• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week

Texas are neck and neck with China for executions, aren't they?
 
Buck Ewer said:
Tell me then ...How does one prove a feeling?
Click to expand...

You are attempting to make the wrong analysis:

- The proscecution does not need to prove that the shooter did not have "feeling "X" ".

- Rather, the shooter needs to prove that the feeling was reasonable. Nobody is going to question him as to whether or not he actually had feeling "X".

How "reasonable" is defined in regards to self defense can vary from state to state and from county to county. That aside, this idiot would be in trouble in even the most pro gun counties. I hope he gets convicted.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
The criminal made the decision to risk his life over a leaf blower.

What you want is for the victim to know for a fact that that criminal is satisfied with just a leaf blower
Click to expand...
Yeah sure ... maybe he wants your rake as well... then what will you do? The leaves will bury you next fall.
Better kill him.
 
Dragonfly said:
People who think killing a person over a leaf blower have their priorities confused.
People who think shooting someone through a closed and locked front door have their priorities confused.

People who spout off about how "they'll kill anyone who dares step foot on their property" not only have their priorities confused, but cause more harm than good when it comes to gun control.

If you want people to back off regarding gun control, perhaps you should stop acting like you have a license to kill anyone, for any reason, regardless of circumstance.
Click to expand...

Who's going to protect my property if I don't? Or, are you suggesting that I'm supposed to just sit back and do nothing while some no-good sum-bitch robs me blind?
 
Goshin said:
Madam, restrain yourself. I was correcting a completely false assertion in a way to make sure everyone saw the correction. I have already apologized to Maggie if it seemed that I was shouting... if you'd read a bit further you would have seen it.


Different opinions do not upset me; false information does.
Click to expand...

:lol: I prefer to act out violently based on my own personal misconceptions of the threat level
 
I actually live pretty close to where this took place. I will say that in the last 15/20 yrs things have really changed around there. Never did you see bars on windows and doors but that's not the case anymore, alot of the older residents are scared at whats happening to their city. Alot of the crime that was exclusive to Detroit is spilling out into the surrounding cities. Now did this guy overestimated the threat he was facing? Maybe, but to condemn him before knowing the whole story is nothing short of irresponsible.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Tell me then ...How does one prove a feeling?
Click to expand...


As I've already explained, a jury will determine whether the shooters alleged perception of threat was reasonable or not.


Look up "reasonable man legal principle", it will explain how this works.
 
apdst said:
Who's going to protect my property if I don't? Or, are you suggesting that I'm supposed to just sit back and do nothing while some no-good sum-bitch robs me blind?
Click to expand...
Show your gun to Mr no-good sum-bitch and hold him at gun point until he can be taken into custody. Why wouldn't you consider that?
What we find objectionable is the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality and the laws that grant immunity to murder based on ones "feelings".
 
rocket88 said:
It doesn't matter, if you're white and have a gun any actions are justifiable.
Click to expand...



Please refrain from making ridiculous statements that have no basis in fact. I know you're smarter than that.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Show your gun to Mr no-good sum-bitch and hold him at gun point until he can be taken into custody. Why wouldn't you consider that?
What we find objectionable is the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality and the laws that grant immunity to murder based on ones "feelings".
Click to expand...



It is distressing to have to explain something repeatedly, only to have the facts ignored yet again.

Very well.


No one is granted immunity to murder charges based simply on their feelings.

There must be a perception of imminent threat of a serious nature; this perception of threat must be judged to pass the "reasonable man test" by either the prosecutor, or if it goes to trial, a jury.

Your statement is false and hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
Show your gun to Mr no-good sum-bitch and hold him at gun point until he can be taken into custody. Why wouldn't you consider that?
What we find objectionable is the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality and the laws that grant immunity to murder based on ones "feelings".
Click to expand...

And we object to your pleas to give home invaders a safe working environment.
 
opendebate said:
Just make sure you actually ARE a victim before you kill someone. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
Click to expand...

yes.. it is too much to ask.

the idea of self defense is to NOT become a victim... not become a victim and then get your revenge after the fact

I agree 100% with SYG and castle doctrine laws.... and i would defend myself even in their absence,
but if you do not agree with them, simply do not defend yourself at home or outside of your home.... you are not required to defend yourself , your family,or your property.

keep a clear conscience... be a victim.;)
 
Buck Ewer said:
Yeah sure ... maybe he wants your rake as well... then what will you do? The leaves will bury you next fall.
Better kill him.
Click to expand...


How is it my problem that he's decided that his life is worth a used leaf blower and a used rake ?

Is anyone responsible for their actions in your world ?

Or is it only people who own guns who are to be held responsible for their actions ?
 
Thrilla said:
by opposing self-defense laws, you most certainly are.

by opposing self defense laws you are blatantly saying " the aggressor/criminal/intruder/perpetrator comes first"
Click to expand...

No one is opposing self defense laws. But those laws have to be written in a way that doesn't create a whole new class of victims
 
Most states (other than Texas, of course) do not allow lethal force to be used in defense of property, where the threat is ONLY to property.


Now part of the problem here is where that line gets fuzzy. Some examples:

Someone breaks into your home while you're in it.
Someone tries to steal your car while you're in it.
Someone breaks into your shed while you're in it.

In most states, the above situations are considered self-defense rather than defending property; especially the home, in Castle Doctrine states.

Some states, like mine, extend Castle Doctrine to cover your yard and outbuildings... within reason. Within reason means you can't shoot somebody because they're standing there twenty feet away holding very still while giving you a goofy look... there has to be some reasonable expression of threat, but the homeowner generally gets more benefit of the doubt within his home (or in states like mine, his yard or outbuildings) unless there is evidence is wasn't SD.


Now Castle Doctrine is NOT a license to kill anyone on your property. It simply means you have no duty to retreat and that you get more benefit of the doubt if you assert there was a reasonable threat. Questionable cases end up going to trial... as this one is going to, then the jury decides whether it was or was not reasonable.


One of the reasons I support SYG and Castle Doctrine is because threat situations can manifest very quickly, and you may have no more than a fraction of a second to make the call before it is too late to act effectively. In such a case the decision tree the armed citizen must mentally navigate in making this call needs to be fairly simple and straightforward.... not something needing a law library and a legal scholar to decipher. When homeowners fear to shoot invading criminals, crime tends to prosper, and I don't want to see that become law of the land again.


Personally I think there should be considerable latitude in dealing with property crimes as well.

Example:

You see someone in your shed, stealing your stuff you worked hard for. You call 911... the police response time in your area tends to be 15-20 minutes, sometimes longer for non-deadly scenarios. The guy is loading up his truck and about to leave. Just letting him go, with your stuff you'll find very hard to replace, is hard to swallow. Confronting him is a risk, but many of us feel that protecting the integrity of our home and property is worth such a risk.

Doing so unarmed is asking to get killed though; yet if you go out with a gun and tell him to surrender, then he does something threatening and you have to shoot him... many people here on DP would apparently call you a murderer, or claim you were in the wrong, simply because you went outside with a gun. We've had that argument before, and I think you have to come down on the side of the victim here: the property owner getting ripped off (perhaps for the nth time in many cases).

Frankly I'm a firm believer that armed robbers should be shot on sight; and I'm not overly sympathetic to unarmed thieves that get shot in the act either. Don't want to get shot, don't steal people's stuff...
 
opendebate said:
No one is opposing self defense laws. But those laws have to be written in a way that doesn't create a whole new class of victims
Click to expand...





A few incidents do not constitute "a whole new class of victims". Stuff like this happened long before SYG, you know.
 
Thrilla said:
yes.. it is too much to ask.

the idea of self defense is to NOT become a victim... not become a victim and then get your revenge after the fact

I agree 100% with SYG and castle doctrine laws.... and i would defend myself even in their absence,
but if you do not agree with them, simply do not defend yourself at home or outside of your home.... you are not required to defend yourself , your family,or your property.

keep a clear conscience... be a victim.;)
Click to expand...

What kind of world are you endorsing here. One where a person can't approach a strangers house without fear of being shot dead?! Really? It's an absurd overreach.

The problem is the way some of these laws are written and promoting the idea that they be cleaned up so that we don't just create a whole new group of victims is not the same as opposing the concept of people having the right to protect themselves against an "actual" threat
 
Goshin said:
It is distressing to have to explain something repeatedly, only to have the facts ignored yet again.

Very well.


No one is granted immunity to murder charges based simply on their feelings.

There must be a perception of imminent threat of a serious nature; this perception of threat must be judged to pass the "reasonable man test" by either the prosecutor, or if it goes to trial, a jury.

Your statement is false and hyperbole.
Click to expand...
The simple fact that these laws contain the wording "feel threatened" instead of "are threatened" give the level of certainty away to an emotional state and creates a fuzzy non-specific reason to kill.
When the weight of reason is applied only to a feeling and not to solid evidence of a real threat the law panders to those who like the idea of knee-jerk shooting instead of well considered responsible defense.
The wording matters. Any form of the word "feel" has no place in any law concerning life and death.
 
opendebate said:
Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week | ThinkProgress

Remember this story? From the article

..... latest trial to test the role of expansive self-defense laws in racially charged deaths by gunfire.

In statements to the press, he called the shooting “justified” and “reasonable,” invoking language from Michigan’s “Shoot First” laws that allow immunity for some self-defense shootings.

....in announcing she would charge Wafer with second-degree murder, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said her office determined that Wafer “did not act in lawful self-defense.”

Wafer’s lawyer Cheryl Carpenter argued in opening statements Wednesday morning that Wafer shot McBride out of fear. To bolster that argument with legal support, she will have two options under Michigan’s expanded self-defense laws that grew out of NRA lobbying. In addition to passing a “Stand Your Ground” law in 2006 that expands the sanctioned use of deadly force outside the home, Michigan also expanded the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows deadly force to protect one’s dwelling, to include areas around the home such as a yard or porch.

For Wafer to successfully invoke the “Castle Doctrine,” he would have to show that McBride was “in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling.” Prosecutors said there no evidence of forced entry. And the autopsy report shows McBride was not shot at close range.

Wafer could also use the state’s Stand Your Ground law to show that he reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

I think these laws are dangerous and empower people to act on irrational fears. Irrational fears that seem to consistently provoke them to shoot black people. IMHO, unless they consider that sector of our population dispensable these laws need to be changed in consideration of these real world outcomes.
Click to expand...
Stand your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy | Tampa Bay Times

An intensive study of the actual cases where the stand your ground defense was used showed very clearly that blacks were much more likely in both raw numbers AND statistics to SUCCESSFULLY use the SYG laws in cases of self defense. The racism angle is just a sad, played out ploy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom