Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dallas cop faces manslaughter charge for shooting man in apartment she thought was hers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    whoops

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Raniero View Post
      The problem with what you're arguing is that stand-your-ground doesn't even apply here. The castle doctrine does, which eliminates any criminal liability if you use lethal force on somebody intruding upon your house illegally.

      "Malice aforethought" implies killing with evil/unlawful intent. Defending your home from an intruder by killing them isn't evil intent, but self-defense, and can be considered lawful. You don't even need to necessarily warn someone that you're about to blow them away if they break into your house in most jurisdictions I assume, because all bets are off if they're a possibly dangerous intruder. I don't know how it is in your state or Texas, where this occurred, but the California PC (198.8) states this:

      "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

      But this is all hypothetical, because clearly he wasn't intruding on her home, but instead she was his. The defense will probably argue she thought she was being lawful because she thought she was in her own home. They'll likely try to reduce it to manslaughter.

      Also, according to police reports, she stated she did warn him. Not that it really makes a difference here.
      Nor does the castle doctrine because it was her who was trespassing in his "castle." Lol. Besides, even if the defense tries to argue that it was just a "misunderstanding" (L-O-fucking-L; no adult, never mind an uncommonly observant one like a cop, should not be able to immediately recognize "their" home as unfamiliar upon entry), it doesn't absolve her of personal responsibility. The relative lack of intelligence =/= outright intellectual disability.

      It's interesting that you bring up self-defense as a possible, err, defense, however. Texas' PENAL § 9.32 on self-defense via the use of deadly force is as follows--
      • (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
        • (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 ; and
        • (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
          • (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
          • (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

      Even trespassing (which, again, the defendant's victim did. not. do.) isn't automatically grounds for the use of deadly force. He didn't attempt to murder, nor sexually assault, nor kidnap, nor rob her. Hell, from what I gather, he didn't make any sudden movements (towards her).

      All in all, this bitch and her dubious ass story can fuck off. She clearly deserves murder two. And I'm not just saying that because I hate cops either. With one exception, every cop I've personally met has been super nice. TSA fucktards, on the other hand...

      -EDIT- Just saw EoS' link. What the actual FUCK, lmao. If they actually corroborate the eyewitness testimonies...
      Last edited by Oneiros; December 3rd, 2018, 03:02 AM.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Oneiros View Post

        Nor does the castle doctrine because it was her who was trespassing in his "castle."
        Yeah, no shit, did you not read my entire comment?

        Originally posted by me
        But this is all hypothetical, because clearly he wasn't intruding on her home, but instead she was his.
        My point is that if she decides to stick with her story in court, this excuse will probably be used to reduce her sentence from murder.

        Lol. Besides, even if the defense tries to argue that it was just a "misunderstanding" (L-O-fucking-L; no adult, never mind an uncommonly observant one like a cop, should not be able to immediately recognize "their" home as unfamiliar upon entry), it doesn't absolve her of personal responsibility. The relative lack of intelligence =/= outright intellectual disability.
        I'm aware. I agree, the entire story comes across as bullshit, but I'm looking at this from an unbiased legal analysis viewpoint. The defense will likely use her intoxication as a talking point, clearly. I doubt they'll argue she's innocent of any crime. But what they will do is argue she's not guilty of murder in an attempt to lessen her sentence to manslaughter (Life in Prison/Death vs 15-20 years in Prison). If they do decide to run with the narrative she did nothing wrong, then that's just outright nonsense.

        It's interesting that you bring up self-defense as a possible, err, defense, however. Texas' PENAL § 9.32 on self-defense via the use of deadly force is as follows--
        • -snip-
        Even trespassing (which, again, the defendant's victim did. not. do.) isn't automatically grounds for the use of deadly force. He didn't attempt to murder, nor sexually assault, nor kidnap, nor rob her. Hell, from what I gather, he didn't make any sudden movements (towards her).
        Sorry, but you're outright wrong about this. Firstly, burglary isn't mere "trespassing". Secondly, somebody breaking into your house is actually grounds for lethal force, because if somebody breaks into your house, because not only are they actively committing a felony, but you have perfectly reasonable fear to assume that person may be there to harm you or threaten your livelihood. The moment somebody breaks open your door or smashes your window and attempts to make illegal entry, lethal force is an open bet. If you arrive home and see that your door is open when you know you closed it and somebody is lurking in the dark, you have reasonable fear to assume that person may be there to harm you or steal from you, even if they aren't actively committing violence towards you yet. That's just how it works. For an example: https://fox8.com/2017/10/31/elderly-...oke-into-home/

        Also, here's Texas' full code that addresses the castle doctrine for reference. Take note of the bold.
        Originally posted by Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.32
        (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

        (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

        All in all, this bitch and her dubious ass story can fuck off. She clearly deserves murder two. And I'm not just saying that because I hate cops either. With one exception, every cop I've personally met has been super nice. TSA fucktards, on the other hand...
        I'm not trying to defend her. I'm merely looking acknowledging what angle the defense can go with. I hope she gets hit with the full murder charge, not only because she took an innocent man's life in his own home, but because she's fucking stupid and deserves it.
        Last edited by Raniero; December 3rd, 2018, 05:22 AM.

