mclumber1 Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 6 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said: Well some of them have to be loaded just in case an intruder comes in while they take the picture. It's sort of a contest in that family: One gun is loaded, but they aren't told which one. Increases the excitement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: It's sort of a contest in that family: One gun is loaded, but they aren't told which one. Increases the excitement! Jigsaw is the father? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 7 hours ago, Fizzzzle said: That's why you empty the chamber as soon as someone hands you a gun gun safety? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 Leaving one pandemic to go back to the pandemic of white people and their guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remarkableriots Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Another person lost his life to stand your ground case in Florida. She isn't being charged for the shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said: Another person lost his life to stand your ground case in Florida. She isn't being charged for the shooting. In this case, why should she be? Guy violently broke into the home, grabbed a knife, and threatened people. If there's ever a case for self defense, this is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 5 hours ago, Remarkableriots said: Another person lost his life to stand your ground case in Florida. She isn't being charged for the shooting. Justice served. That guy gambled with his life and he lost. The world is better off without him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 I don't see a problem with this one. Like, I'm not pro gun, but if you come in here I'm pro knife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Yeah, I don't see the problem with that one. If anyone really needed a mass shooting to post about yesterday, there was always this one... Man Killed, 3 Others Injured When Gunman Opens Fire On Crowd Painting Mural For Another Shooting Victim In Southwest Philly PHILADELPHIA.CBSLOCAL.COM It happened on the 5500 block of Kingsessing Avenue around 4:15 p.m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 8 hours ago, Remarkableriots said: Another person lost his life to stand your ground case in Florida. She isn't being charged for the shooting. I was expecting him to be shot through the door or window, and be able to say “but he couldn’t/didn’t even get in the house. How is it stand your ground?”. But he did break into the house and grabbed a knife while threatening people. the lady was kind of justified. lol He was on his way to an anger management class? He should have gone to class first, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 It sucks that Florida's bullshit Stand Your Ground law gets good press from a woman, by all appearances, rightfully using a gun to defend herself. Because it sounds more like a case of castle doctrine, to me. Which I find to be far more reasonable than Stand Your Ground laws. They did say at the end that the guy's kids and their mom was in the house, so maybe this was more of a domestic dispute than it first appears. If the guy lives in the house, maybe that negates the castle doctrine, even if he is literally breaking into his own home. In which case, it would be one of the few instances where the expanded parameters for Stand Your Ground actually did some good. Just as a side note, Florida is the state that notoriously sentenced a black woman to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot at her partner under similar circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Posting how someone used a gun to defend themselves as a justification for supporting the 2A is like showing support for opposing seatbelt laws by posting a link to someone whose life was saved by being thrown from their car during an accident because they weren’t wearing a seatbelt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Every single death by one human at the hands of another should be tried in court and this should be no exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: Posting how someone used a gun to defend themselves as a justification for supporting the 2A is like showing support for opposing seatbelt laws by posting a link to someone whose life was saved by being thrown from their car during an accident because they weren’t wearing a seatbelt. I think it’s the other way around. Most of us are saying the 2A makes this shooting justified. She could have hit the guy in the head with a brick and she still would have justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Every single death by one human at the hands of another should be tried in court and this should be no exception. investigated, yes, but if it is as cut and dry as it appears in the video, no DA would waste their time or tax payer money to take it trial. They’d never get a conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 I do like how the anti-death penalty DA in Fulton County is going to pursue the death penalty in the case of the massage parlor shooter. I guess some crimes are heinous enough to warrant death! Fulton County District Attorney will seek death penalty against Atlanta spa shooting suspect WWW.CNN.COM Robert Aaron Long, the suspect in the shootings that left eight people dead at three Atlanta-area Asian spas, has been indicted on murder charges, with prosecutors seeking the death penalty for hate crimes targeting the sex and race of the victims. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 12 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: investigated, yes, but if it is as cut and dry as it appears in the video, no DA would waste their time or tax payer money to take it trial. They’d never get a conviction. I can't emphasize how little I care about "taxpayer money" or the time of DAs. There doesn't need to be a conviction but relying on a jury for what passes for justice is far more preferable than the judgement of police and prosecutors alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I can't emphasize how little I care about "taxpayer money" or the time of DAs. There doesn't need to be a conviction but relying on a jury for what passes for justice is far more preferable than the judgement of police and prosecutors alone resources are finite. In an ideal world, yes, every time a human killed another human there would be a thorough investigation and prosecution. For citizens and law enforcement. But we don’t live in an ideal world where a DA has that luxury. not to mention them keeping their job can often be dependent on win %. It’s not “was the right verdict found” it becomes that “they’re bad at their job and letting criminals get away”. DA’s offices need to be better funded, and their win ratio can’t be the only metric of whether they are a competent prosecutor or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: resources are finite. In an ideal world, yes, every time a human killed another human there would be a thorough investigation and prosecution. For citizens and law enforcement. But we don’t live in an ideal world where a DA has that luxury. not to mention them keeping their job