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

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759139]All state judges must abide by federal rulings. Any time state law conflicts with federal law, federal law wins.[/QUOTE] So why are you still claiming federal precedence when the Supreme Court has ruled twice that assault and murder doesn't fall under Congress' powers under the US constitution, thus the conflict between federal and state law is impossible.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759315]So why are you still claiming federal precedence when the Supreme Court has ruled twice that assault and murder doesn't fall under Congress' powers under the US constitution, thus the conflict between federal and state law is impossible.[/QUOTE] The courts are not congress. If it didn't fall under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, they couldn't have made a ruling. All law is subject to the courts. That's why they exist. There is nothing beyond the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. [I]Nothing.[/I] Shit, they're the ones who [I]interpret[/I] the Constitution--the highest form of law in the country. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] FYI we have [I]three[/I] whole branches of government. This might be strange to hear, but the legislative branch is only [I]one[/I] of them! shocker, I know, but bear with me here.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759247]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] 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.[/QUOTE] I'm arguing federal precedence doesn't apply in this case since it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to apply federal murder statues against citizens of states outside of areas under the sole domain of the federal government such as federal buildings and federal land.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759398]I'm arguing federal precedence doesn't apply in this case since it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to apply federal murder statues against citizens of states outside of areas under the sole domain of the federal government such as federal buildings and federal land.[/QUOTE] For christ's sakes learn the difference between congress and the courts. It's not a statue. It's court precedence. If what you argued were true, then the district courts of appeal couldn't hear homicide cases. There would be no way to federally appeal a homicide ruling, which would be unconstitutional. Shit, all the other cases I cited which outline what is and is not justifiable (such as Starr v. The United States) couldn't have happened. Yet somehow they did. Do you wonder why? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Stop defending your dumb point. You are gaining no ground. Concede that point now and this will all end. Don't stubbornly defend something which is patently wrong.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759355]The courts are not congress. If it didn't fall under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, they couldn't have made a ruling. All law is subject to the courts. That's why they exist. There is nothing beyond the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. [I]Nothing.[/I] Shit, they're the ones who [I]interpret[/I] the Constitution--the highest form of law in the country. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] FYI we have [I]three[/I] whole branches of government. This might be strange to hear, but the legislative branch is only [I]one[/I] of them! shocker, I know, but bear with me here.[/QUOTE] And? The Legislative is the only one that can create laws, and if the Judicial rules they have no constitutional mandate to make X a federal crime applicant in the states, then X is left to the States to deal with. while the Federal Government can still make X a federal crime applicant only in physical areas that the Federal Government has sole domain such as a US post office or federal Waters.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759474]And? The Legislative is the only one that can create laws[/QUOTE] P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-C-E You're wrong. Legislative creates law via legislation. The courts create law via interpretation and legal precedence. The Supreme Court ruling made abortion legal. It also made it law that states cannot abolish it. If the courts couldn't create law, then that wouldn't have happened. They would have no power.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759415] If what you argued were true, then the district courts of appeal couldn't hear homicide cases. There would be no way to federally appeal a homicide ruling, which would be unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] Last time I checked you can't appeal state murder charges to federal courts unless you can cite a federal question in the appeal.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759489]Last time I checked you can't appeal state murder charges to federal courts unless you can cite a federal question in the appeal.[/QUOTE] Then how did Starr v. The United States end up in the Supreme Court? Just stop. You have got to realize how little you understand about or legal system right now. Stop pretending otherwise. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] do you realize how many homicide cases end up in federal courts of appeal? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] do you even know what a court of appeal is?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759489]Last time I checked you can't appeal state murder charges to federal courts unless you can cite a federal question in the appeal.[/QUOTE] you can appeal anything to the supreme court if the lower courts agree to pass it on up.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36759538]you can appeal anything to the supreme court if the lower courts agree to pass it on up.[/QUOTE] You can move it on up the line even if they don't. It's appeal after appeal after appeal, with the Supreme Court being the end of the line. Your appeal can be denied by a higher court, but a lower court can't stop you from appealing their decision.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759485]P-R-E-C-E-D-E-N-C-E You're wrong. Legislative creates law via legislation. The courts create law via interpretation and legal precedence. The Supreme Court ruling made abortion legal. It also made it law that states cannot abolish it. If the courts couldn't create law, then that wouldn't have happened. They would have no power.[/QUOTE] The Courts don't need to create laws to empower their rulings, the court sets the final interpretation a federal statute, which federal courts are abridged to follow, which is why the court rulings nullifying several hundred statutes have these massive opinions showing how they are in conflict with the constitution or a federal statue that takes precedence over the statues in question thus void.