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by Raniero View Post
          Secondly, somebody breaking into your house is actually grounds for lethal force
          The law is pretty shaky on that one, mate.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Cid View Post

            The law is pretty shaky on that one, mate.
            Varies by state. In Texas, it's outright stated that forceful or illegal entry is all the justification you need. And frankly, I agree with that. Somebody breaks into my house, I'm shooting them, even if they probably just wanted to steal my new tv.
            Last edited by Raniero; December 3rd, 2018, 05:31 AM.

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by Raniero View Post
              Varies by state. In Texas, it's outright stated that forceful or illegal entry is all the justification you need. And frankly, I agree with that. Somebody breaks into my house, I'm shooting them, even if they probably just wanted to steal my new tv.
              Probably depends far more on the situation than anything else. Just look at Google for people that killed burglars in their homes. Tons of them end up in jail. A lot of times, families of the burglars get angry and file charges, those charges usually always end up being excessive force.

              I'm in agreement with you, though. If someone breaks into another person's home, I feel like they lose their right to protection under state or federal law. You're kind of on your own, whatever fate befalls you is one of your own making.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by Cid View Post

                Probably depends far more on the situation than anything else. Just look at Google for people that killed burglars in their homes. Tons of them end up in jail. A lot of times, families of the burglars get angry and file charges, those charges usually always end up being excessive force.
                Sure, context and circumstances matter, such as excess force like you said or clearly having the opportunity or time to determine the person wasn't an immediate threat. However, most won't fault you for drawing your firearm and shooting a person who just violently kicked open your door. Shit like that is life or death. You react, you don't have much time to assess.

                I'm in agreement with you, though. If someone breaks into another person's home, I feel like they lose their right to protection under state or federal law. You're kind of on your own, whatever fate befalls you is one of your own making.
                If you're prepared to break into another person's house, you should also be prepared to lose your life.

                Though like I said before, this doesn't really apply in this case. This woman was in the complete wrong here, no matter what the truth is.
                Last edited by Raniero; December 3rd, 2018, 05:59 AM.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Raniero View Post
                  Yeah, no shit, did you not read my entire comment?
                  Lol, I did. Was just wondering why you'd reference the castle doctrine because the only way I could see that playing out in court is if they argued it via temporary insanity/intoxication.

                  My point is that if she decides to stick with her story in court, this excuse will probably be used to reduce her sentence from murder.
                  I mean, people are talking about an altercation and how she might've known, possibly even dated, the guy. If there's any truth to that, she can spew whatever bullshit she'd like. The only way she's not getting convicted is if they pay off the jury.

                  I'm aware. I agree, the entire story comes across as bullshit, but I'm looking at this from an unbiased legal analysis viewpoint. The defense will likely use her intoxication as a talking point, clearly. I doubt they'll argue she's innocent of any crime. But what they will do is argue she's not guilty of murder in an attempt to lessen her sentence to manslaughter (Life in Prison/Death vs 15-20 years in Prison). If they do decide to run with the narrative she did nothing wrong, then that's just outright nonsense.
                  Thing is, reducing her sentence isn't even required because the sentencing range for second-degree murder in Texas is huge (5-99 years). I doubt the prosecutor would pursue the minimum length (or the maximum), so we'll probably be looking at 10-20 anyway, which can potentially be reduced further for good behavior. The minimum for manslaughter, however, is two years and if she were to get out in, like, a year, year and a half after slaughtering someone... Yeah. That wouldn't end well. For anybody.

                  Sorry, but you're outright wrong about this. Firstly, burglary isn't mere "trespassing". Secondly, somebody breaking into your house is actually grounds for lethal force, because if somebody breaks into your house, because not only are they actively committing a felony, but you have perfectly reasonable fear to assume that person may be there to harm you or threaten your livelihood. The moment somebody breaks open your door or smashes your window and attempts to make illegal entry, lethal force is an open bet. If you arrive home and see that your door is open when you know you closed it and somebody is lurking in the dark, you have reasonable fear to assume that person may be there to harm you or steal from you, even if they aren't actively committing violence towards you yet. That's just how it works. For an example: https://fox8.com/2017/10/31/elderly-...oke-into-home/

                  Also, here's Texas' full code that addresses the castle doctrine for reference. Take note of the bold.
                  He didn't bugle a thing. :/ Intruder =/= burglar.

