Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Castle Doctrine

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Castle Doctrine
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 406 of 453 (575872)
08-21-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Straggler
08-21-2010 3:53 AM


Re: Songtime - Cath And Frog Sittin In Their Tree...
I notice that whilst you were keen to point out your lack of a gun you didn't make any effort to deny a budding tree based romance with CS.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2010 3:53 AM Straggler has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 407 of 453 (575996)
08-22-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by crashfrog
08-18-2010 6:45 PM


I don't understand. Are you the only one who gets to specify hypotheticals?
No, of course not. But you can't ask me a question, then change the question with added parameters.
Someone who's just murdered someone is a lot less dangerous to apprehend than someone about to murder someone.
What are you basing that on, experience?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 6:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 8:38 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 408 of 453 (575999)
08-22-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Straggler
08-21-2010 2:38 AM


Re: Songtime - Cath And Frog Sittin In Their Tree...
Once again, funny lyrics, dude. You had me rolling with this one.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2010 2:38 AM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 409 of 453 (576108)
08-22-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by onifre
08-22-2010 11:58 AM


What are you basing that on, experience?
Logic and statistics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 11:58 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 8:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 410 of 453 (576110)
08-22-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by crashfrog
08-22-2010 8:38 PM


Logic and statistics.
Your logic is based on inexperience, and I'd like to see those statistics.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 8:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 9:16 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 411 of 453 (576124)
08-22-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by onifre
08-22-2010 8:55 PM


My logic is based on logic, and you can find all the statistics here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
Homicide has the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime. Someone who has a gun pointed at someone is a far greater danger (and therefore more likely to be fired on) than someone who has just killed someone and put away or dropped their weapon. Cops generally don't see it as their place to shoot someone in revenge, but they do shoot people to prevent them from shooting others or themselves.
Hence, to a police officer, the situation after a murder is much, much safer than the situation before. That's just incredibly obvious. They'll shoot you - and have - if they come in and see you holding someone at gunpoint. They don't even draw weapons if they come in and see you standing over a dead man and a smoking gun on the floor. (That's the context here, after all - who are the police more likely to open fire on.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 8:55 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 9:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 412 of 453 (576127)
08-22-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by crashfrog
08-22-2010 9:16 PM


My logic is based on logic, and you can find all the statistics here:
No, I won't do the work for you. You made the claim, you show me the stats. I'm not going to go find it.
Hence, to a police officer, the situation after a murder is much, much safer than the situation before. That's just incredibly obvious. They'll shoot you - and have - if they come in and see you holding someone at gunpoint. They don't even draw weapons if they come in and see you standing over a dead man and a smoking gun on the floor.
Where are you getting this stuff from dude, are you a cop? Movies don't count as evidence...
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 9:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 9:26 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 413 of 453 (576130)
08-22-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by onifre
08-22-2010 9:25 PM


Where are you getting this stuff from dude, are you a cop?
What makes you think I haven't studied police force doctrine and self-defense tactics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 9:25 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 9:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 414 of 453 (576135)
08-22-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by crashfrog
08-22-2010 9:26 PM


What makes you think I haven't studied police force doctrine and self-defense tactics?
That's easy, 'cause it sounds like you're full of shit and are making stuff up about how a cop approaches a murder scene.
And I'd still like to see those stats, please.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 9:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 10:02 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 415 of 453 (576143)
08-22-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by onifre
08-22-2010 9:35 PM


If obstinacy is all I can expect from you, we're done, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 9:35 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 10:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 416 of 453 (576144)
08-22-2010 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by crashfrog
08-22-2010 10:02 PM


Why you gotta make me look up words...
I think we've been cool with each other in this debate, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking for stats. I also don't think cops act that way when approaching a murder scene, sorry dude.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 10:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 417 of 453 (576230)
08-23-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Straggler
08-20-2010 2:00 PM


