Home owner fired at burglar- gets arrested

[quote name='GBAstar']Elaborate please.

I linked the following stores and explaind why. I didn't not pull "facts from my head".

Article 1)

Man is robbed. Shoots the people who broke into his home. One died. As they were driving away he fired two shoots at their car which did in fact hit the car

Why? Someone posted that you should not shoot at anyone as they are leaving the crime. No charges filed.[/QUOTE]

If someone enters your home, under the castle doctrine you are justified to use deadly force. This varies from state to state. In this case the guy was robbed in his house, so he was justified in shooting one of the robbers and chasing the other one out of the house. Also, no DA is going to prosecute him for behaving the way he did.

[quote name='GBAstar']Article 2)

Local gun shops are reporting increase in gun sales due to spikes in home invasions

Why? Someone mentioned that we should sit in our homes call the police and not engage criminals. Apparently the public thinks differently[/QUOTE]

There are many studies out there that show gun ownership for home defense purposes is pointless. The trend points to homeowners accidentally killing family members. The law doesn't give two shits what the public thinks. The public not so long ago was against desegregation but thankfully we didn't let them decide.


[quote name='GBAstar']Article 3)

Man chases theif who robs his car and subdues him until police arrive

Why? Someone mentioned we again should let police do their jobs and if we take the law into our own hand we should be arrested. No charges filed.[/QUOTE]

That's okay if no deadly force was used. Again, at DA's discretion to prosecute.

[quote name='GBAstar']Article 4)

State police man shoots elderly woman whom he mistook for a deer

Why? No charges were filed in this case. I just thought it was ironic.[/QUOTE]

He lacked the necessary mens rea for the commission of the felony. Probably filed under hunting accident. Again, probably not prosecuted because the DA thought it was a waste of time.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Don't give up GBAStar, the people on this forum like to gang up to create a united front of what they believe portrayed as fact. And anyone who argues against that "fact" (their opinion) is wrong, corrupted, dumb, or just plain retarded.

It's the way it is around these forums, but it is entertaining to see them huff and puff so often.[/QUOTE]

While I'm far from a Knoell supporter, there is some pretty intense Internet Bullying that goes on in these forums, and it's often done by those who pat themselves on the back for fighting so hard for the downtrodden. It's only as effective as the victim chooses to make it though. Most of us are here because we're opinionated assholes. Pretending one opinionated asshole is much better than another opinionated asshole is foolish. All of us regular-to-semi-regulars have been wrong at some point in our understanding, or poorly communicated our view here.

It is definitely more liberal, so positions that go too far away from that get chastised much harsher than others. Doesn't bug me at a personal level, but I always think frustation is horribly communicated on these forums. If someone doesn't agree with you and you think you've made a good argument, as Knoell expressed, the majority-opinion group tends to say their target is stupid, poorly educated, or a host of other personal attacks. I've tried to back off on that myself because I think it's a pathetic debate tactic that I have been guilty of implementing in the past, but these forums would be much happier if posters agreed to disagree right before the name-calling stage.

I could make a list of the entertaining quirks of different posters, and it's part of why I get a kick out of these forums. Doh is going to bring race into it. Msut is going to bash conservatives. Uncle Bob is going to be called a redneck, I'm going to post my opinions while refusing to read articles that refute them. We all know this, so why pretend like it doesn't exist and play the same game over and over again? Recognize the quirks and don't let yourself get all bent out of shape over people who disagree with you. And because I love this entire website so much, I end my post with a giant fuck
 
[quote name='Msut77']I will stop bashing cons when they regain their sanity.[/QUOTE]

This is a significant statement from you. REgain means that you believe they had sanity at some point in the past.
 
Before my time but there was supposedly a period of time where it was so, of course the cons from yesteryear would be communists today.
 
[quote name='chiwii']This isn't true. Police departments have standards for off-duty conduct, and they will investigate off-duty misconduct. If an off-duty police officer, using his own private weapon, shot a burglar in the back as he ran away with the officer's VCR, I'm certain that the police department would be investigating.[/QUOTE]

For sure. What I was talking about was that when a service weapon is discharged, it automatically gets investigated to make sure it was a legitimate discharge.

