Criminals are Entitled to Your Stuff (1 Viewer)

[TurtleDude]

My premise is not ignorant dude. No more than yours is.

your premise is that honest citizens shouldn't be able to own firearms nor use them to protect themselves

 

[Rucker61]

presumed

Ya' don't know until 'ya know.

She should have waited for the cops. Had she been a smart person, neither of them would be in as much of a fix.

In hindsight, yes. However, once she did the perfectly legal act of returning to her own home, and then encountered a home intruder, it didn't matter anymore what she should have done.

Cops draw their weapons all the time on presumptions, but they don;lt shoot unless they're sure there is a threat. And if they shoot an unarmed person, they're in trouble.

Right. I bet we can't find any instances at all of cops shooting someone that turns out to be unarmed and doesn't get charged. Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us? Did you note the part of Florida law I posted? He was in the act of a home invasion, and by law is automatically assumed to be a violent threat.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Any law(s) that do not allow both concealed carry and open carry are unconstitutional. Apparently CCW is illegal.

It is if the Second Amendment is absolute, yes.

 

[Rucker61]

It is if the Second Amendment is absolute, yes.

Presuming you're agreeing that concealed carry is illegal, in what way?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Presuming you're agreeing that concealed carry is illegal, in what way?

I don't believe I said that, did I?

 

[Rucker61]

I don't believe I said that, did I?

I read and reread, and could not figure out which you were agreeing with:

1. Any law(s) that do not allow both concealed carry and open carry are unconstitutional.
2. Apparently CCW is illegal.

Which I why I presumptively suggested that your state was regarding the last choice.

 

[BretJ]

My premise is not ignorant dude. No more than yours is.

You are kidding right? What was my premise??? My only premise was 1. An unarmed individual can be a threat to life. 2. Let the legal system determine if further charges are called for. So which one is the ignorant premise tiger?

 

[TurtleDude]

It is if the Second Amendment is absolute, yes.

federally it is even though corrupt politicians have said otherwise

at the state level its unclear

 

[jet57]

You are kidding right? What was my premise??? My only premise was 1. An unarmed individual can be a threat to life. 2. Let the legal system determine if further charges are called for. So which one is the ignorant premise tiger?

...........

 

[jet57]

..................

 

[Dittohead not!]

I read and reread, and could not figure out which you were agreeing with:

1. Any law(s) that do not allow both concealed carry and open carry are unconstitutional.
2. Apparently CCW is illegal.

Which I why I presumptively suggested that your state was regarding the last choice.

I don't remember now where those statements came from. They seem to be contradictory.

 

[Dittohead not!]

federally it is even though corrupt politicians have said otherwise

at the state level its unclear

I believe we've discussed this issue before, and I recall that you don't actually believe that the Second Amendment is absolute. You're quite willing to interpret the term "arms" to mean what you'd like it to mean.

In modern realpolitik what it really means is whatever the SCOTUS says it means.

I'm not saying that's how it ought to be, you understand, just how it is.

 

[jet57]

In hindsight, yes. However, once she did the perfectly legal act of returning to her own home, and then encountered a home intruder, it didn't matter anymore what she should have done.

She did a stupid thing. She did it because she had a gun. She should have waited, been smart, and none of this would have happened.

Hindsight? always 20-20, because you take the time to think. That is a huge point in my argument. You and the gun crowd here, think that I'm somehow fixated on disarming people, or that I don't take criminal behavior into consideration, but here I point out the old adage that two wrongs don't make a right.
What SHE did - was a wrong. What the guy that shot Mcknight did was wrong. What that South Carolina cop did was wrong. The position that you gun guys take on issues of unarmed victims is also wrong. Why? Because you dismiss emotional knee-jerk reactions as self defense, when just thinking and not being so gun happy will go along way toward preventing this kind of thing, and THAT is why California has such laws in place to keep people from such stupid behavior.

So of course it matters what she should have done!!

Zimmerman should have stayed in his damn car like the 911 operator said to do! There are so many examples of this kind of thing that you guys just bury under the rug that it makes you appear irrational, emotional, nationalistic, short sighted and otherwise unable to deal with the world except by the gun.