                  You know, this whole thing reminds me of the "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a child to prevent the Holocaust?" ethical dilemma. Keeping in mind, of course, that that iteration of Hitler wouldn't necessarily attempt to systemically exterminate an entire ethno-religious group because of the butterfly effect. Preemptively killing someone because they might do something is quintessentially slippery slope.

                  It's "reasoning" like this that arms dealers gun manufacturers want to promote so that every home has a gun... whether or not they have power, food in the fridge which may or may not work, running water, a car. And shit, you don't even need a gun. Someone tried burgling my parents' when I was in high school. Chased that little punk out of the apartment with only a baseball bat and proceeded to call the cops. And that was from when I was in bed recuperating from a bad cold at the time. Guns are a coward's weapon and they almost always make things worse. Matter of fact, if every dumbfuck in this country didn't have easy access to guns, this wouldn't even be an issue. Nor would mass shootings. An aluminum baseball bat is a good enough deterrent, a serrated edge an even better one. What you DON'T do is combat nuclear supremacy by giving everyone a nuke because there will always be a crazy or that guy entirely willing to use it.

                  And yeah, you're right about the second point. But, like I stated in a previous comment, "Yeah, stand-your-ground would've been a "reasonable" defense (because, you know, wrong apt...)... if she weren't a police officer. Unlike normal civilians, they're trained to ask perps (and "perps") to put their hands up. If they feel that their or someone else's life is under duress and the perp refuses to comply, they are trained to then fire at center mass." Buuut, if your nerves aren't steely, you probably shouldn't be in blue.

                  (Yes, yes, it would technically be the castle doctrine, not stand your ground.)

                  I'm not trying to defend her. I'm merely looking acknowledging what angle the defense can go with. I hope she gets hit with the full murder charge, not only because she took an innocent man's life in his own home, but because she's fucking stupid and deserves it.
                  Oh, well, don't give them any ideas. Especially if the prosecutor loses their nerve at the last minute after "pressure" from the higher-ups...
                  Last edited by Oneiros; December 3rd, 2018, 07:05 AM.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                    Lol, I did. Was just wondering why you'd reference the castle doctrine because the only way I could see that playing out in court is if they argued it via temporary insanity/intoxication.
                    I referenced it because that's what they can attempt to use to justify her actions, working under the assumption that her story about thinking it was her apartment is the truth.

                    I mean, people are talking about an altercation and how she might've known, possibly even dated, the guy. If there's any truth to that, she can spew whatever bullshit she'd like. The only way she's not getting convicted is if they pay off the jury.
                    And if she has a good lawyer, the witnesses will be cross-examined extensively. And you shouldn't underestimate our juror system. You'd be surprised (or not) what people have gotten away with because of one or two jurors who won't agree with everybody else's concession.

                    Thing is, reducing her sentence isn't even required because the sentencing range for second-degree murder in Texas is huge (5-99 years). I doubt the prosecutor would pursue the minimum length (or the maximum), so we'll probably be looking at 10-20 anyway, which can potentially be reduced further for good behavior. The minimum for manslaughter, however, is two years and if she were to get out in, like, a year, year and a half after slaughtering someone... Yeah. That wouldn't end well. For anybody.
                    You say it won't end well, but we've seen it happen way too many times.

                    He didn't bugle a thing. :/ Intruder =/= burglar.
                    I mean, technically he didn't commit either crime. You seem to keep forgetting I'm not arguing literally here.

                    You know, this whole thing reminds me of the "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a child to prevent the Holocaust?" ethical dilemma. Keeping in mind, of course, that that iteration of Hitler wouldn't necessarily attempt to systemically exterminate an entire ethno-religious group because of the butterfly effect. Preemptively killing someone because they might do something is quintessentially slippery slope.
                    That's...not at all a good comparison. You don't generally have time to ask or consider the intent of somebody who is breaking into your house. It's either you or them. How do you know if they're just planning on threatening you, but have zero desire to hurt you vs them actually planning on killing you? You don't, but you have to have the mindset that they could be dangerous and you only have a second to react. If they lose their life, it's their fault for committing the crime in the first place. I'm sorry, but when it comes to my life vs this guy that I have no idea if they'll try to kill me or not, but they're fucking breaking into my house unlawfully, I'll choose my life every single time.

