Please God ... make him stop ... please make him stop ... :icon_cryi he's killing me .... he's eating my brain .... please .... I'm begging you... please ... please :icon_cryi
Yeah, the law can be tough on the brain sometimes........
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Gun laws question
- Thread starter villanelle
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, the law can be tough on the brain sometimes........
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
Flash, I just want to point out that for once, it is you making the legal arguments.
Take it all, baby, take it all.
Huh? You pre-plan every scenario?
Flash, I just want to point out that for once, it is you making the legal arguments.
Take it all, baby, take it all.
I try to make my legal arguments short and simple though, not lengthy court briefs. :icon_wink
You just don't get it do you? Yes, it is right to shoot him in the back if he has demonstrated willful disregard for the sanctity or security of anothers life. He is a threat to someone else. Wait, maybe you think that it was just his first time and he will never do it again.
Please don't throw another case law at me, we have crossed into right or wrong, not what is legal.
Steve
You are damn right that I have preplanned what to do when someone who has just harmed my family is trying to get away. Why haven't you?
Got a lawyer on retainer? You might need them too.
I'll get a lawyer when I need one and I will shoot a bad guy when I need to.
There is no right or wrong, just my own behind. Your attitude stinks like the liberal gangrene eating away at our country. Teddy Roosevelt would be proud.
It's like I tell my students about fighting: you aren't allowed to fight and will get suspended if you do, but if you get in trouble for defending someone who can't defend themselves, I will stand by you in front of admin. On the flip side, if I hear about them sitting out a fight when they could have defended the weak or innocent, they will answer to me.
In my humble opinion we will all answer for what we have or have not done. At that point a lawyer won't help you.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I remember the 80s in MA.. Taxes to the moon, friends becoming homeless, us being on the verge of it.
"Taxachusetts" was about the right name. A couple "R-Lite" gov's have made the tax situation a bit better, but too many "Liberal Feel-Good" programs have wiped out most of the gains.
/endrandofformerMasshole.
"Taxachusetts" was about the right name. A couple "R-Lite" gov's have made the tax situation a bit better, but too many "Liberal Feel-Good" programs have wiped out most of the gains.
/endrandofformerMasshole.
No, I do get it. There is a reason we have a justice system instead of just guns and 'frontier justice'. Even thought it ain't perfect, it works better than any other system of justice. You can't just appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner, it is not right and it is against the law. I am not saying in every case that deadly force is not justified, but if a 'suspect' is not an imminent threat to your or someone else, how is it 'right'? Just to satisfy your own sense of justice? You want that kind of justice? Go to the tribal areas of Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia.
What happens if you shoot the wrong guy, a neighbor jogging past on his nightly run? Don't think it won't happen, how many times have the cops shot someone who they thought was a suspect and it turns out he wasn't? In the dark, adrenaline pumping, a quickly fading target.......take that chance and hit the wrong target, you make a bad situation worse.
This ain't a perfect world, and there are definitely times where a citizen is justified in protecting themselves and others. But we have a Constitution and other laws in to bring reason, fairness and justice (among many other things) to the citizens of this country. They are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but they work better than any other system we have. By taking the law into your own hands by shooting a fleeing suspect who is not a threat to you or anyone else, I think you are violating those principles by which our laws are founded.
http://carryconcealed.net/legal/florida-ccw-state-laws.php
State by state guide. As for the much earlier comments about not looking on message boards for answers.....Unfortunately the states do not make this information overly attainable. When it is found, it is usually covered in some bulls.. legal mumbo jumbo. The two easiest rules 1) shoot twice (dead men dont sue) 2)Make sure somebody sees you warn him.
State by state guide. As for the much earlier comments about not looking on message boards for answers.....Unfortunately the states do not make this information overly attainable. When it is found, it is usually covered in some bulls.. legal mumbo jumbo. The two easiest rules 1) shoot twice (dead men dont sue) 2)Make sure somebody sees you warn him.
Well, Hell! Maybe we should just crawl into a hole and be scared about doing the wrong thing for our whole lives.
I clearly stated that I was operating on the reasonable man standard so stop obfuscating with what-if, red hering scenarios.
Good talk anyhow, lot's of stuff to chew on.
Let me summarize and move on to indoctinating the youth of Colorado Springs in right wing conspiracy propaganda.
- You think it's wrong to shoot a fleing suspsect at any time. I think it is warranted in the case of a violent felon based on the assumption that he is a clear and present danger to my fellow citizens.
- Know the deadly force laws in your state.
- Think about what you are going to do befor it happens. Sounds like flying a bit.
Steve
Every time there is a discussion on this subject it amazes me how things get twisted around. The original scenario is that a husband caught a man having sex with his wife. The wife cried "rape" and the husband shot the man as he was trying to flee. The husband wasn't charged because he honestly believed that his wife was being raped. The wife was charged because of her false claim of rape led to the man's death. I happen to agree with the husband. He witnessed what he thought was a crime and shot a rapist. He didn't just shoot some guy who was running away, he shot the person that he saw comitting the crime. A law enforcement officer has an obligation to try to apprehend, an ordinary citizen has no such obligation. As far as the man posing no threat to the husband, if he was a rapist he would pose a threat to others and in my opinion, the husband was justified in shooting him.
The main problems with self-defence and castle doctrine laws is that they are written with alot of room for interpretation. The person with the weapon has to make a split-second descision often under intense pressure, while the police and prosecutors have plenty of time to second guess them. The descision to prosecute is often determined by the political views of the prosecutor instead of the intention of the law. It is of little comfort to know that you did the right thing when you are in jail because someone determined that what you did wasn't legal.
The main problems with self-defence and castle doctrine laws is that they are written with alot of room for interpretation. The person with the weapon has to make a split-second descision often under intense pressure, while the police and prosecutors have plenty of time to second guess them. The descision to prosecute is often determined by the political views of the prosecutor instead of the intention of the law. It is of little comfort to know that you did the right thing when you are in jail because someone determined that what you did wasn't legal.
- Status