Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 369 of 394 FirstFirst ... 269319359367368369370371379 ... LastLast
Results 5,521 to 5,535 of 5905
  1. #5521
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Bramaca View Post
    If you are putting yourself in a potentially dangerous situation while arming yourself illegally it really negates the whole self defence argument imo. By your reasoning it would be self defence if protesters killed every militia person who pointed a gun in their direction. That is a clear threat to the persons safety so they would be justified in killing them in self defence.
    Its not about your opinion though lol

    The law says he was allowed to protect himself, nothing he did negates that.

  2. #5522
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,978
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Yep. I get that. It was an injustice. It was a massive overreaction, and that officer should go to jail for the rest of his life.

    But you're saying that the best way to change things is to destroy businesses that are owned by the ethnicity that you your protesting for and yelling at people that more than likely think that the shooting of Blake was a really bad thing.

    You can think whatever you want about me, but common sense is typically universal.
    I don’t believe I said the best way to change things is that way. However people get angry especially when they’re ignored and insulted. Tell me what peaceful protests, donating to charities trying to fight against injustice like this, etc. has accomplished? Absolutely nothing other than ridiculed and ignored. Trump has made no attempt to even acknowledge that there is really an issue. People are upset and their supposed leader attacks and tries to intimidate them. Are you really surprised that that anger spills over and results in some violence?

  3. #5523
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,978
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    Its not about your opinion though lol

    The law says he was allowed to protect himself, nothing he did negates that.
    If the law was that clear cut he wouldn’t have been charged so obviously you’re just giving your opinion about your interpretation of the law. I also hope you’re wrong about this too because that could open up some screwed up possibilities.

    Say a guy with an illegal gun breaks into a house and the home owner comes at him with a knife. By your reasoning it doesn’t matter what circumstances brought them to that point so the guy breaking in is completely within his rights to shoot the home owner and claim it’s self defence.

  4. #5524
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Bramaca View Post
    If the law was that clear cut he wouldn’t have been charged so obviously you’re just giving your opinion about your interpretation of the law. I also hope you’re wrong about this too because that could open up some screwed up possibilities.

    Say a guy with an illegal gun breaks into a house and the home owner comes at him with a knife. By your reasoning it doesn’t matter what circumstances brought them to that point so the guy breaking in is completely within his rights to shoot the home owner and claim it’s self defence.
    Ask anyone with CCW man, when you discharge your weapon, in public, you're going to jail.

    Furthermore, they didn't arrest the cops in the Blake thing, so this kid took the fall, to pacify the masses.

    It's private vs public property in your scenario, it also depends what state it took place in. Plus, the Kyle kid did nothing illegal to the 3 people he shot, besides run away. If you flip your scenario around, and the burglar has the knife, and the home owner has the gun. States without the castle doctrine, you better be very careful about shooting the perp, unless you're 100% perceive he's going to kill you.

    It's why I keep saying, the state where this took place, their self defense law is all that matters. Lawyers are chiming in on here but none of them studied or practice law in Wisconsin. While I do respect they have a higher knowledge of terminology and history of cases, they're trying to apply blanket self defense laws or self defense laws from their state, which is irrelevant.

    Given the video footage, the eye witness testimony and the letter of the law, where this took place... The kids defense team can very easily proceed with their self defense claim, and win the case, at minimum get the judge to rule a mistrial.

  5. #5525
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bramaca View Post
    If you are putting yourself in a potentially dangerous situation while arming yourself illegally it really negates the whole self defence argument imo.
    You are correct.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    <><><><><><><>
    <><><><>

  6. #5526
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,978
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    Ask anyone with CCW man, when you discharge your weapon, in public, you're going to jail.

    Furthermore, they didn't arrest the cops in the Blake thing, so this kid took the fall, to pacify the masses.

    It's private vs public property in your scenario, it also depends what state it took place in. Plus, the Kyle kid did nothing illegal to the 3 people he shot, besides run away. If you flip your scenario around, and the burglar has the knife, and the home owner has the gun. States without the castle doctrine, you better be very careful about shooting the perp, unless you're 100% perceive he's going to kill you.

    It's why I keep saying, the state where this took place, their self defense law is all that matters. Lawyers are chiming in on here but none of them studied or practice law in Wisconsin. While I do respect they have a higher knowledge of terminology and history of cases, they're trying to apply blanket self defense laws or self defense laws from their state, which is irrelevant.