                    It's "reasoning" like this that arms dealers gun manufacturers want to promote so that every home has a gun... whether or not they have power, food in the fridge which may or may not work, running water, a car. And shit, you don't even need a gun. Someone tried burgling my parents' when I was in high school. Chased that little punk out of the apartment with only a baseball bat and proceeded to call the cops. And that was from when I was in bed recuperating from a bad cold at the time. Guns are a coward's weapon and they almost always make things worse. Matter of fact, if every dumbfuck in this country didn't have easy access to guns, this wouldn't even be an issue. Nor would mass shootings. An aluminum baseball bat is a good enough deterrent, a serrated edge an even better one. What you DON'T do is combat nuclear supremacy by giving everyone a nuke because there will always be a crazy or that guy entirely willing to use it.
                    You sound extremely naive lol. You were in a situation not all people would be in. What if you're a young woman by yourself and a much larger man or group of men break into your house? What if the person breaking into your house has a gun and you don't? How about that article I posted? Some scum fuck faggot breaking into the house of an 80 year old woman who wouldn't have been able to defend herself without a gun? Fuck is a baseball bat going to do against somebody pointing a gun at you across the room? What if somebody who breaks in has their own baseball bat or knife and they're willing to fight and you lose? I understand your sentiment about guns, but we live in a country and world where guns are easy to get and they're not going anywhere. And like it or not, they even the odds in situations that would have otherwise been fatal for the potential victim. You have to learn to live with a country that has guns everywhere and anybody could get and deal with it sufficiently and that may mean having your own piece to defend yourself.

                    And yeah, you're right about the second point. But, like I stated in a previous comment, "Yeah, stand-your-ground would've been a "reasonable" defense (because, you know, wrong apt...)... if she weren't a police officer. Unlike normal civilians, they're trained to ask perps (and "perps") to put their hands up. If they feel that their or someone else's life is under duress and the perp refuses to comply, they are trained to then fire at center mass." But if your nerves aren't steely, you probably shouldn't be in blue.

                    (Yes, yes, it would technically be the castle doctrine, not stand your ground.)
                    She stated she did warn him in the police report, but this likely is a lie. But no, you're not exactly correct. An officer off-duty isn't doesn't need to ask somebody to show their hands if they're breaking into their house. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

                    And uh, while I understand that you think cops should all have nerves of steel, the vast majority of police officers have never been in a firefight and being trained to handle stressful situations is a lot different than actually experiencing them. Most cops aren't hardened military types who have actually seen combat, after all. They're privy to panic like anybody else. Yeah, that's an issue and I'm not excusing cops you fuck up because they're panicking or jumping the gun (literally), I'm just saying it's not that simple. Cops need much better training or there needs to be a stricter hiring process.
                    Last edited by Raniero; December 3rd, 2018, 07:40 AM.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Raniero View Post
                      I referenced it because that's what they can attempt to use to justify her actions, working under the assumption that her story about thinking it was her apartment is the truth.
                      Yeah.

                      And if she has a good lawyer, the witnesses will be cross-examined extensively. And you shouldn't underestimate our juror system. You'd be surprised (or not) what people have gotten away with because of one or two jurors who won't agree with everybody else's concession.
                      Unfortunately, it's the latter. What others refer to as "cynical," I refer to as "realistic."

                      You say it won't end well, but we've seen it happen way too many times.
                      I'm talking about the senseless rioting and the weirdos firing slugs from sniper rifles at random ass cops a while back because the actually guilty ones got off with a slap on the wrist.

                      I mean, technically he didn't commit either crime. You seem to keep forgetting I'm not arguing literally here.
                      Defense arguing that Guyger thought he was a burglar won't win anyone over, but OK. I understand that it's crucial for her defense, but really, making her look as retarded as possible without actually being retarded won't garner any sympathy. Shouldn't, either. Literally just crocodile tears in the form of an "argument."

                      That's...not at all a good comparison. You don't generally have time to ask or consider the intent of somebody who is breaking into your house. It's either you or them. How do you know if they're just planning on threatening you, but have zero desire to hurt you vs them actually planning on killing you? You don't, but you have to have the mindset that they could be dangerous and you only have a second to react. If they lose their life, it's their fault for committing the crime in the first place. I'm sorry, but when it comes to my life vs this guy that I have no idea if they'll try to kill me or not, but they're fucking breaking into my house unlawfully, I'll choose my life every single time.
                      There's a difference between killing someone reflexively in a split-second interval and doing it consciously (even if you only hesitate for a few extra seconds before squeezing the trigger). The former is driven by raw animal instinct, the latter reeks of deliberation. Unlike the former, the latter shouldn't afford you protection from legal retribution. You committed said act knowingly, so you should be punished accordingly. If provoked, it's voluntary manslaughter. If unprovoked, it's second-degree murder. And "provocation" is nuanced and subjective in and of itself, which is precisely what makes law so fun (and annoying).

                      -EDIT- That most people would immediately murder child Hitler without even bothering to consider that the ripple effect of traveling back in time might very well serve as the catalyst that sends him to a different path, a better path, is kind of the whole point of the comparison, yes, lol.

                      You sound extremely naive lol. You were in a situation not all people would be in. What if you're a young woman by yourself and a much larger man or group of men break into your house? What if the person breaking into your house has a gun and you don't? How about that article I posted? Some scum fuck faggot breaking into the house of an 80 year old woman who wouldn't have been able to defend herself without a gun? Fuck is a baseball bat going to do against somebody pointing a gun at you across the room? What if somebody who breaks in has their own baseball bat or knife and they're willing to fight and you lose? I understand your sentiment about guns, but we live in a country and world where guns are easy to get and they're not going anywhere. And like it or not, they even the odds in situations that would have otherwise been fatal for the potential victim. You have to learn to live with a country that has guns everywhere and anybody could get and deal with it sufficiently and that may mean having your own piece to defend yourself.
                      That's a first. "Cynical" and "naive" generally don't mix, but okay... If you say so, man. rofl

                      I mean, if a group of men is going around launching full-on home invasions, chances are that they'll be strapped to the boots. In which case, a single gun (especially if it's a 9mm like women are prone to carrying) isn't nearly enough. Get that bih a duel-wielding license, breh! But wait, why stop there? Only way she'd stand a proper chance is if she had an M16... You know what? We should overturn the amendment to the NFA in '86. Machine guns for everyone! Make the Second Amendment great again! Next order of business: obligatory Gatling guns for our pick-ups!

                      And honestly, a gun's not going to be of much help either in a scenario where someone with a piece already has the drop on you. Thinking you're Billy the Kid is the best way to catch a dirt nap. Speaking of, we really should bring back the unwritten laws of the Wild Wild West (and I'm saying this completely unironically). If you're ready to kill someone (I don't care about who's legally in the right here, I'm just saying), you best be ready to die too. Live by the bullet, die by the bullet. Criminals may be scum, but you're not gonna catch me feeling sorry for some trigger-happy homeowner who instantly drew with the intent to kill on some intruder that would otherwise not have pulled their own heater and caught one between the eyes as a result. Money's money. It can be made back. Attempting to light someone up simply because they want your $200 TV makes you just as bad as the thief. Thus... no sympathy.

                      You may see guns as this great "equalizer" because they're easily accessible to anyone, yadda yadda yadda, but I see them for what they are: the single best tool for our plague of a species to continue being a plague on ourselves and everything else on this planet.

                      She stated she did warn him in the police report, but this likely is a lie. But no, you're not exactly correct. An officer off-duty isn't doesn't need to ask somebody to show their hands if they're breaking into their house. I have no idea where you're getting this from.

                      And uh, while I understand that you think cops should all have nerves of steel, the vast majority of police officers have never been in a firefight and being trained to handle stressful situations is a lot different than actually experiencing them. Most cops aren't hardened military types who have actually seen combat, after all. They're privy to panic like anybody else. Yeah, that's an issue and I'm not excusing cops you fuck up because they're panicking or jumping the gun (literally), I'm just saying it's not that simple. Cops need much better training or there needs to be a stricter hiring process.
                      I'm not claiming she was legally bound to do so; I'm saying that such a response should be ingrained in her as a police officer.

                      While hiring only ex-military types seems like an ideal situation, they're also the ones who tend to suffer most from PTSD, so. Instead, what they need to do is bump up the pay and benefits while making the screening process much more rigorous. Quality over quantity. Of course, there will still be... "incidents"... because of human error, but not nearly as often.
                      Last edited by Oneiros; December 3rd, 2018, 09:36 AM.

                      Comment


                        #51
                        Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                        Defense arguing that Guyger thought he was a burglar won't win anyone over, but OK. I understand that it's crucial for her defense, but really, making her look as retarded as possible without actually being retarded won't garner any sympathy. Shouldn't, either. Literally just crocodile tears in the form of an "argument."
                        Considering her defense is going to be flimsy regardless, that's all she really can do. Make excuses. Just like so many other bad cops make excuses and get off.


                        There's a difference between killing someone reflexively in a split-second interval and doing it consciously (even if you only hesitate for a few extra seconds before squeezing the trigger). The former is driven by raw animal instinct, the latter reeks of deliberation. Unlike the former, the latter shouldn't afford you protection from legal retribution. You committed said act knowingly, so you should be punished accordingly. If provoked, it's voluntary manslaughter. If unprovoked, it's second-degree murder. And "provocation" is nuanced and subjective in and of itself, which is precisely what makes law so fun (and annoying).
                        Sorry, but that's just now how the law works. It's not automatically manslaughter or murder to kill somebody in self-defense if you had reasonable fear that they will harm or kill you, even if you consciously made the kill. And it takes more deliberation to attack somebody with a baseball bat or knife in defense than a firearm. Unlike you, I'm not wasting my tears on somebody who was dumb enough to break into another person's house. If you do that, you should be prepared to pay for it in whichever way.

                        -EDIT- That most people would immediately murder child Hitler without even bothering to consider that the ripple effect of traveling back in time might very well serve as the catalyst that sends him to a different path, a better path, is kind of the whole point of the comparison, yes, lol.
                        You can't compare that to choosing how to react in a short amount of time to somebody who just broke into your house.

                        That's a first. "Cynical" and "naive" generally don't mix, but okay... If you say so, man. rofl
                        Nothing about your posts have been "cynical".

