Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: June 14, 2012 11:26AM
http://gma.yahoo.com/texas-man-found-guilty-killing-neighbor-dispute-053934284--abc-news-topstories.html
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2012 11:26AM by FUNdamental.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2012 11:26AM by FUNdamental.
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
Yucky24.
()
Date: June 16, 2012 11:36PM
And? Just goes to show that the law is working. It wasn't a legitimate self-defense shooting so he was found guilty.
So, rather than this story smearing "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, this story shows exactly the opposite, doesn't it?
Derp.
So, rather than this story smearing "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, this story shows exactly the opposite, doesn't it?
Derp.
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
jCPnx
()
Date: June 17, 2012 01:18AM
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
Juxtaposition
()
Date: June 17, 2012 11:05AM
You filthy nigger! I'll pull here this gun and you feared that shit real quick!
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: June 17, 2012 11:16AM
Yucky24. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And? Just goes to show that the law is working. It
> wasn't a legitimate self-defense shooting so he
> was found guilty.
>
> So, rather than this story smearing "Castle
> Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, this story
> shows exactly the opposite, doesn't it?
>
> Derp.
The story displays clearly people misunderstand the law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding to justify shootings when they get mad at another person.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And? Just goes to show that the law is working. It
> wasn't a legitimate self-defense shooting so he
> was found guilty.
>
> So, rather than this story smearing "Castle
> Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, this story
> shows exactly the opposite, doesn't it?
>
> Derp.
The story displays clearly people misunderstand the law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding to justify shootings when they get mad at another person.
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
CHI
()
Date: June 17, 2012 11:41AM
FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yucky24. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And? Just goes to show that the law is working.
> It
> > wasn't a legitimate self-defense shooting so he
> > was found guilty.
> >
> > So, rather than this story smearing "Castle
> > Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, this
> story
> > shows exactly the opposite, doesn't it?
> >
> > Derp.
> The story displays clearly people misunderstand
> the law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding
> to justify shootings when they get mad at another
> person.
Exactly. The liberals intentionally distort the spirit of SYG's in order to deceive the ignorant.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yucky24. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And? Just goes to show that the law is working.
> It
> > wasn't a legitimate self-defense shooting so he
> > was found guilty.
> >
> > So, rather than this story smearing "Castle
> > Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, this
> story
> > shows exactly the opposite, doesn't it?
> >
> > Derp.
> The story displays clearly people misunderstand
> the law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding
> to justify shootings when they get mad at another
> person.
Exactly. The liberals intentionally distort the spirit of SYG's in order to deceive the ignorant.
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: June 17, 2012 01:18PM
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
Texas Justice
()
Date: June 17, 2012 01:47PM
FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story displays clearly people misunderstand
> the law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding
> to justify shootings when they get mad at another
> person.
The way I read the story, the guy was deliberately setting up his own defense by videotaping the whole encounter and making statements to the 911 dispatcher like:
"I'm running the video camera right now and I'm talking to you and I mean, I'm scared to death here."
"It's about to get out of hand sir, please help me. Please help me, my life is in danger now ...,"
Who talks like that unless they're trying to convince someone else how they felt at the time?
The only thing I'm not sure about is if he took the gun with him because he was going to try and scare the people at the party, or if he fully intended to shoot someone the whole time. I'm leaning towards the latter, because his statements sound calculated to create the impression of a man fearful for his life who stands his ground to prevent a violent assault.
"Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these people are going to try and kill me."
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story displays clearly people misunderstand
> the law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding
> to justify shootings when they get mad at another
> person.
The way I read the story, the guy was deliberately setting up his own defense by videotaping the whole encounter and making statements to the 911 dispatcher like:
"I'm running the video camera right now and I'm talking to you and I mean, I'm scared to death here."
"It's about to get out of hand sir, please help me. Please help me, my life is in danger now ...,"
Who talks like that unless they're trying to convince someone else how they felt at the time?
The only thing I'm not sure about is if he took the gun with him because he was going to try and scare the people at the party, or if he fully intended to shoot someone the whole time. I'm leaning towards the latter, because his statements sound calculated to create the impression of a man fearful for his life who stands his ground to prevent a violent assault.
"Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these people are going to try and kill me."
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: June 17, 2012 04:50PM
Texas Justice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUNdamental Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The story displays clearly people misunderstand
> > the law, and use this grotesque
> misunderstanding
> > to justify shootings when they get mad at
> another
> > person.
>
> The way I read the story, the guy was deliberately
> setting up his own defense by videotaping the
> whole encounter and making statements to the 911
> dispatcher like:
>
> "I'm running the video camera right now and I'm
> talking to you and I mean, I'm scared to death
> here."