    Given the video footage, the eye witness testimony and the letter of the law, where this took place... The kids defense team can very easily proceed with their self defense claim, and win the case, at minimum get the judge to rule a mistrial.
    You talk as if your opinion is fact all you want but it’s still your opinion. He may very well get off on a self defence claim but he may not. If he does it has a lot of dangerous consequences.

  7. #5527
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    You are correct.
    I pray to god, criminal law is not what you practice [emoji23]

    No wonder the OJs and Zimmermans of the world get off, if this is what we have on the prosecution team, smh.

  8. #5528
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Bramaca View Post
    You talk as if your opinion is fact all you want but it’s still your opinion. He may very well get off on a self defence claim but he may not. If he does it has a lot of dangerous consequences.
    No it doesn't, protecting yourself is a right of this country.

  9. #5529
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Bramaca View Post
    Do you really read them though? For example the article you posted about the author who admitted he didn’t know what’s true in his book. If you read the article you would know he didn’t actually say that and there’s quote from him saying he stands by everything he put in the book. Why haven’t you posted that article in the media bias thread? There’s more of it in that title and article then what you usually claim as media bias. Or the numerous times myself and others have posted articles that show what you are saying is false and you straight up say you aren’t going to waste your time reading that. Or the times you post a link, pick out one line that fits your agenda but ignore that the whole article actually contradicts your argument. Or the times you post some tweet as “proof” that you’re right when all it’s showing is that someone else has the same opinion.
    did you even read it?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/mich...ll-true-2018-1

    Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

    Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.
    But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.
    In other cases, the media columnist said, he did use his journalistic judgment and research to arrive at what he describes "a version of events I believe to be true."
    Here is the relevant part of the note, from the 10th page of the book's prologue:

    "Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

    "Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."
    this wasn't even relevant to stories I've posted about headlines more about a method of protesting rather than why. the article mentions why (which I read to know), but that is something significant and should be the headline.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  10. #5530
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,382
    Quote Originally Posted by rhino17 View Post
    Cops make a choice, black people do not

    Blue lives don't exist. Black oppression is 24/7. Putting on a uniform and acting like a ******* is a personal choice.
    that doesn't mean police are any less targeted, try again.

    it has nothing to do with their choice to wear a uniform as to why they are targeted. it's not specific police that have done something wrong that are targeted, it's any of them.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  11. #5531
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,382
    Quote Originally Posted by spliff(TONE) View Post
    ....but I guess when you're a cowardly child that can't handle yourself with just your hands and feet, immediately escalating to kill shots is the way to go.
    maybe he should have acted like Schmidt (21 Jump Street/22 Jump Street) and just threw the gun.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  12. #5532
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    27,382
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I work in the law, and I assure you, there's a lot more that goes into it than simply what you can prove.
    I thought it was innocent until proven guilty.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  13. #5533
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,575
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    I pray to god, criminal law is not what you practice [emoji23]

    No wonder the OJs and Zimmermans of the world get off, if this is what we have on the prosecution team, smh.
    says a non lawyer, who is clearly way out of his element

    Self defense is not a valid defense if attacked with a plastic bag /discussion.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    <><><><><><><>
    <><><><>

  14. #5534
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,978
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    No it doesn't, protecting yourself is a right of this country.
    All for protecting yourself but he put himself in a dangerous situation with an illegal weapon and killed people. His illegal actions are responsible for escalating the situation to the point where he killed people. If he gets off on self defence then the law is saying it doesn’t matter if you are doing something illegal or creating the situation as long as there is some perceived threat to go ahead and kill. Crosses the line from self defence into vigilante justice.

  15. #5535
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    17,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bramaca View Post
    All for protecting yourself but he put himself in a dangerous situation with an illegal weapon and killed people. His illegal actions are responsible for escalating the situation to the point where he killed people. If he gets off on self defence then the law is saying it doesn’t matter if you are doing something illegal or creating the situation as long as there is some perceived threat to go ahead and kill. Crosses the line from self defence into vigilante justice.
    Yes, the right to "protect" yourself is certainly not absolute, LOTS of scenarios that counteract that "right." Creating the situation can play into that, escalating/deescalating, overreacting to a plastic bag can play into that, disproportional response can play into that, protecting random property is not covered by that.

    Self defense laws are for very specific circumstances.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    <><><><><><><>
    <><><><>

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •