Stand Your Ground? Texas man kills teacher over noise complaint.

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   


Him taking a gun was not stupid, it was prudent


It usually is stupid, guns do far more harm than good.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I am just hearing about all these "stand your ground" laws recently, and as a CCW holder, I do not agree with them. If you have an opportunity to retreat from a situation, then you should do just that before it escalates. Being able to stand there and shoot someone because they are being aggressive toward you is just wrong. The laws were fine the way they were before all of this 'stand your ground' nonsense.


SM2

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Him taking a gun was not stupid, it was prudent


It usually is stupid, guns do far more harm than good.


that is your opinion, not fact.
back it up with empirical data.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
how is going armed on someone's property self-defence.

if anything, it's the home owner who should have shot him.

i think someone going to your house and threatening to shoot you on your property is grounds to blow the guys brains out all over the lawn.

but no-one ever accused americans of being the sharpest tools in the global toolbox.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
how is going armed on someone's property self-defence.

if anything, it's the home owner who should have shot him.

i think someone going to your house and threatening to shoot you on your property is grounds to blow the guys brains out all over the lawn.

but no-one ever accused americans of being the sharpest tools in the global toolbox.


Ah hem..... And your countries SHARPNESS is leading America in what sector?

Not that i know where you live. Just wondering .



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 





Well according to the law. As soon as you believe your life is being threatend you have the right to stand your ground.

Does not say if the situation started this or that-a way you may stand your ground, But primarily the formentioned.

SYG is just asking to be abused.


This is an argument. An argument made by you. It is rife with factual errors, such as your first argument, being that "according to the law. As soon as you believe your life is being threatened you have the right to stand your ground.

The law is more specific than how you've presented it, and speaks to very specific circumstances in which standing your ground is a valid course of action, and is not as ambiguous as you've presented it.

Your second argument: "Does not say if the situation started this or that-a way..." is also factually incorrect and again, it gives specific sets of circumstances in which standing your ground is lawfully valid.

Your third argument: "SYG is just asking to be abused", and given the way you so incorrectly and ambiguously represented the legislation, reads much like the O.P. and others who've tried to vilify the legislation.

Calm down.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Again where is my arguement?

I have not engaged you in any kind of fact splitting, neither you or anyone on here about this topic.

Said what i knew about the law.

However, since you know everything. Tell me kind sir, when ( besides if by cop ) do i NOT have a right to defend my life?


SM2

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
how is going armed on someone's property self-defence.

if anything, it's the home owner who should have shot him.

i think someone going to your house and threatening to shoot you on your property is grounds to blow the guys brains out all over the lawn.

but no-one ever accused americans of being the sharpest tools in the global toolbox.



the article i read and the news report i saw stated he was NEAR the property not on it.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 


First of all, I posted and quoted your argument. Disingenuously asking me where the argument is doesn't change that.

Secondly, I have long argued, not just in this thread, but in this site that all people have the right to defend their lives and indeed their property, or others who need that defense. I have clearly stated in this thread that the stand your ground legislative acts exist because of overzealous prosecutors who were unlawfully prosecuting people who had lawfully defended either their lives, others lives, or property, so your last question is just more disingenuousness. You are merely deflecting.



edit on 7-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 


First of all, I posted and quoted your argument. Disingenuously asking me where the argument is doesn't change that.

Secondly, I have long argued, not just in this thread, but in this site that all people have the right to defend their lives and indeed their property, or others who need that defense. I have clearly stated in this thread that the stand your ground legislative acts exist because of overzealous prosecutors who were unlawfully prosecuting people who had lawfully defended either their lives, others lives, or property, so your last question is just more disingenuousness. You are merely deflecting.

Lol you didnt post my argument! You posted my comment.

My comment in reference to the thread.

Now, if i were arguing im pretty sure it would be against SYG which i am not.

Im not sure whats going on with you. It seems you are approaching me because i support SYG, however believe it can lay way to abuse.

With that being said i think you are in favor of SYG but have a problem with me being in favor of it.

WTF!



edit on 7-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Good find, sounds to me like some idiot just heard about the stand your ground laws and brought his gun to start a fight.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 





Now, if i were arguing im pretty sure it would be against SYG which i am not. Im not sure whats going on with you. It seems you are approaching me because i support SYG, however believe it can lay way to abuse.


Until I called you on your "comments" it was not at all clear you were in "support" of stand your ground. No valid legislation effectively describing law can "lay way to abuse", and it is precisely language such as that, that is akin to arguing that the right to free speech can lay way to slander. Neither your argument or the argument that the right to free speech can lay way to slander are true.

Slander and murder are crimes. Defending yourself is not a crime and creating legislation intended to prohibit prosecutors from abusing their position is actually preventing abuse not laying way to abuse.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Call it slander if you must, but i say the grey area of the legislation leaves some portions of SYG to interpetation. And it is from within that grey area abuse shall come.

You have your opinion, and i have mine.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


Since we don't know all of the details, I don't think we can claim this man started a fight. He has every right to carry a gun, whether doing his shopping or going to a neighbor's home to ask for a reduction of noise. Plus, he didn't shoot the other person over a noise complaint, but over some apparent threat to his person. If you visited a neighbor's home to complain about noise, and the neighbor attacked you, don't you think you would have a right to defend yourself? Unless and until we know all of the details, we can't say this man did something wrong.

Besides which, these cases are about people trying to take away our 2'nd amendment rights. The Florida case WAS self defense, from all the evidence we have seen.

Alright, watched the video, and when several people are approaching him, and some move to come at him from the side, and it looks like he was attacked before the shot went off, yeah, looks like self defense to me. Plus, he was WAY back from the house, seemed like at or in the street, and they approached him in a truck? He did complain several times before this, and got no results, and only an idiot could listen to that music he was recording from that far back and not think that violated noise complaints. How did the police NOT slap those people with a noise violation? Did the cops know this family, maybe? Such things do happen. I KNOW someone that saw such a thing, with a cop being all friendly (to the point of hugs and having a drink), and not doing anything about a very real problem. So I don't think it's fair to assume this man went out looking for a reason to shoot someone. In his situation, surrounded like that and threatened as he clearly was, yeah, he had a right to shoot. The CC instructor agreed. And yes, 20 feet is how far they can be and still get you before you can draw and shoot. Those guys were that close, and there were several of them.

Oh, another thing; why are we acting like this is a reaction to the Zimmerman case, when this was two YEARS ago? A bit of a misrepresentation there.

edit on 8-6-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: additional commentary



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


Was it determined that the lady did indeed have a weapon?

HAHAHA - You should check out the story before you make an assumption like that. I did check it out and Kelly Danaher is a dude - a very big dude - who teaches athletics.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
What some people in this thread are saying:

"I can trespass on someone property. Threaten them at gun point. Declare I feel threatened. And any action against me justifies lethal force."

This is great information to know for my budding career as a petty thief! "Sir, I feel threatened by you approaching me. If you do not stop right now I will kill you. Thanks for the T.V."
edit on 8-6-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


Whatever the rights or wrongs of this case turn out to be, another citizen is dead because of gun ownership.

Nobody needs guns, they have only one purpose.....( That is just my view, and I know it is not popular here on ATS. )

Yes, i know why it is your Constitutional right.....but is it really worth it ?

There are, doubtless, responsible gun owners, but there are, equally, irresponsible gun owners. And it is the latter who make the headlines, to the detriment of all. But far too often, in my opinion.

Emotional situations, as per this case, bring with them Ill conceived responses, and in the heat of the moment, situations escalate, rational behaviour / thought processes go out of the window, and another person is dead,
All because someone was playing music too loudly.....



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Well I totally support George Zimmerman and think he had just cause, but this one I'm not going to get behind. No way this guy can claim stand your ground. HE WAS TRESPASSING on the person he shot's property. That's murder plain and simple.





top topics
 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join