Re: Castle Doctrine = Gun Nuttery - Why?
Do you think that the castle doctrine law can exist in countries where guns are essentially banned?
sure it "could" but I don't care what other countries do, thats on them and there people.
I am slightly bewildered as to why all the Yanks in this thread think that the castle doctrine law must necessarily be synonomous with gun advocacy.
because it IS.
this is a yank issue, not a teabag one.
I liked how you attempted to dodge the fact that guns allow the older people and less physical people to defend themselves and thus equal the playing field with a jokingly mocking song, thus showing us all what a joke you and your thoughts are.
Why not just let the courts decide if the homeowner reacted appropriately, like we do in civilized countries?
LOL, this just proves you are a typical condesceding prick from Canada; and that you really haven't a clue what you are talking about (as usual).
The Castle Doctrine tends to encourage the idiots who think they're Dirty Harry.
Dirty Harry!?! Damn how fukin old are you? are you like 60 or something? lol, I think Dirty Harry is before my time. I'm Martin Riggs!!!
The main objection I have to the Castle Doctrine is that it's an exception to the way society usually handles itself.
lolololol and this from the person who talks about idiots on the other side. lulz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Straggler, posted 08-20-2010 2:00 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by ringo, posted 08-23-2010 1:02 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 418 of 453 (576249)
08-23-2010 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Artemis Entreri
08-23-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Castle Doctrine = Gun Nuttery - Why?
Artemis Entreri writes:
ringo writes:
Why not just let the courts decide if the homeowner reacted appropriately, like we do in civilized countries?
LOL, this just proves you are a typical condesceding prick from Canada; and that you really haven't a clue what you are talking about (as usual).
"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?"
(I presume you're talking to me, even if you don't seem to have figured out quotes yet.)
Aretmis Entreri writes:
ringo writes:
The Castle Doctrine tends to encourage the idiots who think they're Dirty Harry.
Dirty Harry!?! Damn how fukin old are you? are you like 60 or something? lol, I think Dirty Harry is before my time. I'm Martin Riggs!!!
I mentioned how old I am in this very thread. Did you read the thread or are you just shooting blindly in the dark?
Artemis Entreri writes:
ringo writes:
The main objection I have to the Castle Doctrine is that it's an exception to the way society usually handles itself.
lolololol and this from the person who talks about idiots on the other side. lulz
I just want to thank you for not being on my side.
You make a stronger argument against yahoos with guns than I ever could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-23-2010 10:47 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
tckr_crlsn 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4945 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 09-11-2010


Message 419 of 453 (581168)
09-14-2010 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by ringo
08-12-2010 10:39 PM


Re: No Pistol for Ringo
Talking security takes more than locking doors and windows when you leave home. There are lots of other things to consider like back and front yard, inside and outside lightning, alarms and safes.
http://secure-your-spam.com/
I hope it will be useful
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 08-12-2010 10:39 PM ringo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 420 of 453 (656627)
03-20-2012 4:36 PM


Trayvon Martin
It's not strictly the Castle Law, but maybe this would be a good place to discuss the Trayvon Martin case.
George Zimmerman, it seems, was entitled to murder Trayvon Martin because he felt threatened, and according to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, was therefore entitled to shoot him.
Just to remind you of the facts of the case, for those who have been asleep.
Martin was walking down the street not committing a crime in any way. Zimmerman decided that his behavior was "suspicious". Whether or not this has anything to do with the fact that Martin was tall, young, and black, I shall leave up to the pundits and amateur mind-readers.
Whatever his motivation, Zimmerman called the police, who told him not to pursue him. But Zimmerman did. Apparently at this point Zimmerman did not find Martin sufficiently threatening that he wanted to try to avoid him, rather he deliberately set out on foot to confront the "suspicious" boy.
According to an affidavit sworn by Martin's girlfriend:
Martin told her that a stranger was following him, according to an affidavit she recorded. Martin had then tried unsuccessfully to get away from the stranger.
"He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me" and another voice saying "What are you doing here?" She told Crump they both repeated themselves, and then she thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin "because his voice changes, like something interrupted his speech." She heard an altercation and then the phone call was cut off.
There are no direct witnesses to what happened next except Zimmerman, who claims that he felt "threatened". What we do know is that Martin did not produce a weapon, because he didn't have a weapon. What he had, in fact, was a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Zimmerman, on the other hand, produced a gun, with which he murdered Martin.
But Zimmerman, of course, is innocent of murder in the technical, legal sense, because having seen his unarmed victim walking harmlessly down the street, having stalked him, terrified him, accosted him, and pointed a gun at him, he then says that he found his victim "threatening"; and because he says this he was therefore entitled by law to shoot him.
The connection to the Castle Laws as discussed on this thread is, I think, obvious. We have laws that say that you can murder people scot-free so long (a) they are in your vicinity (b) you subsequently say that you felt threatened or that you suspected that they were going to commit a crime. And that's it. All you need do is testify, truly or falsely, about your own mental state, and so long as you say you felt this or you thought that, you walk.
Even if the case was to go to trial, no-one could convict, because there is always sufficient reasonable doubt about what Zimmerman or whoever was thinking when he pulled the trigger. Feeling threatened is a complete defense, and who but Zimmerman can say what he was thinking when he pulled the trigger? And this opens the door to any murder, no matter how calculated and cold-blooded.
Finally, to see what a nonsense this law is, consider that by the same law Martin would have been perfectly justified in shooting Zimmerman. Zimmerman, after all, stalked Martin; we know from the affidavit that Martin was afraid of him; if Martin had drawn a gun and shot him he'd have been "standing his ground" --- so apparently the law is on the side of whoever draws and shoots first. Well, that's a comforting thing to know. In the Wild West, of course, it was the other way round, but now we live in more civilized times.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by jar, posted 03-20-2012 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 424 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 5:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 437 by Coragyps, posted 03-20-2012 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 445 by subbie, posted 03-21-2012 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024