Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Some folks shouldn't own guns..


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#31 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,712 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:21 PM

If you are on/in your property and/or feel you are in imminent danger of losing your life or suffering permanent disability, and you aren't the aggressor, yes...

Rightfully so, I say.


To clarify...

A single punch wouldn't make me feel I was in imminent danger of losing my life or suffering permanent disability... So no, if someone simply punches you I wouldn't think deadly force was necessary.

If they continue to punch you even after you have made a reasonable attempt to retreat, or (as in this case) if they stalk you to where you are going, exit their vehicle, approach your vehicle, and throw a punch at you when you are in a vulnerable position, then the grey area exists for our justice system to interpret.

The dude who was the aggressor was totally in the wrong in this situation. Not once, but twice.

I have value for people's lives. But why should I stand down to someone who doesn't have value for mine?

#32 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 04:52 PM

so if someone punches me I can shoot them dead now

good to know

To use a lawyer term, it all depends on the totality of the circumstances. If your a 110 pound woman and some 6'5 250 pound guy comes at you, you would most likely pass the test for use of deadly force, even though he's just an unarmed aggressor. Just like if some dude looking like GSP comes karate choppin at me in my house,car, etc, the threshold is lowered for justifiable use of deadly force. Even when you have a duty to retreat, these same scenarios would would likely give a DA pause for thought before bringing something like a manslaughter charge against you.

#33 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:08 AM

Want to make gun control laws work...

let's start with some federal mandatory sentencing guidelines with crimes involving weapons.



mandatory sentencing did wonders for the war on drugs. Wasted billions of dollars, everybody's in jail, we have an even bigger drug problem + a corrupt prison industry/lobby.


AWESOME!

#34 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:10 AM

mandatory sentencing did wonders for the war on drugs. Wasted billions of dollars, everybody's in jail, we have an even bigger drug problem + a corrupt prison industry/lobby.


AWESOME!


That's because the rules on what constituted as a federal drug crime is so low...the issue is all messed up.

Violent crime with a gun is a pretty established marginot line to cross.

#35 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:15 AM

That's because the rules on what constituted as a federal drug crime is so low...the issue is all messed up.

Violent crime with a gun is a pretty established marginot line to cross.


i would like to take that marginot metaphor to it's logical conclusion... i'm sure we could confuse the shiat out of the issue between the two of us before you even insert actual legislators... the problem with mandatory sentencing is that it becomes just like any other piece of legislation... it becomes a bargaining chip with the end result being the legislative branch usurping the power of the judicial... it's populism and it doesn't work.

#36 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:30 AM

i would like to take that marginot metaphor to it's logical conclusion... i'm sure we could confuse the shiat out of the issue between the two of us before you even insert actual legislators... the problem with mandatory sentencing is that it becomes just like any other piece of legislation... it becomes a bargaining chip with the end result being the legislative branch usurping the power of the judicial... it's populism and it doesn't work.


I don't see it so much as a usurping the power of the judicial as much as the democratic processes dictating an increased penalty for these particular laws broken. We, the people, elect representative members who then create on our behalf a set of laws. In some instances, it has been judicial recklessness to allow repeat offenders back on the street earlier than they should or the punishment too much. In some instances, it goes the other direction. But saying the elected legislative branch usurps their power suggests that we as voters have no direct power/say in judicial matters. Outside of trial by jury of course...but even then the judge should be limited in their range of punishments.

#37 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,712 posts

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:54 AM

lol @ people who think any branch of the government works, as it is intended, for the people...


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.