I learned the best way to take over the world is to use spies to bribe cities from Civ 1. You also get a free tech that way.
The Houston-area stand-your-ground-ish murder trial just concluded with a guilty verdict.
it appears SYG made murder an option because the guy thought he could get off on SYG
THAT's what you get from that trial? From a murder conviction? In MFing TEXAS.
rofl. That's grand.
Great...the guy who can never defend his posts.
How would you interpret him telling everyone that he was 'standing his ground' before shooting the guy?
Dang. I thought that was us here in Arizona. We better get Jan Brewer on the horn and loosen up those gun laws some more!How would you interpret TEXAS convicting the guy on a MURDER charge? Again. Texas. Gun. Murder. The state that probably has the most lax gun laws in the nation.
How would you interpret TEXAS convicting the guy on a MURDER charge? Again. Texas. Gun. Murder. The state that probably has the most lax gun laws in the nation.
I would opine that SYG is bad until your own life or the life of a loved one is in danger. Then its the most wonderful thing in the world since sliced bread.You questioned my 'it appears SYG made murder an option because the guy thought he could get off on SYG' statement.
The guy specifically said 'my life is in danger, I'm going to stand my ground'...and then shot the guy. The existance of SYG encouraged murder. Period. I don't care about whatever other point you want to divert this to...
You questioned my 'it appears SYG made murder an option because the guy thought he could get off on SYG' statement.
The guy specifically said 'my life is in danger, I'm going to stand my ground'...and then shot the guy. The existance of SYG encouraged murder. Period. I don't care about whatever other point you want to divert this to...
And if he said "I have to do this to get a high score on Grand Theft Auto", you'd be crusading for alongside Jack Thompson to ban all video games, right?
The way it sounds to me was he was going to murder the guy anyway. He was just trying to make it seem like it was because of stand your ground so he could get away with it.You questioned my 'it appears SYG made murder an option because the guy thought he could get off on SYG' statement.
The guy specifically said 'my life is in danger, I'm going to stand my ground'...and then shot the guy. The existance of SYG encouraged murder. Period. I don't care about whatever other point you want to divert this to...
If you have a weapon and the life of a loved one is in danger and you don't use your weapon because there's no SYG law, then I'm really glad I'm not your loved one.I would opine that SYG is bad until your own life or the life of a loved one is in danger. Then its the most wonderful thing in the world since sliced bread.
In my opinion SYG laws have gone to far, but at least part of the reasoning behind them is to protect people who legitimately use deadly force to protect themselves. I've read about cases over the years where a criminal would break into someone's home or business and end up suing the people or business, even though they were criminally entering, and winning at times. There should be a reasonable middle ground where you give people assurance that they can reasonably protect themselves and their loved ones, but not allow aggression when it's not necessary. This is where the Florida law is flawed to me. It should require a person to take reasonable steps to avoid a confrontation, but if a confrontation can't be avoided, then you're ok to defend yourself. Seems like common sense to me.If you have a weapon and the life of a loved one is in danger and you don't use your weapon because there's no SYG law, then I'm really glad I'm not your loved one.
The law has nothing to do with self-defense. It's a political wedge deliberately used to provoke an emotional response.
In my opinion SYG laws have gone to far, but at least part of the reasoning behind them is to protect people who legitimately use deadly force to protect themselves. I've read about cases over the years where a criminal would break into someone's home or business and end up suing the people or business, even though they were criminally entering, and winning at times. There should be a reasonable middle ground where you give people assurance that they can reasonably protect themselves and their loved ones, but not allow aggression when it's not necessary. This is where the Florida law is flawed to me. It should require a person to take reasonable steps to avoid a confrontation, but if a confrontation can't be avoided, then you're ok to defend yourself. Seems like common sense to me.
In my opinion SYG laws have gone to far, but at least part of the reasoning behind them is to protect people who legitimately use deadly force to protect themselves. I've read about cases over the years where a criminal would break into someone's home or business and end up suing the people or business, even though they were criminally entering, and winning at times. There should be a reasonable middle ground where you give people assurance that they can reasonably protect themselves and their loved ones, but not allow aggression when it's not necessary. This is where the Florida law is flawed to me. It should require a person to take reasonable steps to avoid a confrontation, but if a confrontation can't be avoided, then you're ok to defend yourself. Seems like common sense to me.
That has the ring of urban legend. Not saying it is, but it definitely has that sound.I liked the one where the burgler slipped on an icy porch and successfully sued the property owner for his medical bills from the injury because the owner hadn't properly cleaned off his porch.