                        I mean, if a group of men is going around launching full-on home invasions, chances are that they'll be strapped to the boots. In which case, a single gun (especially if it's a 9mm like women are prone to carrying) isn't nearly enough. Get that bih a duel-wielding license, breh! But wait, why stop there? Only way she'd stand a proper chance is if she had an M16... You know what? We should overturn the amendment to the NFA in '86. Machine guns for everyone! Make the Second Amendment great again! Next order of business: obligatory Gatling guns for our pick-ups!
                        You're bringing up an extreme without actually addressing the issue. Even in that scenario, having a gun is better than not having a gun.

                        And honestly, a gun's not going to be of much help either in a scenario where someone with a piece already has the drop on you.
                        Nothings going to be much of a help if somebody already has the drop on you, so what does that matter? That doesn't change the fact that in many scenarios, it would give you a clear advantage. Like in the situations I mentioned, but you choose to ignore.

                        Thinking you're Billy the Kid is the best way to catch a dirt nap.
                        And sitting by passively and letting somebody hurt or kill you because you're too busy hesitating about hurting somebody who is committing a crime towards your livelihood because "guns are evil" and "oh man, what if I get hit with that manslaughter charge" is much better? Get outta here lmao

                        Speaking of, we really should bring back the unwritten laws of the Wild Wild West (and I'm saying this completely unironically). If you're ready to kill someone (I don't care about who's legally in the right here, I'm just saying), you best be ready to die too. Live by the bullet, die by the bullet. Criminals may be scum, but you're not gonna catch me feeling sorry for some trigger-happy homeowner who instantly drew with the intent to kill on some intruder that would otherwise not have pulled their own heater and caught one between the eyes as a result.
                        And how would you know the intruder didn't have a weapon or didn't have the intent to hurt you? That's the thing, you don't know, and when it comes to self-preservation, you work under the worst assumption. There should be no sympathy afforded for somebody breaking into another person's house, because they're committing a felony off the rip. They should know the risk, so you won't see me crying over them being shot to death, even if they didn't intend to hurt anybody and just wanted to steal a tv. With your passive mindset, you'd be the first nigga who'd be taking a dirt nap because you'd feel bad if you shot the dude who just broke into your house and will end up stabbing you to death or drawing a hidden firearm and shooting you despite you having the opportunity to shoot first.

                        Money's money. It can be made back. Attempting to light someone up simply because they want your $200 TV makes you just as bad as the thief. Thus... no sympathy.
                        lmao Yeah, like you're going to sit back as they break into your house and take the time to ask what whether they're here to steal your tv, here steal some money, or here rape your sleeping daughter in her room, or here to kill you and your family.

                        You can tell you don't have a street mindset. Fyi, even though I was young at the time and I didn't know him that well, my uncle was murdered in an home invasion and shot to death on his own couch. So fuck your sympathy for home invaders.

                        You may see guns as this great "equalizer" because they're easily accessible to anyone, yadda yadda yadda, but I see them for what they are: the single best tool for our plague of a species to continue being a plague on ourselves and everything else on this planet.
                        I recognize guns are an issue and they're responsible for some of the worst crimes in human history, but they're not going anywhere. So you can either be realistic and accept that or you continue to preach naive silliness like taking away everyone's guns as though that's a valid or possible solution.

                        I'm not claiming she was legally bound to do so; I'm saying that such a response should be ingrained in her as a police officer.
                        Perhaps, but then it's not a valid argument to bring up in court.

                        While hiring only ex-military types seems like an ideal situation, they're also the ones who tend to suffer most from PTSD, so. Instead, what they need to do is bump up the pay and benefits while making the screening process much more rigorous. Quality over quantity. Of course, there will still be... "incidents"... because of human error, but not nearly as often.
                        And while steps like that are good and they have been happening, the downside is shortage of officers, meaning they work more overtime and hours without rest, which means more stress, fatigue, and them being prone to making mistake.
                        Last edited by Raniero; December 3rd, 2018, 06:09 PM.

                        Comment


                          #52
                          Originally posted by Raniero View Post
                          Considering her defense is going to be flimsy regardless, that's all she really can do. Make excuses. Just like so many other bad cops make excuses and get off.
                          What does it say about us that this is true even when faced with a jury of our peers?

                          Sorry, but that's just now how the law works. It's not automatically manslaughter or murder to kill somebody in self-defense if you had reasonable fear that they will harm or kill you, even if you consciously made the kill. And it takes more deliberation to attack somebody with a baseball bat or knife in defense than a firearm. Unlike you, I'm not wasting my tears on somebody who was dumb enough to break into another person's house. If you do that, you should be prepared to pay for it in whichever way.
                          Which is why a lot of people (who aren't cops) who've "self-defensed" someone to death are summarily sued for excessive force by the victims' loved ones, right?