This thread is STILL going on? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply?" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759504]Then how did Starr v. The United States end up in the Supreme Court?[/QUOTE] Starr killed a man in a federal territory under the sole domain of the Federal Government, which if you actually read the fucking case, you would know this. If he killed a man in a State he would have never made it to to supreme court.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759544]You can move it on up the line even if they don't. It's appeal after appeal after appeal, with the Supreme Court being the end of the line. Your appeal can be denied by a higher court, but a lower court can't stop you from appealing their decision.[/QUOTE] Isn't this how Death Row prisoners manage to stay alive for so long, is appealing their case? Since they can't be executed until their case has been appealed all the way up the SC(unless it's denied)?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36759694]Starr killed a man in a federal territory under the sole domain of the Federal Government, which if you actually read the fucking case, you would know this.[/QUOTE] No he didn't. A warrant was issued for Starr's arrest. He killed a police officer in public in Arkansas. He was charged with murder. He was exonerated as the Supreme Court determined it was self defense, as the officer opened fire without declaring himself, thus Starr was entitled to defend himself against an unknown assailant attempting to kill him. This effectively applied to all states, even today, and the ruling determined that even criminals are permitted to defend themselves against police operating themselves in an illegal fashion. ((FYI the case was from 1894, with the decision in 1897. Starr was wanted for horse theft. If you actually read the fucking case, you would know this.)) [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cheat_God;36759781]Isn't this how Death Row prisoners manage to stay alive for so long, is appealing their case? Since they can't be executed until their case has been appealed all the way up the SC(unless it's denied)?[/QUOTE] Capital crimes get multiple appeals over a long period of time due to the permanence of the punishment. They are given a very long period of time so that investigation may continue. Unfortunately, even once exonerating evidence is presented, many states will leave the convict on death row for extended periods of time until they are forced to do otherwise. There have been a few cases in which states ignored exonerating evidence (due to its presentation being in close proximity to date of execution) and killed an innocent person anyway.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36759860]No he didn't. A warrant was issued for Starr's arrest. He killed a police officer in public in Arkansas. He was charged with murder.[/QUOTE] I read the case, and it stated he killed a man in the Cherokee Nation in the Indian Territory, fled, had a warrant issued for his arrest by a U.S. Commissioner, then killed a U.S. Marshal in Arkansas when the warrant was being executed.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36761115]I read the case, and it stated he killed a man in the Cherokee Nation in the Indian Territory, fled, had a warrant issued for his arrest by a U.S. Commissioner, then killed a U.S. Marshal in Arkansas when the warrant was being executed.[/QUOTE] Yeah. The case was about the marshal. the crime occurred in public in arkansas. it was tried in the arkansas courts initially, he was convicted and was appealed up the line until the supreme court overturned the verdict. You're wrong. You know you're wrong. You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Go away.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36761397]Yeah. The case was about the marshal. the crime occurred in public in arkansas. it was tried in the arkansas courts initially, he was convicted and was appealed up the line until the supreme court overturned the verdict. You're wrong. You know you're wrong. You don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Go away.[/QUOTE] The crime occurred against a Federal Agent, which would have granted federal jurisdiction regardless, and it was appealed to the supreme court on the grounds the federal warrant issued was void as the U.S. commissioner in question didn't sign it under the title he held under U.S. code, and thus should be thrown out, which since it involved a Federal Question, gave federal courts jurisdiction over it since local and state courts can't make rulings regarding federal laws.

