So why didn’t you shoot those two guys that tried to rob your pick-up that cold wintry night yonder year?
Of course it’s generally speaking. Read what Bauber wrote.
Actually by law you use the force necessary to stop the threat. If drawing your weapon stops the threat, you stop there or else good luck in court.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
Actually by law you use the force necessary to stop the threat. If drawing your weapon stops the threat, you stop there or else good luck in court.[/quote]
Which law? Which state? Which scenario?
Distinctions are always important.[/quote]
The taking of a human life is serious and not to be taken lightly.
There is only really one scenario where deadly force is justified legally. Every state there has to be justification in other words you have to feel like your life or another’s life is in danger of serious bodily harm or death for lethal force to be used. Now this does get a little grey when it comes to your property and protecting it depending on the state, but that is not the instance or issue at hand here. The difference comes in with the castle doctrine, which states you have the requirement to retreat and take yourself out of the situation if possible. This varies from state to state. You can look it up. I am not going to list them all. I just know the states I frequent all have the castle doctrine in effect.
The scenario I think has been put forward nicely. You are somewhere out in public and a dangerous situation arises, generally speaking. So, if you draw and they suddenly stand down, you legally are obliged to not use deadly force period.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
…The difference comes in with the castle doctrine, which states you have the requirement to retreat and take yourself out of the situation if possible…
[/quote]
You have it exactly backwards. The castle doctrine says you are NOT required to retreat (in your residence). C’mon man, stop it. Did you think you can come on this website and bluff your way through on this kind of stuff?
I don’t have much problem with the rest of your post, generally speaking.
[/quote]
I meant don’t have to retreat. Sorry for the confusion. Bluff my way through? I made a mistake. I apologize to the almighty that never makes mistakes. Most of your gun friendly states have the castle doctrine. And in many states it applies anywhere you are legally allowed to be. Work, public places, etc. And I understand you may not have the time to assess once drawn
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
…Every state there has to be justification in other words you have to feel like your life or another’s life is in danger of serious bodily harm or death for lethal force to be used…
[/quote]
Are you going to be so foolish as to suggest in this case there was no threat of life or bodily harm? Really? Should we post pics of the victim?
[/quote]
No, in his situation he should have definitely drawn and put lead in the miscreants. I was merely trying to point out that not every situation deadly force is justified.
I have read tons of your posts and generally really liked them and thought you reasonable, but on this you are really just trying to make an argument out of nothing. And then you attack me personally, nice.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
…The difference comes in with the castle doctrine, which states you have the requirement to retreat and take yourself out of the situation if possible…
[/quote]
You have it exactly backwards. The castle doctrine says you are NOT required to retreat (in your residence). C’mon man, stop it. Did you think you can come on this website and bluff your way through on this kind of stuff?
I don’t have much problem with the rest of your post, generally speaking.
[/quote]
I meant don’t have to retreat. Sorry for the confusion. Bluff my way through? I made a mistake. I apologize to the almighty that never makes mistakes. Most of your gun friendly states have the castle doctrine. And I understand you may not have the time to assess once drawn
[/quote]
No problem.
In this situation inside the gas station it sounded like the assailant was not a football field away. Most scenarios like this one likely would not afford a potential victim this expansive amount of time to be like Joe Hollywood movie action hero who pulls a handgun and backs down the (typically reasonable? Ha!) assailant into face on the floor/hands behind the head position while waiting for the mighty and always effective law enforcement personnel to be johnny-on-the-spot.[/quote]
Completely agreed. I have no issue using deadly force to defend yourself and those around you. All I am saying is if it can be averted, which sometimes it is impossible to avert; I would try to. Then again as the saying goes, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
what if everyone should start attacking black people that dared to venture out of their predominantly black neighborhoods. Would that be racist? [/quote]
You mean…if they did that AGAIN?[/quote]
In other words because the family was white they are guilty of all white on black violence throughout world history and deserve revenge?
I noticed you didn’t condemn this animal behavior. Maybe I misunderstood your reply. The black on white murder and assaults numbers have been a growing trend for years and there seems to be no national outrage.
I saw the PMSNBC Al Sharpton ad where he mentions the fight for rights of Hispanics, blacks and gays needs to get stronger. Is this what lean forward is aiming for?
Is it another issue the media is complicit in omitting for so long such as IRS abuse/Benghazi lies because it reflects poorly on the left?
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
what if everyone should start attacking black people that dared to venture out of their predominantly black neighborhoods. Would that be racist? [/quote]
You mean…if they did that AGAIN?[/quote]
In other words because the family was white they are guilty of all white on black violence throughout world history and deserve revenge?