                          You have it all wrong. I'm not wasting my tears on imbeciles who knowingly break into people's homes. It's just that I'm not wasting them on cunts so afraid of their own shadow that they shoot first and ask questions later, only to eventually pay the consequences either. Whether those consequences come in the form of a prison sentence or a bullet courtesy of an irate brother or grieving father, I do not care. Because accidents do happen. A guy tripping balls might stumble into the wrong yard. A dumb-ass teenager on a dare to lift shit might wander into the wrong garage. Do they also deserve to die? And if so, the person who killed them (nor you) should have any issue with swift retribution from a family member. Ironic as this may seem, you should only take a life if you're willing to lose yours. And so, the cycle continues...

                          You can't compare that to choosing how to react in a short amount of time to somebody who just broke into your house.
                          Umm, most people wouldn't stop to contemplate chaos theory before offing (or not offing) tween Hitler either; they'd just ponder the obvious moral dilemma posed by the act of killing an innocent child to potentially save millions (even ignoring the butterfly effect, it is not necessarily imperative that Hitler was the sole actor capable of bringing about the Holocaust), or letting him go and having millions die in a future that was perhaps always meant to be as a result. And given how you would only bring this up in a social setting, people aren't going to wait 9785415152154515 years for you to glean the meaning of life (and death). They expect a quick response, or else they're simply gonna call you "faggot" and move on.

                          And again, do note the distinction. Deliberation is what separates second-degree murder from voluntary manslaughter. Deliberation is why Guyger is technically a murderess.

                          Nothing about your posts have been "cynical".
                          Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                          She dindu nuffin'.
                          Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                          Even if they don't detect or "detect" narcotics, they'll undoubtedly unearth a history of mental illness that didn't come to light until now!!
                          Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                          Here's hoping Jean gets proper justice, but you know...
                          Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                          That being said, I'm positive they'll use "mental illness" or "drug addiction" to get that charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
                          Are you fucking serious, lol.

                          You're bringing up an extreme without actually addressing the issue. Even in that scenario, having a gun is better than not having a gun.
                          Actually, you brought up that extreme scenario. Yes, managing to kill one before the others blow your brains out and fuck your corpse makes it all better, I'm sure.

                          If anything, it's you who's avoiding the underlying issue. Sadists existed well before guns were created and will undoubtedly exist well after guns become obsolete. As it stands though, guns make it even easier for scum to continue being scum more than so than it allows "normal" people to protect themselves. Anecdotally, women have gotten away from would-be rapists with knives. I've never heard one where a woman escapes a rapist with a gun. And having a personal handgun wouldn't help in that instance either, as it would likely be in her purse and not her person.

                          Not only that, guns inherently make the act of killing someone that much more impersonal, which is decidedly unhealthy. On the other hand, you feel that knife going in. If you're going to kill someone, you at least owe it to them to look them in the eye as they pass and understand the gravity of what you've done. Believe it or not, real life isn't like CoD. People don't respawn when they die in the real world.

                          Nothings going to be much of a help if somebody already has the drop on you, so what does that matter? That doesn't change the fact that in many scenarios, it would give you a clear advantage. Like in the situations I mentioned, but you choose to ignore.
                          Again, that was *your* scenario.

                          Hardly, because you should assume that everyone and their granny has a gun in this gun-crazy country. Besides, pulling a gun on someone with intent is exactly the type of provocation that the would-be-robber-turned-manslaughterer will be referencing when he stands trial for splitting your wig in a clear-cut case of "self-defense," lol.

                          And sitting by passively and letting somebody hurt or kill you because you're too busy hesitating about hurting somebody who is committing a crime towards your livelihood because "guns are evil" and "oh man, what if I get hit with that manslaughter charge" is much better? Get outta here lmao
                          Nah. I keep a baseball bat by my nightstand and I'd be too busy swinging that bod boy at 75 MPH before the idiot even knew what hit him. He'd be out like a light and I (probably) wouldn't get hit with a manslaughter charge unless I accidentally caved in his skull.

                          I reiterate: guns are for pussies. Obviously, a bat might not be of much use in a scenario where there's 3+ motherfuckers in your house, but then, a gun wouldn't' be much help either... Even if they weren't packing, what's stopping one from tackling you, taking the gun, and shooting you with it? What's keeping the rest from kicking you to death even if you manage to blow away their friend?

