Family says fatal shooting case shows ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t work for Black men

That's not "indiscriminately". That's into the air.

Clearly they would go into the vehicle that he BELIEVED was a threat to them.

It doesn't matter if they could or not. What matters, according to the law, is if he BELIEVED they could.

NOW do you understand how idiotic these laws are?

Exactly. Stand your ground laws put MANY people in danger. If not before.... how about NOW do you understand how idiotic stand your ground laws are?

 

That does not excuse blindly shooting into a vehicle without knowing who is in the vehicle.

If it was a policeman who fired into a vehicle and killed the wrong person, would you be as forgiving?

 

Unfortunately for you, he did not meet the expectations required to prove SYG. Which means everything you said here is irrelevant, moot, and just plain D wrong.

 

You're just now figuring out that a jury decides what the facts are? And you think you have a firm grasp of legal theory?

Explain your reasoning in the section I have emphasized.

 

Don’t expect any sort of logical answer. He’s posting just to screw with people and illicit emotional responses. Most of his posts in this thread are just getting a rise out of people. Quite obvious. Wouldn’t be so hyperbolic otherwise. The entire premise of the thread is absurd.

 

What is idiotic is how you continually misinterpret the meaning of "reasonable belief". Everyone else seems to understand. You do not. It has been explained to you numerous times throughout this thread.

'"There are none so blind as those who will not see".

 

Of course it doesn't!!!!! It also doesn't excuse following a black guy around the neighborhood after 911 told him to stop!

NOW do you realize how idiotic these Stand Your Ground laws are?

 

You mean like... being white....

 

Only in your opinion. Not having stand your ground laws encourages the lawless to take advantage of the situation knowing that you will not stand up to them.

 

Stand your ground has NOTHING to do with "facts". It has to do with what the shooter believes.

 

Yep! If the shooter is white, it's a "reasonable belief". But less likely if they're not.

 

Yeah... so you gotta kill 'em to show them who's boss, right?

My point exactly!

 

I want it to be my choice. Not a choice forced onto me by the government because I might end killing or injuring someone who threatens me. It gives me a choice.

 

You mean like when the government forces a woman to carry a baby for 9 months against her will?

"Choice" doesn't work that well for women.

It gives you a "choice" to kill somebody if you're white. Not so much if you're black.

"Choice" doesn't work that well for black people.

 

Is that the best you can do? Change the subject?

I am not responsible for all the wrongs in this world. I know that forcing someone into a bad situation will not fix it.

 

So you didnt want to defend your bogus "What matters, according to the law, is if he BELIEVED they could." statement, and you figured you would go off on a tangent?

I guess I wouldn't want to defend that nonsense either.

 

Why would you continue this farce? You've already advanced this specious argument in this thread and been humiliated.
What the shooter REASONABLY believes. Not what they BELIEVE. What they REASONABLY BELIEVE.
There is no reasonable belief that a PASSENGER is going to operate a motor vehicle and threaten you with imminent harm. The passenger is unable to operate the motor vehicle, they are not driving. He shot the passenger, not the driver, ergo his belief was unreasonable.
Likewise: Firing in to the air is never considered reasonable because PER SE you did not need deadly force to stop an imminent threat if you have time to shoot in the air and PER SE firing a gun is deadly force.
Warning shots are not allowed in American jurisprudence, they are profligately risky to the general public because you are per se not aiming at a backstop and bullets come down at terminal velocity fast enough to kill someone. Firing in the air is per se reckless discharge of a firearm.

 

The zimmerman case did not include a stand your ground argument or defense.

 

No we mean like shooting the person actually causing the imminent threat, not their passenger that is just allegedly yelling the N word. If you're justified under SYG and you miss and shoot the wrong person, you're not protected under SYG.

 

Great opportunity to show Republican inconsistencies. You wanted to discuss choice. Something about government not making decisions for you. Now we know how much you care about your choices, but not so much about women's choices.

 

Women can keep and bear arms too chief.

 

You already defended it for me. All I had to do was agree with you.

No tangent. The law leaves it to what you "believe". But jurors think it more "reasonable" if you're white.. That's the point.

And there is no "magic". Democrats who opposed this law ALERTED that this is what would happen. So it's no surprise.

 

That is absurd. There is nothing more or less "unreasonable" about believing that some guys who are shouting racial slurs at you and trying to run you off the road can harm you, than there is that a guy just walking down the street is going to rob somebody.

 

How the hell would he or ANYBODY know who was or wasn't yelling the N word? The only person in that vehicle who is NOT a passenger is the driver. He kills the driver, he's likely to kill ALL of them.

You are talking complete nonsense!

 

I also look at the baby. At some point in abortions, the baby feels pain while being torn apart during an abortion. There are various opinions of when that might occur, anywhere from eight weeks to twenty three weeks. The thought of that tiny baby feeling that intense pain horrifies me. That is the choice I abhor.

I heard something recently that was interesting. As early as eight weeks after conception, the baby would smile when the mother was eating carrots. It was not just a one time event, but it occurred in a large sample of baby's. So somehow, that baby can experience pleasure, but cannot feel pain.