Do you know why the North Vietnamese won the war? Because when necessary, they knew how to avoid US: choosing their battles, playing it smart - THINKING.

That woman should have waited for the cops.

Right. I bet we can't find any instances at all of cops shooting someone that turns out to be unarmed and doesn't get charged. Do you live in the same reality as the rest of us? Did you note the part of Florida law I posted? He was in the act of a home invasion, and by law is automatically assumed to be a violent threat.

There are lots of incidences where cops are charged, arrested, fired and otherwise disciplined for shooting unarmed people. That idiotic Florida law makes emotionally knee jerk shootings legal under a flimsy excuse of "stand your ground". Even in California, if somebody fires a gun and injures or kills someone with just cause ALL THAT is taken into account and people are not charged.

So I very much live in reality: a civilized one.

 

[jet57]

I believe we've discussed this issue before, and I recall that you don't actually believe that the Second Amendment is absolute. You're quite willing to interpret the term "arms" to mean what you'd like it to mean.

In modern realpolitik what it really means is whatever the SCOTUS says it means.

I'm not saying that's how it ought to be, you understand, just how it is.

Yeah the constitution has a weird way of being interpreted by the ones with the political power in order to sit themselves.

 

[Rucker61]

She did a stupid thing. She did it because she had a gun. She should have waited, been smart, and none of this would have happened.

She did it. We don't know if the gun played any part at all. That's supposition on your part.

Hindsight? always 20-20, because you take the time to think. That is a huge point in my argument. You and the gun crowd here, think that I'm somehow fixated on disarming people, or that I don't take criminal behavior into consideration, but here I point out the old adage that two wrongs don't make a right.

Nor do they make a crime.

What SHE did - was a wrong.

No, it wasn't.

What the guy that shot Mcknight did was wrong. What that South Carolina cop did was wrong. The position that you gun guys take on issues of unarmed victims is also wrong.

No, it isn't. Why should anyone give an attacker the benefit of the doubt? You don't know who is armed or unarmed at the time of the decision, and even unarmed doesn't mean "not a lethal threat". According to Florida law, an intruder in the home is to be assume to be violent.

Why? Because you dismiss emotional knee-jerk reactions as self defense, when just thinking and not being so gun happy will go along way toward preventing this kind of thing,

When you have to make a self-defense decision in less than a second, and guessing wrong or giving the benefit of the doubt to an obvious criminal means you can die, it's not a knee-jerk reaction.

and THAT is why California has such laws in place to keep people from such stupid behavior.

Did you miss the three links I gave you that show that California's self defense laws are de facto SYG laws?

So of course it matters what she should have done!!

Zimmerman should have stayed in his damn car like the 911 operator said to do!

The 911 operator has no legal authority to order anyone to do so, and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. Martin shouldn't have attacked him - that's what shouldn't have happened.

There are so many examples of this kind of thing that you guys just bury under the rug that it makes you appear irrational, emotional, nationalistic, short sighted and otherwise unable to deal with the world except by the gun.

And there are so many examples of an active self-defense being the smart thing to do. You don't want anyone to have the ability and/or right to defend themselves.

Do you know why the North Vietnamese won the war? Because when necessary, they knew how to avoid US: choosing their battles, playing it smart - THINKING.

That's a rather simplistic view. They won the war because Johnson wouldn't turn the Air Force loose on the North Vietnamese infrastructure. They also won the war because they used Tet 68 to sacrifice the Viet Cong.

That woman should have waited for the cops.

Why?

There are lots of incidences where cops are charged, arrested, fired and otherwise disciplined for shooting unarmed people.

Yes, and a lot of incidences where they are not, where a shooting, even of an unarmed suspect, is justified. You don't know if someone is unarmed just by looking at them, and everything from fists to guns can be lethal.

That idiotic Florida law makes emotionally knee jerk shootings legal under a flimsy excuse of "stand your ground". Even in California, if somebody fires a gun and injures or kills someone with just cause ALL THAT is taken into account and people are not charged.

