State's Rights

[Cancel 2016.11]

NO. IT. DOESN'T. It does not provide you the unlimited ability to 'defend yourself' in any situation. It clearly spells out when and where one may use deadly force. VERY CLEARLY.

Jonathan Turley has written a lot on this, and he disagrees with you ( you know, along with many other highly qualified "idiots) Here is one link:

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/16/pennsylvania-passes-new-castle-doctrine-law/

But he has quite a few of them. He is a legal scholar, however I will concede that he never writes in caps, so you and others may find his credibility lacking.

I'm off to happy hour, you boys have fun!

 

[Bonestorm]

The law permits the use of deadly force in response to imminent "unlawful force," which basically means you can shoot someone if you think they are going to touch you without your permission. If that's too tough to grasp, this South Park episode may shed some light on the trouble with this law, except that instead of cartoon animals being shot for pretend, a 17 year old kid was shot for real:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

A 28 yo 200 pound man stalked and murdered a 140 pound 17yo black youth

And, pardon me for asking, but what does the size/age of these two men have to do with anything?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Jonathan Turley has written a lot on this, and he disagrees with you ( you know, along with many other highly qualified "idiots) Here is one link:

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/16/pennsylvania-passes-new-castle-doctrine-law/

But he has quite a few of them. He is a legal scholar, however I will concede that he never writes in caps, so you and others may find his credibility lacking.

I'm off to happy hour, you boys have fun!

Stopped reading at the title. We're not talking about the PA law.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Stopped reading at the title. We're not talking about the PA law.

You stop reading a lot don't you? IN fact that's your answer for anything you don't like?

Here

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/21/florida-shooting-forces-debate-over-the-stand-your-ground-law/

I am sure you can find another reason to "stop reading'

Goodnight.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

And, pardon me for asking, but what does the size/age of these two men have to do with anything?

See, now this I should have stopped reading at "And,".

 

[Bonestorm]

And, pardon me for asking, but what does the size/age of these two men have to do with anything?

Well, it doesn't really matter all that much because of the law, but absent the law the use deadly force would not be reasonable in the face of less than lethal force and the idea that an armed 200 pound 28 year old man would fear for his life or imminent bodily harm when confronted by a 140 pound 17 year old armed with Arizona Iced Tea and some Skittles is, well, specious.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You stop reading a lot don't you? IN fact that's your answer for anything you don't like?

Here

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/21/florida-shooting-forces-debate-over-the-stand-your-ground-law/

I am sure you can find another reason to "stop reading'

Goodnight.

Well, I suppose I can say I at least made the effort to read it. The same however, cannot be said of you, as you've continually refused to read the actual law, and point out any flaw in it yourself.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, I suppose I can say I at least made the effort to read it. The same however, cannot be said of you, as you've continually refused to read the actual law, and point out any flaw in it yourself.

I question whether what you posted is the actual law. If it is, it's terrible. If the actual law is what Turley posted, it's better but still terrible.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Well, it doesn't really matter all that much because of the law, but absent the law the use deadly force would not be reasonable in the face of less than lethal force and the idea that an armed 200 pound 28 year old man would fear for his life or imminent bodily harm when confronted by a 140 pound 17 year old armed with Arizona Iced Tea and some Skittles is, well, specious.

Barring that fact that one was armed and one was not (in the sense that I am arguing it is irrelevant), what again do the age and/or size of the men matter? Is it your contention that a smaller man is physically incapable of doing harm to a larger man? Is it your contention Darla? Or are you using preconceived notions and stereotypes in an attempt to paint an incorrect image?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I question whether what you posted is the actual law. If it is, it's terrible. If the actual law is what Turley posted, it's better but still terrible.

Please, do explain.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The law permits the use of deadly force in response to imminent "unlawful force," which basically means you can shoot someone if you think they are going to touch you without your permission. If that's too tough to grasp, this South Park episode may shed some light on the trouble with this law, except that instead of cartoon animals being shot for pretend, a 17 year old kid was shot for real:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

Please link us to the section of the law that allows deadly force to be used if someone touches you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The ambiguity very simply arises when the law states you do not have to take reasonable measures before murdering someone if you "believe" you are in danger. That is ripe for both judicial prosecutorial misuse.

the simple fact that only NOW are you complaining about prosecutorial misuse is laughable. there should be no reason for anyone to retreat from danger if they are in a place that they have every right to be.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Here is the law again.

http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin...te/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1&

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

And the law again;
http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin...te/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1&

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

3rd time
http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin...te/bills/billtext/html&Tab=session&Submenu=1&

 

[Onceler]

Please link us to the section of the law that allows deadly force to be used if someone touches you.

What's the difference? If there are no witnesses or 911 calls, it's your word against....whose?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What's the difference? If there are no witnesses or 911 calls, it's your word against....whose?

and that would matter how if the law didn't exist in the first place?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Damn you... the above kind of blows up the argument that anyone can just go out and kill himself a n****r as Darla has proclaimed over and over again.

But, that's because according to her; white men can never understand anything, except how to be a white man.

I think that white male libertarians are incapable of seeing that law through the eyes of someone who isn't a white male. To pretend that our justice system is color-blind is flat out retarded. This law is known among the black community as the "shoot a n*gger and walk" law for a reason.

But her being a self proclaimed white femi-nazi is able to through the eyes of white women, white men, black women, black men, asian women, asian men, native american women, native american men, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

You stop reading a lot don't you? IN fact that's your answer for anything you don't like?

Here

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/21/florida-shooting-forces-debate-over-the-stand-your-ground-law/

I am sure you can find another reason to "stop reading'

Goodnight.

Having read the article, all that he states is that he believes the PA law is ambiguous, yet in no instance does he point out how or where the ambiguity is to be found.