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

[QUOTE=thisispain;36717034]are you aware that you are actually presenting a good reason for why castle doctrine is bad[/QUOTE] I'm trying to be objective and simply state facts, but I'm doing an exceptionally poor job of it apparently. Whether or not the Castle Doctrine is 'acceptable' or not is an excellent topic for debate though.

[QUOTE=MR-X;36717050]Home owner has the right to live too, live without some asshole depriving him/her of his/her property or life. [/QUOTE] except nobody's life was being threatened. this is such bullshit logic, you can use it to justify shooting anyone for any reason.

[QUOTE=Clementine;36717047]I have suffered from Facepunchitis...reading nothing but the title[/QUOTE] I forgive you, but the others...well...you gotta get out of here, they will peel you apart!

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717053]What the fuck kind of bullshit logic is this? She MIGHT have had a gun (she didn't) and she MIGHT have been there to kill (she wasn't), so it's okay to fucking KILL someone on that supposition? Fucking no. Your goddamn life is not worth so much that you can just shoot whoever the fuck you want because they MIGHT harm you.[/QUOTE] They shot at the armed robbers, not at her. She was accidentally shot in the head by her own friends that she brought along.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36717071]They shot at the armed robbers, not at her. She was accidentally shot in the head by her own friends that she brought along.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant. I am talking about Castle Doctrine.

[QUOTE=MR-X;36717050] Home owner has the right to live too, live without some asshole depriving him/her of his/her property or life. [/QUOTE] yeah but i'm not saying that the home owner should die, i'm saying that having a person automatically lose all their rights when they commit crime is horseshit and anathema to the constitution.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36717071]They shot at the armed robbers, not at her. She was accidentally shot in the head by her own friends that she brought along.[/QUOTE] How many times does someone have to say this before people actually start reading it?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717003]run. threaten. your goddamn stuff is not worth a human life. everything you own can be on fire and you still wouldn't be justified in killing another human being. There's this concept called "innocent until proven guilty." It dictates that you don't shoot first and ask questions later. You're in a potentially dangerous situation? Fucking deal. You don't get to kill someone just because something MIGHT go wrong. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Law and order fucking breaks down when we start shooting over what people MIGHT do.[/QUOTE] So I should lay down my life to someone who puts me into extreme danger because "Their life is sacred"? There is shift in severity between killing people over simple "mights" and killing people because this person is fully capable of taking your life from you and went out of their way to aggressively assault your home and possibly you yourself.

[QUOTE=Mr. N;36717092]So I should lay down my life to someone who puts me into extreme danger because "Their life is sacred"? There is shift in severity between killing people over simple "mights" and killing people because this person is fully capable of taking your life from you and went out of their way to aggressively assault your home and possibly you yourself.[/QUOTE] Here's the severity: You can't kill someone just because they're in your house without your permission. End of god damn story. Your life isn't that important. You do what you gotta' do, but you don't just fucking shoot someone because they're present.

[QUOTE=Mr. N;36717017]I don't know about you, but I would not endanger my life in such a situation. I would rather kill whoever broke into my home then take a chance of potentially getting shot. Please tell me, what would [I]your[/I] solution be?[/QUOTE] If someone broke into my house and was all like "give me your stuff" I would give them my stuff; and then if they murdered me I would be upset. That would be a bad thing to happen; but I honestly don't believe that, if I owned a gun, it would make me that much safer. If I had enough time before the robber was a threat to me to retrieve the gun from the place that I have locked it up (because I practice proper gun safety) then I would also have enough time to just fucking leave.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717103]Here's the severity: You can't kill someone just because they're in your house without your permission. End of god damn story. Your life isn't that important. [/QUOTE] ok so i should let someone shoot me because its morally wrong to defend myself

[QUOTE=xxncxx;36717113]ok so i should let someone shoot me because its morally wrong to defend myself[/QUOTE] Just because someone is in your house doesn't mean they're going to shoot you, you paranoid crazy maniac.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717103]Here's the severity: You can't kill someone just because they're in your house without your permission. End of god damn story. Your life isn't that important. You do what you gotta' do, but you don't just fucking shoot someone because they're present.[/QUOTE] Sure I don't think anyone actually believes in shooting someone because they're standing in their kitchen. They're probably just wording it wrong and presuming that there is an active threat to the homeowner's life.. like a gun being pointed at them

[QUOTE=xxncxx;36717113]ok so i should let someone shoot me because its morally wrong to defend myself[/QUOTE] yes lankist is known for advocating suicide

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36717111]If someone broke into my house and was all like "give me your stuff" I would give them my stuff; and then if they murdered me I would be upset. That would be a bad thing to happen; but I honestly don't believe that, if I owned a gun, it would make me that much safer. If I had enough time before the robber was a threat to me to retrieve the gun from the place that I have locked it up (because I practice proper gun safety) then I would also have enough time to just fucking leave.[/QUOTE] Some of these people need to be mugged just once so they can know why it's better to just give them your stuff than to decide to go deathmatch.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717103]Here's the severity: You can't kill someone just because they're in your house without your permission. End of god damn story. Your life isn't that important.[/QUOTE] Yep, breaking down someone's door and being in a house without permission are the same thing. Clearly the guy who breaks into your house is never, ever a threat. Oh wait, this story shows that isn't true. So why the hell should I EVER have to assume that all the person who just broke in wants is my stuff? Home invasion/murders aren't hugely common, but they happen. Until they stop happening, I'm assuming the worst when my window is smashed and a dark figure climbs in in the middle of the night. I won't shoot because I fear for my possessions, but because I fear for my life and the lives of my family.