then why was it tried in arkansas courts

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36761552]The crime occurred against a Federal Agent, which would have granted federal jurisdiction regardless, and it was appealed to the supreme court on the grounds the federal warrant issued was void as the U.S. commissioner in question didn't sign it under the title he held under U.S. code, and thus should be thrown out, which since it involved a Federal Question, gave federal courts jurisdiction over it since local and state courts can't make rulings regarding federal laws.[/QUOTE] even if it wasn't against a federal agent he still could have appealed it to the supreme court where they would have reached the same conclusion.

jesus christ do you realize you're arguing that murder cases can't be appealed to federal court? here's some murder appeals that went to federal courts: [url]http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/News/2012/07_-_July/NY_man_in_1987_murder_may_be_innocent__federal_appeals_court/[/url] [url]http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/may/18/tdmet02-federal-appeals-court-hears-murder-for-hir-ar-1923236/[/url] [url]http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/federal-court-to-hear-murder-case-appeal-640900/[/url] [url]http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20593437/federal-appeals-court-overturns-alameda-county-death-sentence[/url] that's just the first page results for googling "murder federal appeal"

[QUOTE=Lankist;36761687]then why was it tried in arkansas courts[/QUOTE] Because the murder was committed within a state?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36775022]Because the murder was committed within a state?[/QUOTE] Way to ignore those four cases above.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36761710]jesus christ do you realize you're arguing that murder cases can't be appealed to federal court? here's some murder appeals that went to federal courts: [url]http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/News/2012/07_-_July/NY_man_in_1987_murder_may_be_innocent__federal_appeals_court/[/url] [url]http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/may/18/tdmet02-federal-appeals-court-hears-murder-for-hir-ar-1923236/[/url] [url]http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/federal-court-to-hear-murder-case-appeal-640900/[/url] [url]http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20593437/federal-appeals-court-overturns-alameda-county-death-sentence[/url] that's just the first page results for googling "murder federal appeal"[/QUOTE] All those cases ether allege misconduct on the side of the prosecution or the defendant is actually innocent.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36775115]All those cases ether allege misconduct on the side of the prosecution or the defendant is actually innocent.[/QUOTE] But by your logic, that doesn't matter. Courts have no say over homicides committed within the state. You keep adding exception after exception to the list of a rule which does not exist. You're wrong. Stop coming back every day just to deny you aren't. You are defending a claim well beyond the point at which it has been thoroughly refuted. Let it go.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36775131]But by your logic, that doesn't matter. Courts have no say over homicides committed within the state. You keep adding exception after exception to the list of a rule which does not exist. You're wrong. Stop coming back every day just to deny you aren't. You are defending a claim well beyond the point at which it has been thoroughly refuted. Let it go.[/QUOTE] I don't care, I know if I shoot a burglar in the face for kicking down my door a Grand Jury will refuse to indict me under Texas law.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36775679]I don't care, I know if I shoot a burglar in the face for kicking down my door a Grand Jury will refuse to indict me under Texas law.[/QUOTE] you hardcore motherfucker you. i'm pretty sure the second thing they teach you about gun ownership is always know what you're shooting at and that it is a clear threat and you have no other option. i genuinely fear for the safety of others around you.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36775679]I don't care, I know if I shoot a burglar in the face for kicking down my door a Grand Jury will refuse to indict me under Texas law.[/QUOTE] Not if you don't meet both federal criteria for self defense.

If you know he is wrong, why can't you just leave and leave the alleged idiot alone. Though I disagree with you, not insulting anyone. @ lankist

[QUOTE=zerothefallen;36775839]If you know he is wrong, why can't you just leave and leave the alleged idiot alone. Though I disagree with you, not insulting anyone. @ lankist[/QUOTE] I didn't sign up for a discussion board so I could choose not to talk to people.