Of course they have standards of conduct and will investigate wrong doing by officers off duty. They just aren't going to investigate every time they discharge a personal weapon obviously. Only if there's some kind of major issue--like shooting someone hunting or your example. And you're right that could be investigated for standard of conduct policies, as well as any civilian charges, so I could have been more clear there. Just didn't got there as I was just focused on use of service weapons being subject to investigation any time they are fired.

The point I was making was that ever time an on duty officer discharges their weapon it gets investigated as they have very stringent policies on when weapons can be discharged. If a copy fired a warning shot at someone's feet who was leaving the scene of a burglary, they'd be in deep shit. Police are only to shoot as a last resort, and are to shoot to incapacitate or kill.

So it's ridiculous that people think it's ok for a citizen to fire a warning shot in such a case, when even a cop wouldn't be able to in the majority of state's/departments use of force rules.
 
[quote name='berzirk']While I'm far from a Knoell supporter, there is some pretty intense Internet Bullying that goes on in these forums, and it's often done by those who pat themselves on the back for fighting so hard for the downtrodden. ...
It is definitely more liberal, so positions that go too far away from that get chastised much harsher than others.[/QUOTE]

The champion of deregulation shows his true colors. In theory he wants to deregulate everything, but in reality he doesn't want to even hear from people who point out that his arguements are invalid.

The champion of deregulation whining about free speech. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.
 
[quote name='berzirk']While I'm far from a Knoell supporter, there is some pretty intense Internet Bullying that goes on in these forums, and it's often done by those who pat themselves on the back for fighting so hard for the downtrodden. It's only as effective as the victim chooses to make it though. Most of us are here because we're opinionated assholes. Pretending one opinionated asshole is much better than another opinionated asshole is foolish. All of us regular-to-semi-regulars have been wrong at some point in our understanding, or poorly communicated our view here.[/quote]
Internet bullying? Holy shit, that's hilarious. When ridiculous hypotheticals are justified by shaky logic and the complete lack of understanding of well-defined concepts, do you expect people to just let it fly like it was some sort of gospel truth or profound insight? Sure, people on all sides can be opinionated assholes, but an opinionated asshole with the facts and sound reasoning should trump those that don't.

It is definitely more liberal, so positions that go too far away from that get chastised much harsher than others. Doesn't bug me at a personal level, but I always think frustation is horribly communicated on these forums. If someone doesn't agree with you and you think you've made a good argument, as Knoell expressed, the majority-opinion group tends to say their target is stupid, poorly educated, or a host of other personal attacks. I've tried to back off on that myself because I think it's a pathetic debate tactic that I have been guilty of implementing in the past, but these forums would be much happier if posters agreed to disagree right before the name-calling stage.
Click to expand...
Thinking you've made a good argument is different from actually making a good argument. I've even given that redneck bob credit for making a good argument on occasion; it has absolutely nothing to do with ingroup/outgroup dynamics. Crazy hypotheticals are exactly that.

I could make a list of the entertaining quirks of different posters, and it's part of why I get a kick out of these forums. Doh is going to bring race into it. Msut is going to bash conservatives. Uncle Bob is going to be called a redneck, I'm going to post my opinions while refusing to read articles that refute them. We all know this, so why pretend like it doesn't exist and play the same game over and over again? Recognize the quirks and don't let yourself get all bent out of shape over people who disagree with you. And because I love this entire website so much, I end my post with a giant fuck
Click to expand...
Yeah...people that know stuff are fucking dumbshits.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']

Then when you stated you'd accomplished so much by 16, .[/QUOTE]

wait... was 16 in the distant past or like... today?
 
[quote name='camoor']The champion of deregulation shows his true colors. In theory he wants to deregulate everything, but in reality he doesn't want to even hear from people who point out that his arguements are invalid.

The champion of deregulation whining about free speech. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.[/QUOTE]

Well played. You managed to show everything that is wrong with this forum in one post, while completely and totally misinterpreting the point of mine. Kinda done with you. I don't have enough constructive discussions with you to make it worth sorting through the posts.

Ignore list. Feel free to reciprocate.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Internet bullying? Holy shit, that's hilarious. When ridiculous hypotheticals are justified by shaky logic and the complete lack of understanding of well-defined concepts, do you expect people to just let it fly like it was some sort of gospel truth or profound insight? Sure, people on all sides can be opinionated assholes, but an opinionated asshole with the facts and sound reasoning should trump those that don't.