So I very much live in reality: a civilized one.

You need to go back and read those links on self defense in California. See post #125.

 

[Rucker61]

Yeah the constitution has a weird way of being interpreted by the ones with the political power in order to sit themselves.

That explains the California legislature and the 9th Circuit Court of Rubberstamp.

 

[TurtleDude]

That explains the California legislature and the 9th Circuit Court of Rubberstamp.

That legislature and to a lesser extent, the court is completely hateful of many parts of the constitution. Its a cesspool of SJW activists

 

[blackjack50]

She did a stupid thing. She did it because she had a gun. She should have waited, been smart, and none of this would have happened.

Hindsight? always 20-20, because you take the time to think. That is a huge point in my argument. You and the gun crowd here, think that I'm somehow fixated on disarming people, or that I don't take criminal behavior into consideration, but here I point out the old adage that two wrongs don't make a right.
What SHE did - was a wrong. What the guy that shot Mcknight did was wrong. What that South Carolina cop did was wrong. The position that you gun guys take on issues of unarmed victims is also wrong. Why? Because you dismiss emotional knee-jerk reactions as self defense, when just thinking and not being so gun happy will go along way toward preventing this kind of thing, and THAT is why California has such laws in place to keep people from such stupid behavior.

So of course it matters what she should have done!!

Zimmerman should have stayed in his damn car like the 911 operator said to do! There are so many examples of this kind of thing that you guys just bury under the rug that it makes you appear irrational, emotional, nationalistic, short sighted and otherwise unable to deal with the world except by the gun.

Do you know why the North Vietnamese won the war? Because when necessary, they knew how to avoid US: choosing their battles, playing it smart - THINKING.

That woman should have waited for the cops.




There are lots of incidences where cops are charged, arrested, fired and otherwise disciplined for shooting unarmed people. That idiotic Florida law makes emotionally knee jerk shootings legal under a flimsy excuse of "stand your ground". Even in California, if somebody fires a gun and injures or kills someone with just cause ALL THAT is taken into account and people are not charged.

So I very much live in reality: a civilized one.

Would a reasonable person stop a robbery in progress on their home? Simple question. You will avoid and jerk and dodge, but you know the answer.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jet57]

Would a reasonable person stop a robbery in progress on their home? Simple question. You will avoid and jerk and dodge, but you know the answer.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice avoidance.

Someone who is in their home at the time and has a means to do so, yes. Someone who is away from home and hears of a break in, and calls the police for help and then runs home and bursts in the house with a gun and shoots, is a stupid person.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nice avoidance.

Someone who is in their home at the time and has a means to do so, yes. Someone who is away from home and hears of a break in, and calls the police for help and then runs home and bursts in the house with a gun and shoots, is a stupid person.

I call that a civic minded person

 

[Rucker61]

Nice avoidance.

Someone who is in their home at the time and has a means to do so, yes. Someone who is away from home and hears of a break in, and calls the police for help and then runs home and bursts in the house with a gun and shoots, is a stupid person.

The police reports I've seen indicate that she did not enter the house.

 

[blackjack50]

Nice avoidance.

Someone who is in their home at the time and has a means to do so, yes. Someone who is away from home and hears of a break in, and calls the police for help and then runs home and bursts in the house with a gun and shoots, is a stupid person.

Wow. I even told you I was aware of what you would do.

So you are saying no. A reasonable person would not attempt to stop themselves from being robbed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nice avoidance.

Someone who is in their home at the time and has a means to do so, yes. Someone who is away from home and hears of a break in, and calls the police for help and then runs home and bursts in the house with a gun and shoots, is a stupid person.

Someone who burglarizes a house, then confronts an armed homeowner on exiting the building isn't showing a lot of smarts either.

 

[jet57]

The police reports I've seen indicate that she did not enter the house.

She shot the kid inside her house, so I don't know how else that could have happened.

 

[jet57]

Wow. I even told you I was aware of what you would do.

So you are saying no. A reasonable person would not attempt to stop themselves from being robbed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're intentionally misrepresenting what I said. Which is what you do.