quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

a dumbarse american ass shoots an unarmed person dead
claims SYG self defence or whatever,
he should walk....[8|]
theres a lot of it about.
YAY[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Here is a story I feel where taking the law into your own hands hold merit.
We lived on a farm, way out in the middle of nowhere land. We had one direct neighbor who lived right across the road down a lane. Our other neighbors closest to us lived almost a mile from us. A rash of equipment, farm supplies, and ATV burglaries were going on in two counties. Our ATV was stolen twice. First time, it was recovered, by a routine traffic stop and the vin numbers were checked, found it was stolen, and the guy went to jail for probation violation for 3 yrs. 5 months later the same ATV was stolen again! IT was never found. Luckily we had insurance. Both times they were stole in the middle of the night.
Approximately a month later, our neighbor had his ATV idoling by the side of his house, as he went in for something before he fed their animals. He hears the thing take off, and some guy is zooming down the lane toward the road. Our neighbor, jumps in his truck, with his rifle, chases the guy who takes off thru a field toward the creek, neighbor just starts driving thru the bean field on the other neighbors property to catch him, and pretty soon that neighbor is chasing after the guy with his ATV. They yelled for him to stop but he wasn't going too, so he was shot at a few times with buck shot. The ATV was found over the side of an eroded bank in the creek bed, There was so blood, and when the police got there, they had to go by ATV to examine the scene. The man was never found. THe blood was either from the wreck, buck shot, or both. BUt our neighbor didn't have insurance and he knew if he lost his ATV his life was going to get much harder. He did not threaten with a gun until he felt attacked. And yes we had people we had to run off our property, but a gun was never waved at them, unless they decided to refuse a peaceful ending. If someone would have entered our house, in the dark, or attacked from the start in other circumstances they probably would be shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thatsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
... One of the men picked up rock from the bar and another stepped in front trying to defuse the situation. ... The man trying to defuse the fight put his arm out to push the gun aside....

As I understand the situation, we have several agitated people, one is armed with a gun the rest with rocks.

quote:


They are all arguing.

quote:

They don't like each other at that moment.

quote:

There is conflict. Nobody knows what the other person will do next. One of the men while this whole adrenaline-high argument is happening is making a sudden movement towards the gun.

quote:


Ask yourself, do you want to be the man holding a gun at that moment?

quote:

Do you want to risk a possibility to no longer have a gun in the next moment?

quote:

This is not about protecting property or stand-your-ground, this is a self-defense case.

quote:

Food for thought. During your next encounter with a police officer, try to "defuse" the situation by placing your hand on his hand that is hovering above his gun. You will be shot, or if you are lucky tasered and charged with assaulting an officer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

All of our laws allow the possibility that a guilty person might get away, and more specifically that a guilty looking person might escape punishment.

That's a given that doesn't exist in China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat.

I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law.

Butch

How many rocks does it take? One can disable. If thrown rocks don't justify self defense do you expect him to let them stone him, still a form of execution in some countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

All of our laws allow the possibility that a guilty person might get away, and more specifically that a guilty looking person might escape punishment.

That's a given that doesn't exist in China.

Really???What is the law in china concerning guilt and innocense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat.

I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law.

Butch

How many rocks does it take? One can disable. If thrown rocks don't justify self defense do you expect him to let them stone him, still a form of execution in some countries.

The guy with the gun is the one guilty of assault thus there can be no presumption of self defense on his part.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

All of our laws allow the possibility that a guilty person might get away, and more specifically that a guilty looking person might escape punishment.

That's a given that doesn't exist in China.

Really???What is the law in china concerning guilt and innocense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Do you seriously think they use the American legal system? ROTFLMAO!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If it is anything like minnesota, he would not be defending his property, if it can be reached within a few feet from the navigable waterway (I think ours is 30 feet).

He would go down, that is DNR (and therefore public) right of way.

*snort* DNR not DMV.

"DNR?" "Do not resusitate?"
Oh 'Tail, you are aware that Chris Mathews "appologised" for you for the Zimmerman verdict right?
You should send him a thankyou card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

All of our laws allow the possibility that a guilty person might get away, and more specifically that a guilty looking person might escape punishment.

That's a given that doesn't exist in China.

Really???What is the law in china concerning guilt and innocense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Do you seriously think they use the American legal system? ROTFLMAO!!!!!

What I think is not at issue. You posted about china's legal process I asked you to validate your opinion...obvioulsy that is a non starter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat.

I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law.

Butch

How many rocks does it take? One can disable. If thrown rocks don't justify self defense do you expect him to let them stone him, still a form of execution in some countries.

