gun on someone you fucking better have the intent to kill, cause the chances are pretty fucking good you'll end up killing them anyway.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36751448]The supreme court of the United States disagrees with you. [B]Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) [/B]- The Federal Government Has no Jurisdiction to to prosecute private citizens and businesses for discriminatory behavior against other private citizens within the jurisdiction of a state. [B]United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)[/B] - The Federal Government has no Jurisdiction to prosecute state citizens for Murder or Assault that occurred within the jurisdiction of a state [B]United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)[/B] - The Federal Government has no Jurisdiction to prosecute state citizens for possession of a firearm within the jurisdiction of a state [B]United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)[/B] - Congress has no authority to enact legislation to authorize private citizens to sue other private citizens for crimes committed against them in a Federal Court. And to add, US Marshals have no arrest powers outside of Federal Property except against fugitives who are charged with federal crimes except for the application of the plain sight doctrine regarding federal laws enacted under the powers of the Commence Clause or Taxing power such as being in possession of cocaine or an unregistered machine gun.[/QUOTE] What the fuck does that have to do with Supreme Court precedence? Holy shit what are you talking about? None of that has to do with precedence. None of that has to do with the Supremacy Clause. Do you even know what federal courts DO? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Shit, you just cited Supreme Court precedence, but according to you it means fuck all because no jurisdiction! [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] How the fuck do you think rulings like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board told states what to do, but suddenly when you disagree with the precedence the Supreme Court "doesn't have jurisdiction?" You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Stop citing random, irrelevant cases.

Uh, why does the general consensus here seem to be "Good"? I don't care what she looks like or how stupid it was attempting the burglary, isn't that going a bit far?

she was a human beng and desereved to lived she was just feeding her famly

[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;36749116]Better than aiming to kill.[/QUOTE] i had that mindset once it doesn't work, so just go with "kill".

[QUOTE=Lankist;36752672]What the fuck does that have to do with Supreme Court precedence? Holy shit what are you talking about? None of that has to do with precedence. None of that has to do with the Supremacy Clause. Do you even know what federal courts DO? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Shit, you just cited Supreme Court precedence, but according to you it means fuck all because no jurisdiction! [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] How the fuck do you think rulings like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board told states what to do, but suddenly when you disagree with the precedence the Supreme Court "doesn't have jurisdiction?" You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Stop citing random, irrelevant cases.[/QUOTE] What do Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board have to do with me? Those were rulings against states regarding their violation of the equal protections clause, and not anything regarding the acts of private citizens, United States v. Harris plainly states these rulings do not apply. That aside, 4 cases I cited by the Supreme Court plainly rules the federal government has no power to create and prosecute criminal acts that that occur within the borders of a single state unless they can show it's within their powers under the interstate commence clause(drug prohibition) and taxation power(illegal firearms), nether of which can in anyway be en-stewed to covering the act of homicide; which leaves the federal government no grounds to prosecute me for Murder in the aftermath of me shooting and killing a burglar.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36758030]What do Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board have to do with me? Those were rulings against states regarding their violation of the equal protections clause, and not anything to do with the Federal Government's jurisdiction to criminally prosecute me for my actions against other citizens.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about Supreme Court precedence, which is the highest form of law. It applies to everyone. All states. When the Supreme Court says something is a certain way, that's the end of the goddamn story. The Supreme Court laid out the two criteria to determine justifiable self defense. If you had read the goddamn thread you'd have seen one of the dozens of times I posted it. What you people are saying you would do does [I]not[/I] meet that criteria, and like the multiple cases I referenced, you would go to prison for voluntary manslaughter if not second degree murder.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36758248]I'm talking about Supreme Court precedence, which is the highest form of law. It applies to everyone. All states. When the Supreme Court says something is a certain way, that's the end of the goddamn story. The Supreme Court laid out the two criteria to determine justifiable self defense. If you had read the goddamn thread you'd have seen one of the dozens of times I posted it. What you people are saying you would do does [I]not[/I] meet that criteria, and like the multiple cases I referenced, you would go to prison for voluntary manslaughter if not second degree murder.[/QUOTE] Read the cited cases. The Supreme Court ruled four times Federal statues do not apply to private citizens unless the statues past the constitutional muster under the interstate commence clause or taxation clause. Civil Rights Cases ruled the Federal Government has no power under the equal protections clause to prosecute private citizens for acts against other private citizens. United States v. Harris ruled the Federal Government has no power under the constitution to prosecute someone for a murder that occurred within the boundaries of a single state. United States v. Alfonso Lopez Jr. ruled the Federal Government has no power under the constitution to simply outlaw the possession of a firearm on school property without citing any of their powers. United States v. Morrison ruled the Federal Government has no power under the the interstate commence clause to authorize victims of crimes such as assault or murder under state jurisdiction to sue their assailants in federal court.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36758411]Read the cited cases. The Supreme Court ruled four times Federal statues do not apply to private citizens unless the statues past the constitutional muster under the interstate commence clause or taxation clause. Civil Rights Cases ruled the Federal Government has no power under the equal protections clause to prosecute private citizens for acts against other private citizens. United States v. Harris ruled the Federal Government has no power under the constitution to prosecute someone for a murder that occurred within the boundaries of a single state. United States v. Alfonso Lopez Jr. ruled the Federal Government has no power under the constitution to simply outlaw the possession of a firearm on school property without citing any of their powers. United States v. Morrison ruled the Federal Government has no power under the constitution to provide federal courts jurisdiction for victims of crimes outside of federal jurisdiction to sue their assailants for crimes committed against them under states' law.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the federal courts prosecuting, you dope. Read the thread. Federal precedence defines the law for state courts. State courts don't just make up their own laws and run with it. They are obligated under the Constitution to respect and abide federal law and precedence. They can't ignore it. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36758442]I'm not talking about the federal courts prosecuting, you dope. Read the thread. Federal precedence defines the law for state courts. You have no idea what you're even talking about.[/QUOTE] Read up on something called Federal-question jurisdiction.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36758571]Read up on something called Federal-question jurisdiction.[/QUOTE] Absolutely nobody here but you is talking about federal courts prosecuting the cases. Stop it. You're arguing an imaginary point nobody even mentioned. Just because shit happens in a state court doesn't mean federal law goes out the window.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36758594]Absolutely nobody here but you is talking about federal courts prosecuting the cases. Stop it. You're arguing an imaginary point nobody even mentioned. Just because shit happens in a state court doesn't mean federal law goes out the window.[/QUOTE] It does when there is no Federal-Question Jurisdiction, since courts in Texas only abide by the laws of Texas, and the rights guaranteed under the Texas and U.S. constitutions. And you're the one who keeps saying state law is irrelavent in the face of the Federal Law, when it isn't, and never will be.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36758711]It does when there is no Federal-Question Jurisdiction, since courts in Texas only abide by the laws of Texas.[/QUOTE] Then why the fuck don't they have slavery anymore why is abortion legal in texas? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] "texas only abides by texas law." yeah okay you keep believing that, pal.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36753626]Uh, why does the general consensus here seem to be "Good"? I don't care what she looks like or how stupid it was attempting the burglary, isn't that going a bit far?[/QUOTE] She put herself in danger. It's not "good" that she died, but I don't feel sorry for her.