[QUOTE=Noble;36717123]Sure I don't think anyone actually believes in shooting someone because they're standing in their kitchen. They're probably just wording it wrong and presuming that there is an active threat to the homeowner's life.. like a gun being pointed at them[/QUOTE] Except that isn't what they're advocating. They're advocating killing someone [I]before[/I] they hypothetically become a threat.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36717077]yeah but i'm not saying that the home owner should die, i'm saying that having a person automatically lose all their rights when they commit crime is horseshit and anathema to the constitution.[/QUOTE] Of course, I mean. It isn't like these laws are built to create a free for all deathmatch. They obviously don't lose all their rights, even while incarcerated they have rights. However, they do inherit a certain risk when committing a crime. As for deadly force, it is pretty obvious it should only be used when someones life is in immediate danger. Which in most cases the police look at that, they look at the information surrounding that decision and see if it was right or wrong. It would be wrong to shoot someone who clearly didn't have a weapon and didn't pose a threat just simply because they where on your property or something. Even if you didn't know them. However, if someone is on your property at night, breaking in or whatever that is a different story. Now we got lankist and his infinite wisdom in the thread /sarcasm This is the part where he tells everyone their information is irrelevant and he is right and the master of the universe. [QUOTE=Lankist;36717103]Here's the severity: You can't kill someone just because they're in your house without your permission. End of god damn story. Your life isn't that important. You do what you gotta' do, but you don't just fucking shoot someone because they're present.[/QUOTE] Watch me.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717119]Just because someone is in your house doesn't mean they're going to shoot you, you paranoid crazy maniac.[/QUOTE] And it doesn't mean they won't, why should I be forced to hope they aren't going to shoot me and put myself at their mercy?

[QUOTE=dogmachines;36717134]Clearly the guy who breaks into your house is never, ever a threat.[/QUOTE] sometimes lightning strikes cause fires i don't call the fire department during every thunderstorm i hear. You don't go shooting people just because they MIGHT hurt you. Fucking how hard is this to understand?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717136]Except that isn't what they're advocating. They're advocating killing someone [I]before[/I] they hypothetically become a threat.[/QUOTE] Castle Doctrine aside, when someone points a gun at you or a loved one they become a threat.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717103]Here's the severity: You can't kill someone just because they're in your house without your permission. End of god damn story. [B] Your life isn't that important.[/B] You do what you gotta' do, but you don't just fucking shoot someone because they're present.[/QUOTE] But theirs is? Lankist, I don't see anyone (including myself) saying that you should shoot the invader the second they set foot inside. However, one of the Castle Doctrine's conditions is that if you reasonably feel that your personal being is at great risk, which can be difficult to determine during an invasion, then you are justified in your actions. Additionally, some states (though I'm not certain Texas is one) extend the conditions to include burglary or arson. This may not be ideal on a moral level, I'll agree with you on that, but we're talking about the laws [B]as they stand[/B], not as they should be.

[QUOTE=Tigster;36716131]Your title made it seem like she was innocent. She wasn't.[/QUOTE] Sensational headlines.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;36717141]And it doesn't mean they won't, why should I be forced to hope they aren't going to shoot me and put myself at their mercy?[/QUOTE] You don't get to make that fucking call. You don't decide who lives and dies.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;36717036]texas yee haw![/QUOTE] Fort Worthless Let's go look at cows and art galleries!! We'll make a day of it

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36717148]Castle Doctrine aside, when someone points a gun at you or a loved one they become a threat.[/QUOTE] Except that isn't what we're talking about. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MR-X;36717138] Watch me.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry? Are you planning to kill someone?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36717031]I don't accept this. I don't think our society should be founded on absolutes like this. I think cases should be judged on a case-by-case basis. "You break into someone's home and you lose your right to life" is a fucking ghastly way to run a society. If robbers (who are going to go on robbing people whether or not homeowners are armed, I honestly don't believe in deterrents as A Thing That Exists) didn't feel like they had a chance of being shot to death the moment they entered any house, there would probably be fewer robbers breaking into houses prepared to kill the homeowners. I don't believe that owning a gun is a particularly viable strategy of defending your [i]life[/i] from a midnight home invasion and I don't believe that giving homeowners free reign to shoot whoever they please is a reasonable solution to home invasions.[/QUOTE] "You break into someone's home and you lose your right to life" I never said that. Stop putting words into my posts please.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36717062]except nobody's life was being threatened. this is such bullshit logic, you can use it to justify shooting anyone for any reason.[/QUOTE] multiple people breaking into your house isn't threatening? lankist not all of are invincible like you

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36716251]my engineering teacher said he kept guns in places that no one would know for instance, in a box of cereal [/QUOTE] Painfully delicious.

[QUOTE=OvB;36717176]"You break into someone's home and you lose your right to life" I never said that. Stop putting words into my posts please.[/QUOTE] He's talking about me and my abysmally bad wording earlier.