I noticed you didn’t condemn this animal behavior. Maybe I misunderstood your reply. The black on white murder and assaults numbers have been a growing trend for years and there seems to be no national outrage.
I saw the PMSNBC Al Sharpton ad where he mentions the fight for rights of Hispanics, blacks and gays needs to get stronger. Is this what lean forward is aiming for?
Is it another issue the media is complicit in omitting for so long such as IRS abuse/Benghazi lies because it reflects poorly on the left?
[/quote]
making rational thoughts and talking negatively against the left is racist.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
The two types of hate crime by whites and blacks in America will never be equal. It can’t/won’t be as long as one is a minority. Even if the populous scales were (theoretically) significantly shifted to somewhere near equilibrium, blacks have that history of prejudice that would still influence perception of crime committed today.
To argue sensibility and a sophisticated attitude where both kinds of hate crime should be firstly recognised as such, and then looked equally in disdain is a necessity for a better society in the future. But that’s rational and hence theoretical, not to mention ambitious considering America’s powerful history of racism. BTW, I never knew how bad it was (and still is, although to a much lesser degree on the whole) for blacks and Jews (who are also ironically targeted by both blacks) in the USA.
[/quote]
In that area, and in the situation in question, the whites were the minority.
I used to live in a city that was 70% black, including government. They still had the same double standard for whites.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
what if everyone should start attacking black people that dared to venture out of their predominantly black neighborhoods. Would that be racist? [/quote]
You mean…if they did that AGAIN?[/quote]
In other words because the family was white they are guilty of all white on black violence throughout world history and deserve revenge? [/quote]
You completely missed his point. The first quote stated “what if”. “IF.” There is no if as it has not only happened but still happens. Also, to use the word everyone implies that it is all black people who are attacking whites when the majority of blacks are not going around attacking whites and vice versa. Why does the behavior or actions of a few, in this case very few, somehow reflect on an entire race?
A couple of criminals who were black attack some white people and it is supposed to mean something about race relations? It’s signs of a race war? When (and I do mean when) a synagogue has a swastika painted on it does that mean all non-Jews are anti-Semites and another Holocaust is coming?
I am too ignorant to be anti-Semitic. Every Jew that I have met looked Caucasian to me so I couldn’t discriminate against them even if I wanted to.
Bauber, I can definitely see having to defend yourself if you spent very much time in Memphis. Had a couple buddies with me when we got lost up there one time and we were in a pretty rough neighborhood. I think we got off Hollywood St and ended up somewhere we shouldn’t have but that’s been a while ago. Baton Rouge is similar to Memphis and Houston in that regard. Great city with some really bad places to get turned around in.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
what if everyone should start attacking black people that dared to venture out of their predominantly black neighborhoods. Would that be racist? [/quote]
You mean…if they did that AGAIN?[/quote]
In other words because the family was white they are guilty of all white on black violence throughout world history and deserve revenge? [/quote]
You completely missed his point. The first quote stated “what if”. “IF.” There is no if as it has not only happened but still happens. Also, to use the word everyone implies that it is all black people who are attacking whites when the majority of blacks are not going around attacking whites and vice versa. Why does the behavior or actions of a few, in this case very few, somehow reflect on an entire race?
A couple of criminals who were black attack some white people and it is supposed to mean something about race relations? It’s signs of a race war? When (and I do mean when) a synagogue has a swastika painted on it does that mean all non-Jews are anti-Semites and another Holocaust is coming? [/quote]
I did not miss the point. I am so played out on this parallel of comparing a few criminals that act out to what is occurring all of the country. Keep telling yourself that line until it comes to your front door.
In my long life I have seen two camps. One refuses to accept blame for ANYTHING as a race. As a whole votes for Democrats 95% of the time. That says much about their culture. We are not all the same, never have been and never will be. Asians aren’t in the news six times a night for shooting deaths every night on your TV.
The other camp (white America) changes it behavior becomes culturally empathetic to diverse groups and changes it’s society and it’s LAWS. At the point when it becomes non racist towards other groups it is then preyed upon in horrendous rapes, murder, scammed and physically assaulted for being a different color. But you want me to believe this happens on rare occasions by a few criminals. I’ve got better things to do then argue with a dumb bell.
Lean Forward white America, you’ll end up on the floor like Elvis.
Bet against me that I can’t find thousands of cases like this one. The major media big news channels have for years been omitting stories like these by the thousands: