• 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

Who the hell are you to define what constitutes a justifiable threat on someone elses property ?

Instead of restricting the actions of the victims, criminals shuld understand that its highly likely that their actions might cost them their life.

If they die over a lawn mower it was because of their foolosh choice to weigh their existence against the cost of a used lawn mower.

I'm somebody who votes, and somebody who serves on juries.

Kill somebody stealing your lawnmower and you'll go to jail. For a long time.

It's not that difficult.
 
I hadn't heard this before. This is substantially more than merely "being in the yard at night". The bolded portion might well have been evidence of attempted breaking and entering.

If she's pleading for help due to being in an auto accident she very well might be knocking on the door rather heavily.

Pleading for help.

As you've stated, we need a lot more information before jumping to any conclusions.

It is a great thing this case is going to trial and it proves our laws, in this case, are working rather well.
 
This train of thought is why many people are very staunchly in favor of stricter gun control.

You make it harder for yourself when you spout this kind of nonsense.

The people that push for more gun control have their priorities confused.
 
Homeowners should be allowed to defend themselves, however with firearm ownership comes responsibility and pulling that trigger "just because" is not responsible. Now SYG is different. For example Zimmerman was not on his property when he shot Martin. Nor was Reeves when he pulled the trigger in a Florida movie theatre. Trigger happy folks make news for doing stupid things makes it harder for responsible gun owners.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep it civil, folks.
 
Bull****. If you're on my property, without my leave, you risk a high velocity chunk of lead penetrating vital organs at my discretion (and aim).

You pound on my door in the middle of the night, and sound incoherent, don't follow directions? See point one.

You do stupid ****, you get removed, forcibly from the gene pool.

Needlessly removing somebody from the gene pool can lead removing oneself from the gene pool as well via dying in prison- which I think is going to be the result in this case.
 
Last edited:
The same could be said for Murder being illegal. Laws written on paper do not stop people from doing stupid ****, and a handful of people doing stupid **** does not justify restricting the peaceable majority.

When stupid results in the deaths of innocent people we often opt to limit the freedoms of the peaceful majority. It's ridiculous to me that you consider these laws reasonable and are so willing to let others die to keep what you consider to be your rights, unrestricted. I am not talking about taking away anyone's guns but having laws in place that empower and enable people to kill innocent people so that you gun owners don't feel like their on a slippery slope to confiscation is ludicrous.
 
Who the hell are you to define what constitutes a justifiable threat on someone elses property ?

Instead of restricting the actions of the victims, criminals shuld understand that its highly likely that their actions might cost them their life.

If they die over a lawn mower it was because of their foolosh choice to weigh their existence against the cost of a used lawn mower.

I'm somebody who votes, and somebody who serves on juries.

Kill somebody stealing your lawnmower and you'll go to jail. For a long time.

It's not that difficult.

Wrong, if someone has made the foolish decision to break into my garage to steal whatever and I catch him, he's toast and I'm NOT going to jail.

Its not that difficult.
 
The people that push for more gun control have their priorities confused.

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.
 
Who the hell are you to define what constitutes a justifiable threat on someone elses property ?

Instead of restricting the actions of the victims, criminals shuld understand that its highly likely that their actions might cost them their life.

If they die over a lawn mower it was because of their foolosh choice to weigh their existence against the cost of a used lawn mower.

If she's pleading for help due to being in an auto accident she very well might be knocking on the door rather heavily.

Pleading for help.

As you've stated, we need a lot more information before jumping to any conclusions.

It is a great thing this case is going to trial and it proves our laws, in this case, are working rather well.

Thats not what you said earlier.

You said he was guilty.
 
it is already illegal to shoot someone just for being in your front yard!

stop yelling at maggie for an different opinion than you!!!!
 
When stupid results in the deaths of innocent people who often opt to limit the freedoms of the peaceful majority. It's ridiculous to me that you consider these laws reasonable and are so willing to let others die to keep what you consider to be your rights, unrestricted. I am not talking about taking away anyone's guns but having laws in place that empower and enable people to kill innocent people so that you gun owners don't feel like their on a slippery slope to confiscation is ludicrous.


1. Not about confiscation. It's about the right to self-defense.

2. These laws do NOT empower people to kill innocents. Case in point: the guy has been charged and will be tried in court.

3. Nothing in SYG or Castle Doctrine says you can shoot someone in your yard who is not acting as a reasonable threat. That's WHY the guy HAS been charged.


No need to restrict the peaceable majority... the law is already doing what it is supposed to do, which is determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness of actions taken and punish as necessary.


What I don't want is to go back to the way it used to be in many states, where you practically needed a law library and two attorneys and twenty billable hours to tell you whether you were justified to shoot in a situation where you had maybe a second or two to decide or die.
 
Wrong, if someone has made the foolish decision to break into my garage to steal whatever and I catch him, he's toast and I'm NOT going to jail.

Its not that difficult.

All I can hope is that we'll never know, but I'm guessing that the only way for you to make sure of that would be to break even more laws and tamper with evidence.

A jury may very well not agree with your position otherwise.

If I was on the jury I wouldn't, unless the law specifically stated killing people for no particular reason other than losing a $100 lawnmower was just fine and dandy.
 

stop yelling at maggie for an different opinion than you!!!!



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.
 
Better to die a victim of crime then be empowered with self defense. Got it.

Just make sure you actually ARE a victim before you kill someone. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
 
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.


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
 
Just make sure you actually ARE a victim before you kill someone. Is that REALLY too much to ask?



Ok, please give us your " am I a victim ? " check list that every person who's currently in the process of having their home broken into needs so they can determine whether or not they're justified in defending themselves.
 
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

Just so we're all clear here.....how much is a human life worth?
What's a reasonable value of something to kill somebody over?

So a dude walking up to my house is "deemed by me" to be a threat. I kill him. Later I find out he's a Jehovah's Witness, unarmed, and was simply coming to talk about Jesus and the Bible.

Guess I'm off the hook huh? How was I to know he only wanted to talk about Jesus. I thought he was a threat to my home, property, and safety.
I sure as hell wasn't going to let him get right up to my front door. That's damn near suicide. :roll:
 
Reading comprehension. It's good for the soul.


But her actions prior to being shot were in the story.

You said if the stories correct he's guilty.

Do YOU have reading comprehension issues ?
 
So a dude walking up to my house is "deemed by me" to be a threat. I kill him. Later I find out he's a Jehovah's Witness, unarmed, and was simply coming to talk about Jesus and the Bible.

Guess I'm off the hook huh?

Only if you can convince a jury that your deeming the victim to be a threat was reasonable. As Goshin pointed out, not even the most generous Castle Laws allow the shooter alone to make the determination as to what was reasonable.

Rather, society determines what is reasonable. This determination will vary community by community.
 
Just so we're all clear here.....how much is a human life worth?
What's a reasonable value of something to kill somebody over?

So a dude walking up to my house is "deemed by me" to be a threat. I kill him. Later I find out he's a Jehovah's Witness, unarmed, and was simply coming to talk about Jesus and the Bible.

Guess I'm off the hook huh? How was I to know he only wanted to talk about Jesus. I thought he was a threat to my home, property, and safety.
I sure as hell wasn't going to let him get right up to my front door. That's damn near suicide. :roll:


Im only responsible for MY life, not the " human life " thats just illegally invaded my house and or garage to do who knows what

Ask the theif what he thinks his life is worth.

That would actually be a relevent question because he's the one risking it.
 
Wrong. Their feelings are held to the "reasonable man standard". As in, "would a reasonable person in the same situation also perceive a serious threat?"

It is NOT simply about the shooter's feelings alone. If their perception of threat is deemed unreasonable by a jury, then they are liable for their action.
Tell me then ...How does one prove a feeling?
 
It doesn't matter, if you're white and have a gun any actions are justifiable.
 
Hell, why do they need a trial at all ?

They could just convict the guy on your opinion alone.
I offer my opinion on a public forum that I think he is a murderer, just as you think that he is not.
Calm down, our opinions will not affect the outcome of his trial.
However if enough people understand the absurdity of a law that grants murder immunity for reason of "feelings"... we can change those laws to something saner and more civilized.
 
Back
Top Bottom