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

[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] this is bad attitude to take against people who are demonstrably wrong. especially when he could seriously hurt someone and go to prison for his stupid mistake.

Nobody deserves to die but if there is some sort of afterlife it would be a good time to reflect and realize [I]"I broke into somebody's house for... some reason, and I got shot."[/I] Shitty and pointless waste of life.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36775730]Not if you don't meet both federal criteria for self defense.[/QUOTE] United States v. Harris (1883) ruled the Federal Government can not prosecute homicides that are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States as cited by the defense in Brown v. United States (1921), and as such under Muskrat v. United States the federal government fails to meet the requirements to bring a case under the Case or Controversy Clause of the U.S. constitution, ultimately making federal criteria for self defense irrelavent for the state's courts. So unless you want to say my house is Federal Property, I only have to abide by state law unless I fuck up and cross state lines during an active crime. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36775727]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] Texas law plainly states anyone that is actively breaking into your home or vehicle, or trespasses on your land after sunset is a clear threat and can be promptly dispatched with deadly force.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36780450]United States v. Harris (1883)[/QUOTE] Yet again, nobody is talking about prosecution. [I]STOP.[/I] Go away. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;36780450] So unless you want to say my house is Federal Property, I only have to abide by state law unless I fuck up and cross state lines during an active crime.[/QUOTE] For the fifth time: [B]State courts enforce federal law and precedence.[/B]

[i]Jesus[/i] this argument is still going? I've never seen a SH thread last this long

When it involves self defense or the "stand your ground law" you bet your ass Facepunch is gonna split in half and wage war on itself (or any issue for that matter)

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;36781957]When it involves self defense or the "stand your ground law" you bet your ass Facepunch is gonna split in half and wage war on itself [/QUOTE] I wasnt aware that lankist was half of facepunch :v:

[QUOTE=Lankist;36781808]Yet again, nobody is talking about prosecution. [I]STOP.[/I] Go away. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] For the fifth time: [B]State courts enforce federal law and precedence.[/B][/QUOTE] Except under Texas law, no authority apart from the Texas DPS when dealing with interstate truck traffic has the power to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court already ruled Federal murder charges do not apply to the states in Harris v. United States, so how can you possibly suggest the federal criteria for self defense apply to the states? They hold no relevance what so ever. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] Also [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy[/url]

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36786092]Except under Texas law, no authority apart from the Texas DPS when dealing with interstate truck traffic has the power to enforce federal law.[/QUOTE] Then do try to explain again why abortion is legal in Texas, if Texan judges do not need to acknowledge higher courts. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] Also please acknowledge the existence of the Supremacy Clause, which tells Texan law to fuck off. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] Explain why Texas has to abide by the US Constitution, even.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786251]Then do try to explain again why abortion is legal in Texas, if Texan judges do not need to acknowledge higher courts. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] Also please acknowledge the existence of the Supremacy Clause, which tells Texan law to fuck off.[/QUOTE] The reason abortion is legal in Texas is because a Texas statue was found to be in-conflict with the U.S. constitution. How ever per Harris v. United States no conflict between Texas and Federal law exists regarding homicide as the Supreme Court ruled the Federal Government can't make criminal statues that apply within the states without being within it's constitutional powers, typically the interstate commence clause, which the Supreme Court further ruled in United States v. Morrison the Federal Government fails to meet the requirements under the interstate commence clause to legislate even civil statutes regarding criminal matters within the states. And again [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy[/url] [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36786251]Explain why Texas has to abide by the US Constitution, even.[/QUOTE] Article 1, Section 1, Texas Constitution.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36786362]Article 1, Section 1, Texas Constitution.[/QUOTE] haha okay so you're telling me the only reason Texas has to abide by the Constitution is because they [I]want[/I] to? So if Texas amended their state constitution to nullify Article 1 Sec. 1, do you think they could just get away with ignoring the US Constitution? wow you're really pushing the boundaries on stereotypes, today.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786251]Also please acknowledge the existence of the Supremacy Clause, which tells Texan law to fuck off.[/QUOTE] Please acknowledge the rulings in United States v. Morrison and United States v. Harris which rule federal criminal and civil statues don't apply against private citizens within the 50 states regarding assault, murder, theft, and other similar criminal matters.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36786407]Please acknowledge the rulings in United States v. Morrison and United States v. Harris which rule federal criminal and civil statues don't apply against private citizens within the 50 states regarding assault, murder, theft, and other similar criminal matters.[/QUOTE] Which have nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause's implications on court precedence. Stop fucking bringing up irrelevant cases. Nobody is talking about prosecution. Nobody said federal courts would prosecute. I don't know how many times I have to say that before you figure it out. State courts [I]MUST[/I] recognize federal precedence. It's the reason why abortion is legal in Texas and it's the reason why federal criteria for self defense applies in all cases.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786395]haha okay so you're telling me the only reason Texas has to abide by the Constitution is because they [I]want[/I] to? So if Texas amended their state constitution to nullify Article 1 Sec. 1, do you think they could just get away with ignoring the US Constitution? wow you're really pushing the boundaries on stereotypes, today.[/QUOTE] They can't nullify Article 1 Section 1 since that would in it self remove Texas' state sovereignty and claim to self government. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36786426]Which have nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause's implications on court precedence. Stop fucking bringing up irrelevant cases. Nobody is talking about prosecution. Nobody said federal courts would prosecute. State courts [I]MUST[/I] recognize federal precedence. It's the reason why abortion is legal in Texas and it's the reason why federal criteria for self defense applies in all cases.[/QUOTE] The reason abortion is legal in Texas is because the supreme court held Texas' Abortion statute unconstitutional under the 9th amendment thus null and void, and nothing to do with federal precedence.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36786439]They can't nullify Article 1 Section 1 since that would in it self remove Texas' state sovereignty and claim to self government.[/QUOTE] Says who? Why can't they, if they don't answer to federal law?

Also please cite the supreme court case which states State Courts must recognize federal precedence regarding state criminal law.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36786439]The reason abortion is legal in Texas is because the supreme court held Texas' Abortion statute unconstitutional under the 9th amendment thus null and void, and nothing to do with federal precedence.[/QUOTE] And that's all federal law. So why the fuck do you think you get to ignore the federal law you disagree with? [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;36786492]Also please cite the supreme court case which states State Courts must recognize federal precedence regarding state criminal law.[/QUOTE] Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution Ware v. Hylton Martin v. Hunter's Lessee Cohens v. Virginia Many others. They all established that all state law is subject to federal. Roe v. Wade is not legislation. Roe v. Wade is precedence. If you thought the supremacy clause does not apply to precedence, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't mean anything. All of those Supreme Court cases you cited? Those are all precedence, which the entire nation is beholden to. When a higher court sets a precedent, all lower courts are beheld to it. It doesn't matter if they're federal or state. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] And for someone who keeps citing the 14th Amendment it's interesting that you fail to mention the 14th Amendment is a prime argument [I]against[/I] overzealous Castle Doctrine, which denies criminals basic human rights.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786500]And that's all federal law. So why the fuck do you think you get to ignore the federal law you disagree with? [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution Ware v. Hylton Martin v. Hunter's Lessee Cohens v. Virginia Many others. They all established that all state law is subject to federal.[/QUOTE] Harris v. United States rules the federal government has no right to create criminal statues that apply to states under the Constitution except where interstate commerce or its taxation powers are effected thus leaving the Supremacy Clause argument baseless Ware v. Hylton is a case where a Virginian statue obstructed a treaty the United States had signed, thus state statute was nullified to keep in terms of the treaty. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee is about the federal judiciary's jurisdiction over cases involving federal law and constitutional matters which nobody is disputing, it does not require the state courts to incorporate federal precedents in their legal proceedings. Cohens v. Virginia establishes the federal's courts jurisdiction to intervene state criminal cases where the defendant claims violation of his constitutional rights, or that a state's specific statute is in direct conflict with federal law, it does not require the state courts to incorporate federal precedents in their legal proceedings. Now please show me an actual case that requires the state courts to follow federal precedence in non-constitutional matters, because as far as I'm concerned none exists as Harris v. United States ruled it unconstitutional for congress to create a federal statue against murder that extends to the states, which makes Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Cohens v. Virginia irrelavent.