Thinking you've made a good argument is different from actually making a good argument. I've even given that redneck bob credit for making a good argument on occasion; it has absolutely nothing to do with ingroup/outgroup dynamics. Crazy hypotheticals are exactly that.[/QUOTE]

Shit doh, that post of mine was probably one of the least accusatory things I've written, and I came nowhere near removing myself from the list of offenders. Creating facts about social commentary, is great and all, but unless you're posting nothing but numbers, then there is kinda that process of analysis. We get the numbers, what do we make of them. Unemployment numbers are high. Is it because Obama is a socialist muslim or because the republicans are killing the middle class?

I can say with quite a bit of honesty, I've made good arguments that were unpopular with the majority here, and after wading through the STFU you stupid fool, there was very little content in rebuttals. If you're cool with watching an otherwise civil debate end up at childish name calling once you don't like someone's opinion, whether it be fact based or simply an emotional rant, that's cool. I just don't care enough to get personally insulted if someone doesn't like my opinion, and see the need to remark on perceived intelligence or lifestyle.

What's wrong with posting why you disagree with someone, then letting it go? Do you really think you're going to sway the people that you usually disagree with here? Are Knoell and Bob going to wake up and say, "Goddamn if Doh wasn't actually right about everything. I'm glad I was called an idiot, because now I have a clearer world vision!".

Anyhoo, I was just commenting on an observation Knoell made. Whether you realize it or not, I do think that a usual gang of posters choose to personally attack people rather than just letting it go. Not getting a constructive debate from someone? Then stop friggin arguing with them. What's the goal? To come out of it with a "CAG vs." hardon that you can rub out?

Yeah...people that know stuff are fucking dumbshits
Click to expand...

So everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion or worldview doesn't know stuff? If your goal is to educate the masses so we can get up to your level on issues, it just seems like your presentation needs a lot of work.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Shit doh, that post of mine was probably one of the least accusatory things I've written, and I came nowhere near removing myself from the list of offenders. Creating facts about social commentary, is great and all, but unless you're posting nothing but numbers, then there is kinda that process of analysis. We get the numbers, what do we make of them. Unemployment numbers are high. Is it because Obama is a socialist muslim or because the republicans are killing the middle class? [/QUOTE]
Are you feeling a little persecuted or something? And in case you haven't noticed, the "majority" of this board isn't pushing the Muslim socialist angle. There's a process of analysis and then there are thought experiments. Equating the two is simply fucking dumb as balls.

Do you think it's internet bullying when most of the board gangs up on me when I talk about racial issues? Cause I get tag-teamed all the fucking time. Or is it only bullying when it's against someone that shares a modicum of the same ideology as you do?

I can say with quite a bit of honesty, I've made good arguments that were unpopular with the majority here, and after wading through the STFU you stupid fool, there was very little content in rebuttals. If you're cool with watching an otherwise civil debate end up at childish name calling once you don't like someone's opinion, whether it be fact based or simply an emotional rant, that's cool. I just don't care enough to get personally insulted if someone doesn't like my opinion, and see the need to remark on perceived intelligence or lifestyle.
Click to expand...
If your arguments were so good and air-tight, posters like me and others wouldn't be able to drive mack trucks through them.

What's wrong with posting why you disagree with someone, then letting it go? Do you really think you're going to sway the people that you usually disagree with here? Are Knoell and Bob going to wake up and say, "Goddamn if Doh wasn't actually right about everything. I'm glad I was called an idiot, because now I have a clearer world vision!".
Click to expand...
See, here's the thing: Anything I say will not change someone like bob, knoell, or any other clown shoe wearing con's mind. Something in their lives will have to happen in order for them to think differently and sometimes, they'll just double down like thrustbucket. Most people just don't work in a way in which a good argument will be relevatory.

Anyhoo, I was just commenting on an observation Knoell made. Whether you realize it or not, I do think that a usual gang of posters choose to personally attack people rather than just letting it go. Not getting a constructive debate from someone? Then stop friggin arguing with them. What's the goal? To come out of it with a "CAG vs." hardon that you can rub out?
Click to expand...
Look, I don't know about you, but I'm not as willing to allow uninformed opinions that throw out thousands of years of knowledge and history out the fucking window.

