Yeah, feck off with this. My cousin never owned a gun, nor has anyone in my family. He’s still dead though. Restrict gun deaths to the families of gun owners. Let them all rot in their death. Couldn’t care less if any gun owner died.
The bad (typically gun related) things happening in America thread
- Thread starter calodo2003
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Where do I sign?
If I knew I would quit my job and devote my life to collecting signatures.
Son graduated, then he & his father were killed an hour later…
Absolutely prototypical middle aged Florida conservative woman, perfect caricature of the type. No doubt she is wearing a cross pendant on a necklace & sees herself as morally superior to those around her, especially those with pigment in their skin. Complete human detritus…
Florida introduced a "stand your ground" law in 2005 which gives individuals a right to protect themselves with reasonable force - including deadly force - to prevent death or bodily harm.
I mean, what the actual feck!! Combine that with the right to bear arms and things go south pretty quick.
I mean, what the actual feck!! Combine that with the right to bear arms and things go south pretty quick.
Lucky this isn’t a crucial highway or anything. And it happened next door to Four Seasons Total Landscaping…
Last edited:
About 28 States have some form of this law
I’d bet my house that he was using sarcasm there.I-95 isn't a crucial highway
I know was just checking
Now had the 12 year old kid had the arsenal that this dickhead did, I wonder what would've happened?
It's really about time the black community started arming themselves to the teeth with everything short of a nuclear weapon.
I believe the cops are scaredy cats and even the racist ones would think twice about bringing a pistol to an AR fight as proven in Uvalde. They probably had zero intention of putting themselves in harms way trying to deal with this loon and all his weapons.
Remember when the Black Panthers armed up...
What you said actually comes from English common law dating back centuries..
Stand your ground is just like 'castle doctrine plus', no duty to retreat from an attacker anywhere, not just in the home and as has been said many states have that.
Florida does have one twist on self-defence, from my lay knowledge, in that they also allow use of deadly force to stop an ongoing forceable felony.
Which is fair enough. But when I argued in favour of the death penalty for serious convictions proven beyond any measure of doubt, there were people who felt it should never be enforced under any circumstances.
Yet, a Floridian is permitted by law to act as judge, jury and executioner? Doesn't make any sense.
No, it's that innocent people acting reasonably with the knowledge that they had at the time aren't expected to wait to endure a serious injury or death before being allowed to protect themselves or others
It's not about punishing an perceived attacker, it's about defending your safety.
The death penalty argument has no logical comparison
I've been wondering this for ages. The only people that can save America (i.e save white people mainly, obviously) are black people. Again. As soon as they start walking around malls with grenade launchers and sniper rifles the 2A will be amended within a month.
There will obviously be bloodshed, but isn't there already? Probably black people will be indiscriminately killed. But aren't they already?
However, I'm also wondering if the black community is somehow (un)ashamedly thinking, good, kill yourselves you stupid white folk. See how it feels to be part of the stats too.
That's bullshit. Any attack could result in serious injury or death, whether that be in the pub, at a football match, walking on your way home or in your house while you're asleep. It may not be your attacker's intent to cause you injury or kill you but of course you're not going to take that risk. So you're saying that if you're in a scuffle, so long as you can argue that you felt that your personal safety was at risk, you're perfectly entitled to blow that person away? Dirty cops have been using that line for years to take out black guys. It's even parodied in comedy shows these days.
Of course the death penalty is relevant if citizens are able to enforce their own versions of it.
Do you think the attackers intent is more important than the defendant's perception and intent?
Do you think every attack is a life or death situation? Do you believe there are less drastic means of defending oneself? Do you believe that people use that lame excuse as a reason to kill? What if the defendant's perception is warped by prejudice and profiling? Yet the death penalty is seen as barbaric?
Are you saying if you get in to a fight and someone wants to smack you in the face, it's ok for you to shoot them?
Haven't we had this exact conversation with him before?
not sure if it was him, but there was someone on here stanning for Rittenhouse during that trial making the same argumanent.
No, and neither does the law.
Like all crimes except strict liability offences like possession of child porn you must have the prerequisite mental state to have committed an offence.
If you attack someone with a punch and they die, it's murder (albeit a lower culpablity) because you intended to harm and it resulted in death
If you punch someone and they shoot you dead, that's murder, unless they reasonably believed without the use of deadly force they would be seriously injury.
It would require heightened fear of injury.
For example, if I had a weak skull from a condition I would be entitled to shoot you for trying to throw a punch because I am aware of the risk of serious injury, even if you are not aware. It's about the mental state of the accused, not the totality of what is understood after the fact.
Heightened fear could be from could be things like death threats or persistent attacks or a group attack. Use common sense, it's about reasonableness.
Again, the death penalty is a punishment used to enact retribution on a captive person who in theory is no longer a threat to society, and as a supposed deterrent to others who would commit similar crimes. It's not comparable to self defense, which is about the right to be secure in your person. If you were thinking of retribution while shooting someone, you have committed murder
Possibly, but I've either missed that or forgot it. I remember having a similar conversation with Barros years ago though.
I just can't wrap my head around the contradiction of people who claim to live in the land of freedom and continually mock everywhere else because they think we are living in oppression compared to them. Yet they all claim to have to own guns because it's their right and because they need it for self defense. That smells like fear, possum piss and fruity pebbles to me.
Also kids in the US have to undergo active shooter drills at school. It's beyond comprehension that that would be considered normal. It's fecking horrifying. But still, the land of the free compared to everywhere else. It's a fecking joke.
Again, bullshit! That's fine and dandy when you're trying to get someone off on a technicality. Someone who wakes up in the middle of the night and hears a burglar rifling trough their family jewels is going to blow his head off arguing that they feared for their life?
The guy most likely had no bad intentions towards the homeoweners but yes, he is trespassing. That doesn't justify three bullets in the chest. Intent calls for the operation of one's mind and is difficult to prove. As I said before many people have hidden behind that as an excuse for using unreasonable force and the cops are the masters at it.
How are the central ideas in criminal law, at least in jurisdictions that were built from English common law, a technicality??
Admittedly I'm at the edge of my knowledge but my understanding is in the scenario the person would probably still be convicted even under castle doctrine because while they have no duty to retreat it would not be reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury without other factors, even in Texas, the only state to allow deadly force to defend property I think it's only where the person is escaping with the valuables.
You seem to have a problem with the standard of proof required for criminal convictions.
There are plenty of ways to infer intent if someone is guilty. A lot of convictions are bad self defense cases.
Yes, the same poster
You really get off on this kind of shit, don't you? Good for you.
https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article276257911.html
Midlands teacher’s lesson on racism halted after complaints, citing state law
“Hearing (Wood’s) opinion and watching these videos made me feel uncomfortable,” one unnamed student wrote to a school board member after the class. “I actually felt ashamed to be Caucasian... These videos portrayed an inaccurate description of life from past centuries that she is trying to resurface. I don’t feel as though it is right because these videos showed antiquated history. I understand in AP Lang, we are learning to develop an argument and have evidence to support it, yet this topic is too heavy to discuss.”
That student is a little bitch. I guarantee you they have a Jordan Peterson book on their bookshelf, right next to 48 Rules of Power or some other utter garbage like that.
Also I say they, but it's definitely a boy.
SNADQ…
Incidentally, another good example of how Elon has successfully made the top replies to 99% of tweets alt-right garbage.
Wut?
Southern Baptists expel US churches with female pastors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65915272
Southern Baptists expel US churches with female pastors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65915272
Can’t get too woke.
fecking hell. That poor dog. They really know how to pick 'em at Penn State.