US Constitution Article VI Clause 2 [I]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.[/I]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36758861]Then why the fuck don't they have slavery anymore[/QUOTE] Thirteenth amendment. [QUOTE=Lankist;36758861]why is abortion legal in texas? [/QUOTE] Equal Protections Clause.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36758977]Thirteenth amendment. Equal Protections Clause.[/QUOTE] Those are all federal laws. Texas only abides by Texas law, remember? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Also the Equal Protections Clause says nothing about abortion. So how come Texas has to respect THAT Supreme Court ruling but not ones you disagree with?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36758894]US Constitution Article VI Clause 2 [I]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.[/I][/QUOTE] US Constitution Amendment X [I] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/I] So Lankist, how does Texas' laws regarding deadly force in anyway conflict with the constitution of the United States? Since the Supreme Court has already stripped congress of the power to make murder a federal offense when committed within a state.

For someone citing constitutional law you sure as shit are doing your damndest to ignore the Supremacy Clause. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;36759041]So Lankist, how does Texas' laws regarding deadly force in anyway conflict with the constitution of the United States? Since the Supreme Court has already stripped congress of the power to make murder a federal offense when committed within a state.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court ruled the criteria on a federal level for what constitutes self defense. All states must abide by that ruling.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36758993]Those are all federal laws. Texas only abides by Texas law, remember? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Also the Equal Protections Clause says nothing about abortion. So how come Texas has to respect THAT Supreme Court ruling but not ones you disagree with?[/QUOTE] I said, and quote: "[I]courts in Texas only abide by the laws of Texas, and [B]the rights guaranteed under the Texas and U.S. constitutions.[/B] [/I]"

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759066]I said, and quote: "[I]courts in Texas only abide by the laws of Texas, and [B]the rights guaranteed under the Texas and U.S. constitutions.[/B] [/I]"[/QUOTE] and what does it say in the US constitution? that it's the supreme law of the fucking land, which includes federal laws.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759066]I said, and quote: "[I]courts in Texas only abide by the laws of Texas, and [B]the rights guaranteed under the Texas and U.S. constitutions.[/B] [/I]"[/QUOTE] Supremacy Clause. Abortion isn't in the US constitution. Roe v. Wade was a federal court ruling. So why does Texas have to abide by federal law even under Amendment X? (It isn't the Equal Protections Clause. Abortion is a non-fundamental right. It can constitutionally be restricted.) [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36759120]and what does it say in the US constitution? that it's the supreme law of the fucking land, which includes federal laws.[/QUOTE] Supremacy Clause ensures not only the Constitution, but all federal law to follow, is supreme above all state law. All state judges must abide by federal rulings. Any time state law conflicts with federal law, federal law wins.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759045]The Supreme Court ruled the criteria on a federal level for what constitutes self defense. All states must abide by that ruling.[/QUOTE] If Texan law is so irreverent in face of Federal law, why did the Supreme court in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) cite two court cases under Texas Law in its opinion? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36759139]Supremacy Clause. Abortion isn't in the US constitution. Roe v. Wade was a federal court ruling. So why does Texas have to abide by federal law even under Amendment X? (It isn't the Equal Protections Clause. Abortion is a non-fundamental right. It can constitutionally be restricted.)[/QUOTE] Oh sorry, Row v. Wade was under the Ninth Amendment.

can we name v2 of this thread after lankist when it reaches the post count limit?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759208]If Texan law is so irreverent in face of Federal law, why did the Supreme court in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) cite two court cases under Texas Law in its opinion?[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court can affirm state law. But whatever it says goes above all state law everywhere. Texan law IS irrelevant in the face of Federal. That's why we [I]have[/I] a Federal government. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;36759208]If Texan law is so irreverent in face of Federal law, why did the Supreme court in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) cite two court cases under Texas Law in its opinion? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Oh sorry, Row v. Wade was under the Ninth Amendment.[/QUOTE] No, Roe v. Wade was a federal court ruling. You're arguing that states don't have to abide by federal court rulings. If you admit that states must abide by Roe v. Wade, you also admit they must abide by federal precedence dictating what constitutes justified self defense as a non-fundamental right.