You said that you develop video games for the physically challenged. How would you like it if I, as someone who hasn't written so much as a line of code in BASIC for almost 20 years, told you that BASIC was better than C+ or any other advanced programming languages for what you do? You'd call me a fucking moron that has no idea what they're talking about and be completely justified in doing so.

So everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion or worldview doesn't know stuff? If your goal is to educate the masses so we can get up to your level on issues, it just seems like your presentation needs a lot of work.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to kiss someone's ass if they want to stay ignorant after they've been taught. I'm not their fucking teacher. If someone is ignorant as balls and wants learn some shit, like panzerfaust(he isn't ignorant as balls, just an example beacause he asked a lot of stuff), of course people are going to take the time to educate him. If someone like knoell drops in a thread and starts JAQ-ing off, people are going to tell him to sod off because he has a history of having an agenda, whereas panzerfaust doesn't.
 
As much as you like to believe it, just because you consider yourself an expert on X topic, doesn't mean that everyone's views on X topic are ignorant.

Maybe they are to you because you believe what you believe, but you are not all knowing, and you especially aren't the overriding opinion in X topic because you consider yourself an expert. That is why it is called debating.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Are you feeling a little persecuted or something?[/QUOTE]

No. I think others might, and may care a lot more about it than I do. I just think the way debates are handled here is pretty immature considering the higher average age, and higher average intelligence of most posters when compared to other news/political sites.

Do you think it's internet bullying when most of the board gangs up on me when I talk about racial issues?
Click to expand...

Yes. Especially if it's people not attacking the post, but attacking the poster. I've been guilty of that in the past to you, have tried not to repeat it in recent months, and apologize for doing so in the past.

If your arguments were so good and air-tight, posters like me and others wouldn't be able to drive mack trucks through them.
Click to expand...

I've never made a good argument? Wow, that's quite a generalization. I think you've quoted me in the past and agreed with some things I've said, so what does that say about your judgement!?

Look, I don't know about you, but I'm not as willing to allow uninformed opinions that throw out thousands of years of knowledge and history out the fucking window.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's being a parent, but I've realized there are battles that are worth fighting, and battles where it's better to watch the person march ahead and fall off a cliff.

You said that you develop video games for the physically challenged. How would you like it if I, as someone who hasn't written so much as a line of code in BASIC for almost 20 years, told you that BASIC was better than C+ or any other advanced programming languages for what you do? You'd call me a fucking moron that has no idea what they're talking about and be completely justified in doing so.
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't. I'm actually not smart enough to be a programmer, but if something is working better for you, and you're not harming anybody in the process, why should I care? I still think you're too hung up on insulting, or humiliating the person that makes a dumb statement. I don't get what's in it for you, to do that.

Anyway, I'm being guilty of the same thing I'm bitching about-continually harping on a point so I can feel great about myself, realizing that I'm not going to sway you, so I'll have this be my last post to you about it, and fully allow you the last word.
 
I guess I should've been more clear, but I'm using the royal "you" for the persecution part. Sorry about that. Signals crossing and whatnot.

edit: More like the post at the top of the page.
 
[quote name='Msut77']dd,

nasum used to push the same spiel, until he tried "arguing" with them and they parked the clown car on his foot.[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha...I think you mean they dropped it off the Empire State Building and onto one of his testicles. MSI pushes the same "truth is in the middle so you should be nice to eachother" bullshit too. Haven't seen him in a while though! I happen to find it hilarious when people think that they can reason with ideologues.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I mean, I know there are some fools who will come in and only post crap like "oh, look, it's the con clown crew" and whatever other feces they can pull out of their ass and spread on the walls here, then giggle as they lick their hands clean...[/QUOTE]
...and it never fails.
 
[quote name='Knoell']As much as you like to believe it, just because you consider yourself an expert on X topic, doesn't mean that everyone's views on X topic are ignorant.

Maybe they are to you because you believe what you believe, but you are not all knowing, and you especially aren't the overriding opinion in X topic because you consider yourself an expert. That is why it is called debating.[/QUOTE]
Says the person that doesn't understand the concept of imminent threat.

