007
New member
I bet the vile evince hasn't made a post free from abuse in weeks!!
Another SYG Killing
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
I am pretty sure you can do better than that.
They are not legally obligated but their job is dependent on it.
007
New member
I bet the vile evince hasn't made a post free from abuse in weeks!!
tekkychick
New member
I thought the article said he was being charged with that, but I admit I don't feel like going to look. Sorry. Been a Monday, and it's still going.
007
New member
Can you take a shower!!
I know fat people stink but you smell like a walking yeast infection!!
Too fat to shower?
Lay off the cheesy fries!
You are wrong. Period.
No one has any right to shoot bystanders. Police are held to different standards of liability and negligence in such a matter due to the nature of their jobs.
I am not obligated to answer questions from nuts who refuse to employ reasonable standards or definitions.
However, "illegal" is the key and "can" is ambiguous. You CAN always shoot them. Illegal does not mean the same thing as mistakenly or even negligently.
007
New member
They should not be however.
Giving a cop a medal for murdering a lawful citizen because the cop went to the wrong address is not a good thing.
Why are cops held to a different standard?
The innocents murdered by a cop are just as dead!
007
New member
A nut.
One who is not a far left Obamacult statist.
Is disagreeing with you the sign of insanity you ever to?
Is that not classic violent intolerance?
the fake libertarian baxter once again does not believe in the right for one to defend their own body and their safety.
The fake libertarian baxter would have everyone prostrate themselves in the face of someone trying to attack their person.
The fake libertarian baxter would have everyone prostrate themselves in the face of someone trying to attack their person.
This teenager is another wonderful hero, who put down a violent assaulter.
I am very disappointed at all the racists in this thread that want to put this young african american boy in jail.
I am very disappointed at all the racists in this thread that want to put this young african american boy in jail.
Nowhere have I claimed a person does not have the right to defend themselves.
that is in essence what you claim. You always try to walk this line of not explicitly saying something, but the end result is the same. When someone is getting out of their car armed with a weapon meant to cause harm on you, what is one to do? Should one only use their fists and probably get their ass handed to them? Should they respect the violent assaulters life when the violent assaulter is trying to visit harm upon them?
Should they run away? Because that is not defending oneself. What is your answer baxter? What do you say to those that may not be capable of physically fighting? Do you believe that if violent harm is coming to a person, that they have the right to their body and to protect it even with deadly force? Because if you DO believe that, you should have no issue with stand your ground.
Bullshit. I posted this article without comment. I am not trying to walk any line that isn't already blurred. You are using propaganda and pretending that these issues are always black and white or separated by a bright red line, which is just immature, naive and foolish.
I am concerned that SYG will lead to murderers escaping justice while claiming self defense for the lightest of provocations. I have stated that the law needs to be clearer on the initial aggressor exception to an SYG or standard self defense.
In this case it does appear that he could have escaped unharmed but I don't have enough information. The right of self defense is based on ones right to life and you do no service to it by pretending it is just fine to allow a life to be taken for any imagined threat.
SYG is a poorly thought out law and it needs to be reformed or repealed. There were no cases of gross miscarriages of justice against those defending themselves or of any one being denied the right to defend themselves. It's just an example of stupid and poorly informed gunnuts and legislators responding to the mobs hysteria rather than trusting the more rational common law, which has served us very well for over a thousand years.
Your OP reads very clearly as "another stand your ground (eye roll)" at no point in your op or any of the other times you have talked about SYG have you even come close to agreeing with it in whole or in part. Again, you may think you are fooling others, but you are not fooling me. Quit being a coward and speak definitively about your positions rather than trying to hide behind your prose.
would you consider someone getting out of their car with a weapon to harm you an "imagined threat?" Why would this specific case bother you? Because clearly you were not posting this thread endorsing the actions of the one who fired the gun. You are clearly against his actions even though they were the actions of self defense (in this specific circumstance), which you falsely claim to support.
You are obviously delusional. Lay off the weed for awhile.
Nothing in the OP was written by me and it merely reports on the incident without giving an opinion. Now the reporting of facts is a sign of bias?
I am not hiding behind anything. I do not agree with SYG! That does not mean I don't support self defense. You are simply becoming an all or nothing, knee jerk, mouth breathing moron. You refuse to even acknowledge any troubling nuances and ignore the facts that don't fit with your pretense of a cut and dry issue/case.
Again, there was no need for the law. We had a right to self defense in Florida. One that was already pretty hard for prosecutors to overcome. The people who clamored for the law are the type who blindly accept spam as fact.
See there you go. You refuse to acknowledge any doubts and make a pretense of certainty. I don't and you claim I am hiding, walking a line or some other half baked nonsense.
It bothers me, because someone is dead.
I don't know whether the boy's actions were legitimate self defense or not. That's not at all clear. There are plenty of questions I would have that you don't even bother with because you don't care to employ rational thought in this case.
The one detail that I would like answered is the distance when he shot him. Also, the article says that Pierson (the shooter) confronted the victim instead of running. I would like to know more details about what that means. Did he move towards the victim? Did he exchange verbal threats?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
it's a shame you can't do better than that. their job is dependent upon how much ticket revenue and asset forfeiture they can bring in. nothing more, nothing less. surely you cannot be this naive about law enforcement.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
but WHY!?!?!?!? nobody seems to want to face the reality of their bullshit. we TRAIN these cops, supposedly EXPERT firearms training, so WHY do you give them lax standards of liability and negligence if they are TRAINED!!!!!!!!!!