So then maybe you'd like to explain why all murder cases can be appealed to federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786500]And for someone who keeps citing the 14th Amendment it's interesting that you fail to mention the 14th Amendment is a prime argument [I]against[/I] overzealous Castle Doctrine, which denies criminals basic human rights.[/QUOTE] I never cited the 14th amendment, what are you talking about. Also how does the 14th Amendment go against the Castle Doctrine?

Can you find one case which was denied federal appeal on the basis that they have no jurisdiction? [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Broseph_;36786861]I never cited the 14th amendment, what are you talking about. Also how does the 14th Amendment go against the Castle Doctrine?[/QUOTE] States may not establish laws which abridge essential freedoms. Right to live is the most basic freedom. States have no authority to dictate when someone does and does not have that right. That's why lynch-mob vigilantism (or vigilantism in general) is illegal regardless of whatever the fuck states think, and it's being argued currently that Castle violates that right in the same way.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786828]So then maybe you'd like to explain why all murder cases can be appealed to federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court?[/QUOTE] Most of the cases I've seen that made it to the supreme court have the defense raising constitutional and federal questions.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36786903]Most of the cases I've seen that made it to the supreme court have the defense raising constitutional and federal questions.[/QUOTE] Then cite one case in which a convict was denied appeal on the grounds that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the matter. [I]Not[/I] that federal courts agreed with the verdict, but that they explicitly said "we do not have the authority to hear this case."

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786863]Can you find one case which was denied federal appeal on the basis that they have no jurisdiction? [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] States may not establish laws which abridge essential freedoms. Right to live is the most basic freedom. States have no authority to dictate when someone does and does not have that right. That's why lynch-mob vigilantism is illegal regardless of whatever the fuck states think, and it's being argued currently that Castle violates that right in the same way.[/QUOTE] Harris v. United States(Which centered around a lynching) and the Civil Right Cases established the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the actions of private citizens, therefore how can the castle doctrine violate that right when the 14th amendment only applies to state action.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36787036]Harris v. United States(Which centered around a lynching) and the Civil Right Cases established the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the actions of private citizens, therefore how can the castle doctrine violate that right when the 14th amendment only applies to state action.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you even talking about at this point, honestly? You're denying that the Federal Government has authority over anything. That is not a case. You did not cite an appeal in which a federal court said "we have no authority." [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;36787058]how the fuck is this still going? it just keeps repeating over and over and over again[/QUOTE] I don't fucking know. Broseph comes back once a day for a go-round with irrelevant bullshit to pretend Texas is a sovereign state that just gets to do whatever the fuck it wants.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36787058]how the fuck is this still going? it just keeps repeating over and over and over again lankist says something > someone tries to disprove it (could be right or wrong) > lankist replies with more evidence and sometimes a different argument > person leaves thread > lankist says something[/QUOTE] That's called conversation and is the purpose of forums. If you aren't going to participate, why do you care? Lankist is just a bit more active then others. I think Broseph brings up a good point, whether or not he is wrong.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36786914]Then cite one case in which a convict was denied appeal on the grounds that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the matter. [I]Not[/I] that federal courts agreed with the verdict, but that they explicitly said "we do not have the authority to hear this case."[/QUOTE] [url]http://djournal.com/view/full_story/18686522/article-Mississippi-inmate-denied-appeal-in-Clay-County-murder-case[/url] There you go

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36787163][url]http://djournal.com/view/full_story/18686522/article-Mississippi-inmate-denied-appeal-in-Clay-County-murder-case[/url] There you go[/QUOTE] That case was denied due to a lack of substantiating evidence. Had he evidence, the court would have heard the case. Because it is completely in their authority. Because higher courts have higher jurisdiction in all matters. Try again.

-snip- nevermind me.

Okay I'm done. Lankist you seem like a pretty cool guy, can I add you steam since I love talking to people who disagree with [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SilentOpp;36787181]Federal courts had accepted that case up until the Surpreme Court, so technically doesn't count...[/QUOTE] Not what this said. [QUOTE]A federal judge in Mississippi and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans also denied Chandler's post-conviction petitions.[/QUOTE]