[quote name='Knoell']And this is why it is called debating, because you all aren't always right despite how much you argue that you are.[/QUOTE]
He got off. Big deal. Just because someone wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean they were "innocent" anymore than someone going to prison is "guilty."

[quote name='UncleBob']...and it never fails.[/QUOTE]
ha.

So berzirk. Is this really the kind of shit you really want to be defending?
 
There's a big difference between having a differing opinion and just being ignorant about factual topics.

The problem with this forum, and people in general, is many people have super strong opinions, and then back them up with no factual information and often argue against facts.
 
dmaul,

It boils down to this, when the usual suspects feel like being honest they just fallback on to "it is my opinion and opinions cant be wrong". Despite the fact that is not how it works, it is their prerogative to believe whatever they fuck they wish. However, to expect to come to a vs. forum and then expect people to treat mealy mouthed bullshit and lies with respect is literally beyond my ken.
 
[quote name='dohdough']

He got off. Big deal. Just because someone wasn't prosecuted doesn't mean they were "innocent" anymore than someone going to prison is "guilty."

[/QUOTE]

And no it isn't about not being prosecuted, it is about a public official who is charged with convicting criminals for violating the law, disagrees that this offense should be charged. Yet I bet you all will still argue that the prosecutor is wrong, and that your opinion is the right one, because you believe it to be. And that is the way it is with this forum, once someone disagrees, they are denied your permission to have a view that conflicts with your own. Because it simply cannot conflict, because your opinion is the "factual" and "correct" one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The law is the law, it's black and white with no in between. I don't agree with the guy getting arrested considering what he did. If it went to trial and I was on the jury I would use the power to nullify it and that would be that!
 
[quote name='dohdough']ha.

So berzirk. Is this really the kind of shit you really want to be defending?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what comments you've been reading, but berzirk hasn't defended the behavior like what I displayed in that post - in fact, he's clearly spoken out against it.

However A) What I posted is actually fairly tame in comparison to much of what gets posted on this board. B) Such a post isn't exactly something I'm particularly proud of - but it tends to ring true quite often.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And no it isn't about not being prosecuted, it is about a public official who is charged with convicting criminals for violating the law, disagrees that this offense should be charged.[/QUOTE]
And who here was calling out for his prosecution? He broke laws. That is a fact and not debatable. The only debate revolves around whether or not he should be prosecuted for felonies and I can't think of anyone in the thread that was screaming that he should be locked up for max time. The fact that the DA didn't want to prosecute says nothing about the acts he commited. Not everyone that commits a crime gets prosecuted and not everyone convicted of a crime is guilty.

Yet I bet you all will still argue that the prosecutor is wrong, and that your opinion is the right one, because you believe it to be. And that is the way it is with this forum, once someone disagrees, they are denied your permission to have a view that conflicts with your own. Because it simply cannot conflict, because your opinion is the "factual" and "correct" one.
Click to expand...
You know what's even funnier? The fact that you want someone to jerk you off for winning an argument that no one is making.

People can have differing opinions on lots of things and be absolutely correct for themselves. Some people think chocolate ice cream is the best and some people think vanilla is. Those are valid opinions of equal weight, but are not objective facts. You're arguing that neapolitain ice cream is a flavor.

[quote name='skiizim']The law is the law, it's black and white with no in between. I don't agree with the guy getting arrested considering what he did. If it went to trial and I was on the jury I would use the power to nullify it and that would be that![/QUOTE]
If the law is the law, there wouldn't be need for a justice system.

[quote name='UncleBob']I don't know what comments you've been reading, but berzirk hasn't defended the behavior like what I displayed in that post - in fact, he's clearly spoken out against it.

