Another coward magically becomes a tough guy when holding a gun

Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
So you guys don't have the innocent until proven guilty thing? Genuine question by the way, because here the STATE has to prove he wasn't in danger at all. The defendant has nothing to prove.
Click to expand...

The law over here is self defence has to be proportionate, so you can't just go killing people just because they are pissing on your property. If somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night then that's different. It is totally reasonable to invoke the heat of the moment defence. Of course, as you know it is a lot harder to get a gun over here anyway unless you are a farmer or live in the country.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The law over here is self defence has to be proportionate, so you can't just go killing people just because they are pissing on your property. If somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night then that's different. It is totally reasonable to invoke the heat of the moment defence. Of course, as you know it is a lot harder to get a gun over here anyway unless you are a farmer or live in the country.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking if such things are predicated on the idea of innocent until proven guilty or not.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... please explain how he is 100% responsible? Because we already know that:

1) The rafters were trespassing
2) There were signs saying no trespassing
3) They were asked to leave and didn't
4) Instead of leaving one of the drunks picked up rocks and taunted the property owner (real fucking smart)
5) The other drunk decided to 'calm down' the guy with the gun rather than his drunk buddy with the rocks
6) The guy who died did something that caused the gun owner to 'jerk back' (words of the deceased's wife)... those are typically words associated with a reaction to an aggressor.

So with all of that... how is the gun owner 100% responsible?

Please also detail how it is that you are 100% positive given you were not there.
Click to expand...

Nothing sounds like his life was in imminent danger, he's going to get locked up for a long time. The jury will make right the Zimmerman mistake with this clown.

I'm 100% positive given that i'm right 99.9% of the time and this isn't the "once every decade" time that i'm wrong..................bank on it.
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
Ok, so then the defendant doesn't have to prove he was in any danger right?
Click to expand...

Sure he does or else anybody can take care of any problem they have with a gun and say it was self defense. The defense will have to show in court his life was in imminent danger which any moron can see that it wasn't. The jerk back that the wife is talking about is for sure him ducking a punch, did that give him the right to cap someone? I'm pretty sure the court will say no especially since the victim was unarmed.
 
OCA said:
Sure he does or else anybody can take care of any problem they have with a gun and say it was self defense. The defense will have to show in court his life was in imminent danger which any moron can see that it wasn't. The jerk back that the wife is talking about is for sure him ducking a punch, did that give him the right to cap someone? I'm pretty sure the court will say no especially since the victim was unarmed.
Click to expand...


You can see into the future!

Did you see this story?


Florida man cites ‘Bush doctrine’ after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout

Lawyers for a Florida man this week cited President George W. Bush’s pre-emptive war in Iraq and the “Bush Doctrine” as a defense after their client killed two neighbors and attempted to kill a third on Labor Day.

Florida Today reported on Wednesday that attorney’s for William T. Woodward had filed a motion asking for charges against him to be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which says that gun owners do not have a duty to retreat in the face of an “imminent” threat.

According to officials in Titusville, Woodward had snuck up on his neighbors while they were having a Labor Day barbecue. Police responding to the scene found that Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy had all been shot.

Hembree and Picior were later pronounced dead. Blake survived, even though he had been hit 11 times.

In their motion, Woodward’s attorneys claimed that the victims had called him names and threatened to “get him.”

The motion referenced Enoch V. State, which suggests that an “imminent” threat can include something that is likely to occur at sometime in the future.

“I think legally that term has sort of been evolving especially given changes of our government’s definition of ‘imminent,’” attorney Robert Berry, who is representing Woodward, told Florida Today. “It’s become more expansive than someone putting a gun right to your head. It’s things that could become, you know, an immediate threat.”

The court document filed by the defense also cited “The Bush Doctrine,” a foreign policy principle used by President George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. “The Bush Doctrine” embraces “preventive” or pre-emptive war.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You can see into the future!

Did you see this story?


Florida man cites ‘Bush doctrine’ after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout

Lawyers for a Florida man this week cited President George W. Bush’s pre-emptive war in Iraq and the “Bush Doctrine” as a defense after their client killed two neighbors and attempted to kill a third on Labor Day.

Florida Today reported on Wednesday that attorney’s for William T. Woodward had filed a motion asking for charges against him to be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which says that gun owners do not have a duty to retreat in the face of an “imminent” threat.

According to officials in Titusville, Woodward had snuck up on his neighbors while they were having a Labor Day barbecue. Police responding to the scene found that Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy had all been shot.

Hembree and Picior were later pronounced dead. Blake survived, even though he had been hit 11 times.

In their motion, Woodward’s attorneys claimed that the victims had called him names and threatened to “get him.”

The motion referenced Enoch V. State, which suggests that an “imminent” threat can include something that is likely to occur at sometime in the future.

“I think legally that term has sort of been evolving especially given changes of our government’s definition of ‘imminent,’” attorney Robert Berry, who is representing Woodward, told Florida Today. “It’s become more expansive than someone putting a gun right to your head. It’s things that could become, you know, an immediate threat.”

The court document filed by the defense also cited “The Bush Doctrine,” a foreign policy principle used by President George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. “The Bush Doctrine” embraces “preventive” or pre-emptive war.
Click to expand...

LMFAO! "They called him names and threatened to get him"..........
 
OCA said:
LMFAO! "They called him names and threatened to get him"..........
Click to expand...

Now now now...I am sure SF and some of the other gun nuts will be here shortly armed with some minor detail they can use to demonize the dead and to defend this nutbar.
 
tekkychick said:
If that's all it took to be able to kill someone and get away with it, half the population of my county would be dead....
Click to expand...

My obese neighbor keeps trimming his branches and discards them so they hang into my yard so when I mow I have to stop and move them....................i'm gonna slip up on him and put 2 .38's right behind the ear....................i'm justified! lol
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Now now now...I am sure SF and some of the other gun nuts will be here shortly armed with some minor detail they can use to demonize the dead and to defend this nutbar.
Click to expand...


Get the fuck off the strawman crap....nobody is defending him...
every killer has an excuse, just like this one.

He is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder..and your posts are just so much bullshit...
if he gets off, they you can bitch....and a matter of fact, we'll all bitch.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
There is a world of difference between somebody climbing over a fence and pissing on your lawn or on your front doorstep and some guys in canoes stopping to have a piss in the woods. In England the owner would be charged with murder pure and simple unless it could be proved that he was in mortal danger.
Click to expand...

But the also charge them with a crime, if someone breaks into their home, they resist, and the criminal becomes injured. :palm:
 
NOVA said:
Get the fuck off the strawman crap....nobody is defending him...
every killer has an excuse, just like this one.

He is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder..and your posts are just so much bullshit...
if he gets off, they you can bitch....and a matter of fact, we'll all bitch.
Click to expand...


Well so far, this is the first gun nut accused of murder the gun nuts on this board haven't rushed to defend.

The guy who murdered someone for urinating on his land has had this board's gun nuts defending his actions for 10+ pages now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top