can often be dependent on win %. It’s not “was the right verdict found” it becomes that “they’re bad at their job and letting criminals get away”. DA’s offices need to be better funded, and their win ratio can’t be the only metric of whether they are a competent prosecutor or not. If we're investigating and taking all of these cases to trial there should absolutely be more money for that. A matter of principle should be that every non-natural death should see a jury trial. Everything else should follow so that this can happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Every single death by one human at the hands of another should be tried in court and this should be no exception. This is silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Yeah, we should totally put the burden on someone for defending themselves. Let's screw up a woman's life and force her to hire attorneys and go through the trauma of a trial when it's a cut and dry case of self defense. What nonsense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: Yeah, we should totally put the burden on someone for defending themselves. Let's screw up a woman's life and force her to hire attorneys and go through the trauma of a trial when it's a cut and dry case of self defense. What nonsense. Public defender's offices should be far better funded, available to all at no cost, and massively expanded but yes. Every case means every time a cop shoots an unarmed Black man there is a trial instead of nothing. Every time a cyclist or pedestrian gets murdered by an automobile and the driver says "I didn't see them" that goes to trial instead of nothing. On balance there is more "justice" this way. There will be cases, like apparently this one, where it's fairly straightforward that it's self defense but that's how it goes. Discretion should be granted to a jury rather than police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 The courts are already overburdened. Definitely not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said: The courts are already overburdened. Definitely not. More courts with fewer drug cases. Not that this would seriously overburden courts anyway. If I'm making all the rules there's zero reason to not do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 That's what investigations are for. Also, I recall reading where even if you're arrested, but charges are dismissed, it's still on your record. I've read about people wrongly arrested and they've still had to hire a lawyer to get the record expunged because it's prevented them from getting jobs and such. I can't imagine burdening innocent people like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said: That's what investigations are for. Also, I recall reading where even if you're arrested, but charges are dismissed, it's still on your record. I've read about people wrongly arrested and they've still had to hire a lawyer to get the record expunged because it's prevented them from getting jobs and such. I can't imagine burdening innocent people like this. Take a guess how I feel about this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 If only we had your perfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: If only we had your perfect world. That's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 Forcing lawyers to prosecute cases where they don’t believe a crime was committed is a hilariously bad idea before you even get into the ethics of it. I can at least get with the idea that a grand jury should look at the evidence in homicides to determine if a case should be prosecuted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 10 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Forcing lawyers to prosecute cases where they don’t believe a crime was committed is a hilariously bad idea before you even get into the ethics of it. I can at least get with the idea that a grand jury should look at the evidence in homicides to determine if a case should be prosecuted It would only apply to cases where someone has died of non-natural causes. I don't see any ethical issues with forcing the state to go through a process that determines (if there is) culpability when someone dies. I'm not writing legislation here but in general citizens (jury members), not agents of the state(police/prosecutors), should decide culpability, but the state must facilitate the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 So you want to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, even if the DA has no evidence to support such a charge? Because that's what the DA would have to do - charge them with a crime, in order to have them go to trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: It would only apply to cases where someone has died of non-natural causes. I don't see any ethical issues with forcing the state to go through a process that determines (if there is) culpability when someone dies. I'm not writing legislation here but in general citizens (jury members), not agents of the state(police/prosecutors), should decide culpability, but the state must facilitate the process. It is inherently unethical to prosecute a person you don’t believe committed the crime. The prosecution is making a declaration that the defendant did commit a crime, they are showing evidence that they believe proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did it. If the prosecutors themselves have reasonable doubt based on the evidence, how in the world are they going to convince a jury otherwise without hiding evidence? Like I said, if you want to require all homicides go through grand juries before they can be dismissed, I can get on board with that. But requiring a trial no matter what is too much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: So you want to charge someone with murder or manslaughter, even if the DA has no evidence to support such a charge? Because that's what the DA would have to do - charge them with a crime, in order to have them go to trial. Just now, sblfilms said: It is inherently unethical to prosecute a person you don’t believe committed the crime. The prosecution is making a declaration that the defendant did commit a crime, they are showing evidence that they believe proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did it. If the prosecutors themselves have reasonable doubt based on the evidence, how in the world are they going to convince a jury otherwise without hiding evidence? Like I said, if you want to require all homicides go through grand juries before they can be dismissed, I can get on board with that. But requiring a trial no matter what is too much I could see something like a grand jury being required but that has its own problems but in general yeah, take a life be prepared to defend your action. Another human is dead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 The state has to allege a specific crime has been committed. How can they do that if they don’t believe a crime has been committed? cmonman.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted May 13, 2021 Share Posted May 13, 2021 She's a witch! Burn her! Turns out they never actually thought she was a witch, but they had to go through the motions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.