However A) What I posted is actually fairly tame in comparison to much of what gets posted on this board. B) Such a post isn't exactly something I'm particularly proud of - but it tends to ring true quite often.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to massive levels of dissonance, intellectual dishonesty, and false analogies, but feel free to play the victim since you get off on it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I was referring to massive levels of dissonance, intellectual dishonesty, and false analogies, but feel free to play the victim since you get off on it.[/QUOTE]

...says the guy who explains virtually everything bad in his life as some how related to racism...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']...says the guy who explains virtually everything bad in his life as some how related to racism...[/QUOTE]
Hahahaa...I'm so butt-hurt at some poor attempt at being insulted by someone that couldn't reason himself out of a paper bag complete with instructions. How about you skip your little dance of throwing shit on a wall to see what sticks and jump straight to "I know you are, but what am I?" or the mimicry game. Those school-yard oldies seem to be staples of yours considering your difficulties with said paper bag. It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.
 
[quote name='skiizim']The law is the law, it's black and white with no in between. I don't agree with the guy getting arrested considering what he did. If it went to trial and I was on the jury I would use the power to nullify it and that would be that![/QUOTE]

So then the law isn't the law...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ouch. Looks like I hit a nerve there. Sorry, DD.[/QUOTE]
Did you come up with that on your own? How cute.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hahahaa...I'm so butt-hurt at some poor attempt at being insulted by someone that couldn't reason himself out of a paper bag complete with instructions. How about you skip your little dance of throwing shit on a wall to see what sticks and jump straight to "I know you are, but what am I?" or the mimicry game. Those school-yard oldies seem to be staples of yours considering your difficulties with said paper bag. It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.[/QUOTE]

Oh no it's funny all right.

This will be an odd post, but it's a revelation I had recently.

It came from a plot summary of hostel

Paxton passes a booth with an older guy inside with mutton chops, who tells Paxton that for him, the exhibit is free. Natalya and Paxton walk further into the factory, which is a complete dump of a place, obviously hasn't been used for anything productive since before the Berlin Wall fell. At this point I lost sympathy for Paxton, who is obviously too stupid to see he's being set up, which he obviously is. It's like the guy DeNiro fires in /Casino/- I just didn't feel sorry for him anymore.
Click to expand...

http://themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/hostel.html

When people are too stupid, stop caring. I love it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And who here was calling out for his prosecution? He broke laws. That is a fact and not debatable. The only debate revolves around whether or not he should be prosecuted for felonies and I can't think of anyone in the thread that was screaming that he should be locked up for max time. The fact that the DA didn't want to prosecute says nothing about the acts he commited. Not everyone that commits a crime gets prosecuted and not everyone convicted of a crime is guilty.


You know what's even funnier? The fact that you want someone to jerk you off for winning an argument that no one is making.

People can have differing opinions on lots of things and be absolutely correct for themselves. Some people think chocolate ice cream is the best and some people think vanilla is. Those are valid opinions of equal weight, but are not objective facts. You're arguing that neapolitain ice cream is a flavor.


[/QUOTE]

I do seem to remember people saying he should be charged with something like a misdemeanor. Regardless so if it is black and white that he broke a law, then he should be charged right?

I mean it was just so stupid for people in this thread to say he shouldn't be charged, because it is so clear and black and white that he broke the law, that you would have to be an idiot to think he should get off scot-free. What was that again? Imminent threat? /end sarcasm in case you didnt get that.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Hahahaa...I'm so butt-hurt at some poor attempt at being insulted by someone that couldn't reason himself out of a paper bag complete with instructions. How about you skip your little dance of throwing shit on a wall to see what sticks and jump straight to "I know you are, but what am I?" or the mimicry game. Those school-yard oldies seem to be staples of yours considering your difficulties with said paper bag. It'd be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't a poor attempt, I didn't even notice the irony in what you labeled UB until he pointed it out.

Funny Stuff.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I do seem to remember people saying he should be charged with something like a misdemeanor. Regardless so if it is black and white that he broke a law, then he should be charged right?

I mean it was just so stupid for people in this thread to say he shouldn't be charged, because it is so clear and black and white that he broke the law, that you would have to be an idiot to think he should get off scot-free. What was that again? Imminent threat? /end sarcasm in case you didnt get that.[/QUOTE]

It's all up to the DA, if they want to let the case go to trial or give him some kind of plea. I've been on a few jury cases where the circumstances are not the same but what was done and the law broken were completely stupid. Like I said earlier, if I was on the jury I wouldn't pass a guilty verdict.

The judicial system has become so backwards that criminals can sue you for hurting themselves while breaking into your home, honestly wtf?

