SmarterthanYou
rebel
so we're back to 'reasonableness' again. would a reasonable person believe that someone who is drunk and violently attacked their SO, is also a danger to two kids.
‘Trayvon Martin’ gun range targets sold out in two days
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
What is more dangerous... a drunk or a person firing a gun into a room with two kids in it?
Both
Did the pinheads complain about this target...???
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/04/14/peace-loving-ny-liberals
http://brain-terminal.com/posts/2005/04/14/peace-loving-ny-liberals
SmarterthanYou
rebel
too many variables. how violent is the drunk and who is the shooter?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And I understand this; but I don't think the defense offered up anything that suggested he was a danger to the children; aside from what we may think and/or feel.
From what I'[ve seen, he was definetly a danger to the women he dated; but not the kids.
The key word here is "imminant", not supposed or maybe or likelyhood.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
In this particular case; because that is what we're talking about, show me any presented evidence that suggests that he was a danger to the children.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Did the boneheads complain about this one?
[h=1]Church Carnival Game: Shoot Obama, Get a Prize![/h]http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/08/church-carnival-game-shoot-obama-get-a-prize.html
Did the boneheads complain about this one?
[h=1]Church Carnival Game: Shoot Obama, Get a Prize![/h]http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/08/church-carnival-game-shoot-obama-get-a-prize.html
A church!!! Good grief, that is so wrong on so many levels.
Disillusioned
New member
My argument against that is that if she was truly trying the "mother bear" defense, she wouldn't have left in the first place, she would have been in the doorway to her kid's bedroom with any weapon she could find, and not let him through no matter what.
I have to agree with USFreedom, her leaving and returning with a gun(and not the police) seals it for me.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yep...
1) Church promoting the use of guns on other people
2) Church promoting the use of gun on the President
3) Church promoting the use of gun on a black man
4) Church promoting the image of Obama as an alien (see birthers)
Only if you consider her to be a mindless animal. In order to truly protect your children and effective defense must be brought to bear, standing around just waiting to be beat up so that he can proceed to your children is the mindless action of an animal, not one of a human. If you know it will not be effective, then you return with more effective means to protect your children. Dying or being crippled is not an effective option, even you can understand that.
Did she call the police after leaving? Did she return to protect her children to find that they were in danger?
Apparently the jury didn't believe she did, but I cannot fault her logic. I would return, do what is necessary, then face whatever consequences I may have to face.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
to me, being drunk and already assaulting one person is evidence.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I have to completely disagree. finding the best weapon possible is the thing to consider. too many of you anti gunners don't consider guns as the best weapon for defense, that just makes you plain wrong.
Disillusioned
New member
The point is either she's rational or irrational. If she's rationally considering her kids in danger and herself as well, why did she leave them in the first place? Why not take them with her? Why not get help from neighbors or police when she leaves? And she's irrationally afraid for her safety, why did she come back with a gun? She already had her kids in danger when she decided that they were on their own. You can't argue irrationality as a reason to leave them and then cite rationality as a reason to return with a gun. She get's one defense or the other.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
If you think you are in danger, how is leaving to get a weapon "irrational"? It's not.
Also, at different periods during an emergency the same person can act both irrationally and rationally. Stop being silly.
Disillusioned
New member
the irony here STY is that I'm not an anti-gunner. I have no issue with people owning guns and will probably acquire one or two down the road. However I consider the "best" defense to be being somewhere else. It's amazing how often guns will not save your life and often raise the stakes in a confrontation. They may be a deterrent but how many times has owning a gun saved a gangster from getting shot? Or a cop?
While not bad in themselves they are hardly the holy grail that hardcore enthusiasts think they are.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if there were another weapon 'better' for self defense, then it would already have been employed as primary equipment for the cops. As it stands, a gun IS the best weapon for self defense. Being somewhere else isn't a defense. It's an option that one would get to choose before having to use self defense. try not mixing the two up.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Again:
Florida's law says "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat" if "he or she reasonably believes" it is necessary to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm" or "the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In 1999, furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a woman attacked by her husband in the home they share has no duty to flee.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/0...ing-her-ground
Florida's law says "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat" if "he or she reasonably believes" it is necessary to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm" or "the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In 1999, furthermore, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a woman attacked by her husband in the home they share has no duty to flee.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/0...ing-her-ground