>
> "It's about to get out of hand sir, please help
> me. Please help me, my life is in danger now ...,"
>
>
> Who talks like that unless they're trying to
> convince someone else how they felt at the time?
>
> The only thing I'm not sure about is if he took
> the gun with him because he was going to try and
> scare the people at the party, or if he fully
> intended to shoot someone the whole time. I'm
> leaning towards the latter, because his statements
> sound calculated to create the impression of a man
> fearful for his life who stands his ground to
> prevent a violent assault.
>
>
>
> "Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these
> people are going to try and kill me."
videotpaping, talking on the phone, and holding a gun to someone; doesn't sound scared to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 04:50PM by FUNdamental.
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUNdamental Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The story displays clearly people misunderstand
> > the law, and use this grotesque
> misunderstanding
> > to justify shootings when they get mad at
> another
> > person.
>
> The way I read the story, the guy was deliberately
> setting up his own defense by videotaping the
> whole encounter and making statements to the 911
> dispatcher like:
>
> "I'm running the video camera right now and I'm
> talking to you and I mean, I'm scared to death
> here."
>
> "It's about to get out of hand sir, please help
> me. Please help me, my life is in danger now ...,"
>
>
> Who talks like that unless they're trying to
> convince someone else how they felt at the time?
>
> The only thing I'm not sure about is if he took
> the gun with him because he was going to try and
> scare the people at the party, or if he fully
> intended to shoot someone the whole time. I'm
> leaning towards the latter, because his statements
> sound calculated to create the impression of a man
> fearful for his life who stands his ground to
> prevent a violent assault.
>
>
>
> "Now, I'm standing my ground here. Now, these
> people are going to try and kill me."
videotpaping, talking on the phone, and holding a gun to someone; doesn't sound scared to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 04:50PM by FUNdamental.
Re: Jury; Stand your ground claim not grounded. Guilty, and in Texas no less!
Posted by:
justsayin
()
Date: June 17, 2012 06:56PM
FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Texas Justice Wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > The way I read the story, the guy was deliberately
> > setting up his own defense by videotaping the
> > whole encounter and making statements to the 911
> > dispatcher
>
> videotpaping, talking on the phone, and holding a
> gun to someone; doesn't sound scared to me.
No shit radiophile, that was his point. This guy was clearly fabricating evidence before he did what he knew what he was going to do, which was murder the guy. It wasn't a test of a legit Stand Your Ground situation. He's guilty because he didn't meet the requirements of stand your ground and the jury saw through his BS.
It doesn't mean that stand your ground is wrong any more than the existence of self-defense rules for cops. Some cops deliberately place themselves in harm's way to use deadly force, as in the IHOP case. At least the Texas case saw a conviction after a jury heard the story... the cop in the IHOP case didn't even have charges filed. Does that mean we should make it illegal for police to shoot criminals in any and all situations?
The fact that this conviction occurred in Texas, a very pro-2A state, should actually relieve anti-2A people that existing laws are being upheld and applied correctly. Somehow I doubt their opposition to the Constitution will abate.
FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story displays clearly people misunderstand the
> law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding to justify
> shootings when they get mad at another person.
I don't think so... it shows there are people out there who misuse it, but I don't think this case has any element of misunderstanding in it. The shooter was clearly checking off evidence boxes in his mind to try to fake a SYG case. He understood it completely, that is the reason he took the actions he did.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Texas Justice Wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > The way I read the story, the guy was deliberately
> > setting up his own defense by videotaping the
> > whole encounter and making statements to the 911
> > dispatcher
>
> videotpaping, talking on the phone, and holding a
> gun to someone; doesn't sound scared to me.
No shit radiophile, that was his point. This guy was clearly fabricating evidence before he did what he knew what he was going to do, which was murder the guy. It wasn't a test of a legit Stand Your Ground situation. He's guilty because he didn't meet the requirements of stand your ground and the jury saw through his BS.
It doesn't mean that stand your ground is wrong any more than the existence of self-defense rules for cops. Some cops deliberately place themselves in harm's way to use deadly force, as in the IHOP case. At least the Texas case saw a conviction after a jury heard the story... the cop in the IHOP case didn't even have charges filed. Does that mean we should make it illegal for police to shoot criminals in any and all situations?
The fact that this conviction occurred in Texas, a very pro-2A state, should actually relieve anti-2A people that existing laws are being upheld and applied correctly. Somehow I doubt their opposition to the Constitution will abate.
FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story displays clearly people misunderstand the
> law, and use this grotesque misunderstanding to justify
> shootings when they get mad at another person.
I don't think so... it shows there are people out there who misuse it, but I don't think this case has any element of misunderstanding in it. The shooter was clearly checking off evidence boxes in his mind to try to fake a SYG case. He understood it completely, that is the reason he took the actions he did.