The guy with the gun is the one guilty of assault thus there can be no presumption of self defense on his part.

quote:

Reread the post he made a claim about what justified self defense and I refuted it.

No, you disagreed with it you have yet to refute anythhing.

quote:

The exchange was not case specific.

We are discussing a specific case and you wish to bring in a hypothetical case which is not similar to the case under discussion????????????????why?????????????
The assault is not being commited by the rafters, the assault was commited by the man with the gun.

quote:

Besides I feel that you have such a narrow view of self defense that it would eliminate it altogether.

Self defense requires that I am the one being assaulted or battered or have a reasonable fear of such....the operant word here is reasonable...I agree with you that we only have what was posted to go on and that subsequent information may or may not change the accuracy of the news article. I also am not trying to be horse shit about the lethality of rocks. In the hands of a talented "slinger" they can be lethal on targeted subjects at ranges of 100m but to catagorize the floaters as even potentially having that sort of lethality is not rational. From the data in the article the man with the gun committed an assault which turned lethal by his own choice. At that range he certainly had the ability to make a less than lethal shot. The heat of the moment arguement fails by the simple concept that if you carry a gun for the purpose of imposing your will on another it is incumbant on you to know how to use it responsibily. Killing a man for something which at best is accidental tresspass is bullshit baised on the scant evidence we posses at this point.

quote:

I didn't post an opinion. I posted a painfully obvious fact. The legal system in the PRC, and in the USA are different on the presumption of innocence.

If you are too lazy to type 3 words into the search bar, then just say so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I took nothing out of context... I was agreeing with you... The only problem is no one threw a rock so there was no need for self defense... Now if they had thrown rocks it still should not be enough for him to claim self defense... Remember he was holding them at gun point... don't you think they had a right to self defense?... After all it has been proven they were not on private property but on a legal right of way they had legal right to access....so they also had a right under the law not to retreat.

I don't understand how you and others cannot see how these SYG laws are a mess and at times will support both sides of an argument and in that case guarantee a murder under the law.

Butch

How many rocks does it take? One can disable. If thrown rocks don't justify self defense do you expect him to let them stone him, still a form of execution in some countries.

The guy with the gun is the one guilty of assault thus there can be no presumption of self defense on his part.

quote:

Reread the post he made a claim about what justified self defense and I refuted it.

No, you disagreed with it you have yet to refute anythhing.

quote:

The exchange was not case specific.

We are discussing a specific case and you wish to bring in a hypothetical case which is not similar to the case under discussion????????????????why?????????????
The assault is not being commited by the rafters, the assault was commited by the man with the gun.

quote:

Besides I feel that you have such a narrow view of self defense that it would eliminate it altogether.

Self defense requires that I am the one being assaulted or battered or have a reasonable fear of such....the operant word here is reasonable...I agree with you that we only have what was posted to go on and that subsequent information may or may not change the accuracy of the news article. I also am not trying to be horse shit about the lethality of rocks. In the hands of a talented "slinger" they can be lethal on targeted subjects at ranges of 100m but to catagorize the floaters as even potentially having that sort of lethality is not rational. From the data in the article the man with the gun committed an assault which turned lethal by his own choice. At that range he certainly had the ability to make a less than lethal shot. The heat of the moment arguement fails by the simple concept that if you carry a gun for the purpose of imposing your will on another it is incumbant on you to know how to use it responsibily. Killing a man for something which at best is accidental tresspass is bullshit baised on the scant evidence we posses at this point.

You forget a couple of very important facts.
They were at very close range so the lethality of the rocks did come into play.
The shooting was set off (yes I know that there had been warning shots fired but the serious shots are another matter) when a person, allegedly thinking he was defusing the situation, went for the landowners gun hand.
While he may have been just trying to get the muzzle away from his friend it would seem to the landowner that it was the beginning of a potentially lethal attack.
Not to say he handled the situation at all correctly but at that instant he was defending himself.
In my first post I stated that manslaughter is a likely outcome but this is dependent on the additional information that will come out.

quote:

You forget a couple of very important facts.

quote:

They were at very close range so the lethality of the rocks did come into play.

quote:

The shooting was set off (yes I know that there had been warning shots fired but the serious shots are another matter) when a person, allegedly thinking he was defusing the situation, went for the landowners gun hand.

quote:

While he may have been just trying to get the muzzle away from his friend it would seem to the landowner that it was the beginning of a potentially lethal attack.

quote:

Not to say he handled the situation at all correctly but at that instant he was defending himself.