I'm glad the guy did what he did and I hope all charges get dropped. People these days seem to turn a blind eye when a crime happens now.
 
The law is black and white. Enforcement of laws is not as police and prosecutors have a ton of discretion in deciding whether to make an arrest or not, and whether to file charges (and what charges to file) respectively.

In this case, a law was broken and an arrest should be made in my case IMO. But the prosecutor should use their discretion and file no more than misdemeanor charges as it's clearly not a case where it's worth giving someone a felony record. But it should be processed to send the clear message that citizens can't be out firing warning shots at intruders on other's property when there's no clear imminent danger.
 
I realize that it is up to the DA, and that law is black and white, I have known this all along. I am pretty sure we were ALWAYS talking about whether or not this man should be charged. When I said that he shouldn't be charged, and that the neighbors yard is the only thing that gives me pause, most of you insulted my intelligence and told me I don't know what imminent threat is. Not only that but you seem to still be trying to push the fact that since this one guy that shot the ground won't be charged, the rest of the country is going to start playing Batman.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I realize that it is up to the DA, and that law is black and white, I have known this all along. I am pretty sure we were ALWAYS talking about whether or not this man should be charged. When I said that he shouldn't be charged, and that the neighbors yard is the only thing that gives me pause, most of you insulted my intelligence and told me I don't know what imminent threat is. Not only that but you seem to still be trying to push the fact that since this one guy that shot the ground won't be charged, the rest of the country is going to start playing Batman.[/QUOTE]

You should really re-read your posts because you were arguing that imminent threat couldn't be determined until after the fact, which would actually mean that it was not an imminent threat. Then you jumped to "he wasn't prosecuted so that means he was in the right and so am I!" Now, you're jumping to "all I said was that he shouldn't be charged!!!" Q_Q which is also false.

If you knew what imminent threat was, you wouldn't have made the first argument. If you thought the law wasn't black and white, you wouldn't have made the second argument. Put those two together and you should see why the third argument is on shakey ground.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You should really re-read your posts because you were arguing that imminent threat couldn't be determined until after the fact, which would actually mean that it was not an imminent threat..[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Outside of castle doctrine on your own property in some states, the standard if imminent danger is such that you have to clearly be in danger to use lethal force. Not just be in an unknown situation where there could be threat. You have to verify the danger before shooting. Again other than on your own property in some state's castle laws. But some states still require some standard of imminent threat even on your own property--they aren't all like Texas where you can shoot damn near anyone who's on your property.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You should really re-read your posts because you were arguing that imminent threat couldn't be determined until after the fact, which would actually mean that it was not an imminent threat. Then you jumped to "he wasn't prosecuted so that means he was in the right and so am I!" Now, you're jumping to "all I said was that he shouldn't be charged!!!" Q_Q which is also false.

If you knew what imminent threat was, you wouldn't have made the first argument. If you thought the law wasn't black and white, you wouldn't have made the second argument. Put those two together and you should see why the third argument is on shakey ground.[/QUOTE]

Two of those arguments are right, and the third one you are correct, is false. Because I never said "all I have said is that he shouldn't be charged". I have said plenty more than that.

First off, Imminent threat of which you completely ignore the victims remarks that he "was worried the guy was going to come after him". You also get my argument confused somehow about imminent threat. You guys were arguing that the victim was not being threatened so therefore he did not have authority to use, or intend to use deadly force. The way you guys portray this is that if someone walks out of your house, you are not allowed to stop them with a weapon as long as they aren't approaching you and attempting to flee. (before you jump on it, remember I said the neighbors house is what gives me pause, which I think must be determined by a case by case scenario, not a blanket rule that pretty much leaves everyone too scared to help their neighbor.)

Let's take the clearness out of that situation now, so you bump into them as they are leaving your house, and you pull your gun on them. Were you imminently threatened or was he attempting to flee? Do you know if they will be aggresive upon being caught, or run? Pretty cloudy in person, but easy enough for an armchair commentator like you to decipher when you have all the facts, such as the criminal just had a vcr.

But overall I guess this was an injustice to the burglar then huh? I mean his life was threatened with deadly force and noone is prosecuting it. I would think that you guys would be all over defending this criminals right to live as he didn't threaten anybody right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top