                          And how would you know the intruder didn't have a weapon or didn't have the intent to hurt you? That's the thing, you don't know, and when it comes to self-preservation, you work under the worst assumption. There should be no sympathy afforded for somebody breaking into another person's house, because they're committing a felony off the rip. They should know the risk, so you won't see me crying over them being shot to death, even if they didn't intend to hurt anybody and just wanted to steal a tv. With your passive mindset, you'd be the first nigga who'd be taking a dirt nap because you'd feel bad if you shot the dude who just broke into your house and will end up stabbing you to death or drawing a hidden firearm and shooting you despite you having the opportunity to shoot first.
                          Continuously giving in to our baser animal instincts meanwhile maintaining a facade of evolution is why this world is so fucked up, my dude. :/

                          Like I said above, if it were me, the intruder would be laid out. Intent (even if entirely innocuous) be damned. I'd then tie him up and call the cops. If he were faking it and came at my head in earnest, then sure, I'd put him down. I always carry a knife on me for that very reason. But it's meant to be a last resort, not a first resort. In my whole life, I've thankfully only had occasion to flip it open twice, and in both instances they backed down. They knew what time it was. If I'd pulled a gun, they might've shot me in the head the second I turned away. Guns instill this crippling fear in people like no other weapon will. Hence them exacerbating almost any situation instead of diffusing them. It's why some criminals feel pressured into shooting their "way out" when surrounded by cops and not simply because they want to avoid prison. It's because they're afraid.

                          lmao Yeah, like you're going to sit back as they break into your house and take the time to ask what whether they're here to steal your tv, here steal some money, or here rape your sleeping daughter in her room, or here to kill you and your family.
                          ...

                          If you didn't wake up with a bullet in the head and they're making away with your TV, chances are they're only here to make away with your TV. You don't rob someone blind and then rape, torture, and kill them. Common sense.

                          You can tell you don't have a street mindset. Fyi, even though I was young at the time and I didn't know him that well, my uncle was murdered in an home invasion and shot to death on his own couch. So fuck your sympathy for home invaders.
                          People in the streets barely even hear gunshots anymore, they're so common. And that's mostly cuz the young niggas who think they thugs always wanna pull they pieces cuz they think they manly and shiiieet.

                          I am sorry about your uncle. What happened to him is as tragic as what happened to Jean, though it obviously wouldn't have gotten the same publicity. If this isn't too insensitive, do you know whether it was motivated or a terrible act of chance? Dudes be wilin'.

                          Iyou continue to preach naive silliness like taking away everyone's guns as though that's a valid or possible solution.
                          I did no such thing. lol

                          It's far, far, faaar too late to backtrack now. The government couldn't even retroactively outlaw, thus seize, machine guns people stockpiled before '86. They're sure as hell not seizing rifles, pistols, and shotguns. And beyond that, it's just as well. Any militia group who thinks they can go up against the United States Armed Forces and come out on top (which even the Russian Armed Forces can't do) is retarded and deserves to be wiped out, but they are actually right. Absolute trust in the government, any government, is boundlessly stupid. People, even if it's ultimately hopeless, should be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. I'd sooner die than see this country become a North Korea.

                          Perhaps, but then it's not a valid argument to bring up in court.
                          It absolutely is. Her former career and training are pertinent and highlight how she could (and should) have handled the situation, and the jury will no doubt be all over that. Not everything is about the judge.

                          And while steps like that are good and they have been happening, the downside is shortage of officers, meaning they work more overtime and hours without rest, which means more stress, fatigue, and them being prone to making mistake.
                          Which is why a notable boost in pay would go a long way in getting skilled laborers interested in a career in law enforcement. Teachers also deserve a bump in pay, but I digress...
                          Last edited by Oneiros; December 4th, 2018, 06:50 AM.

                          Comment


                            #53
                            Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                            What does it say about us that this is true even when faced with a jury of our peers?
                            That there's some risk in putting your fate in the hands of 12 strangers.

                            Which is why a lot of people (who aren't cops) who've "self-defensed" someone to death are summarily sued for excessive force by the victims' loved ones, right?
                            Many times, they're in the right due to certain circumstances. Pulling your gun out and shooting the suspect in the back after they clearly ran away? That, for example, is excessive force. Context matters. You can't try to label everything under the same umbrella.

                            You have it all wrong. I'm not wasting my tears on imbeciles who knowingly break into people's homes. It's just that I'm not wasting them on cunts so afraid of their own shadow that they shoot first and ask questions later, only to eventually pay the consequences either.
                            You keep saying this, but you just keep coming across as naive. It's not about being afraid from your own shadow. It's about self-preservation. You're yapping about asking questions, but under what circumstances is somebody going to calmly question the criminal why they just broke into their house. Why even have a reason to believe anything they say? Why even assume they'll have anything to say? You don't know what another person's mindset or intent is. You should always assume the worst if somebody is breaking into your house, because they're there to commit a crime, not make friends.

                            Whether those consequences come in the form of a prison sentence or a bullet courtesy of an irate brother or grieving father, I do not care. Because accidents do happen. A guy tripping balls might stumble into the wrong yard. A dumb-ass teenager on a dare to lift shit might wander into the wrong garage. Do they also deserve to die? And if so, the person who killed them (nor you) should have any issue with swift retribution from a family member. Ironic as this may seem, you should only take a life if you're willing to lose yours. And so, the cycle continues...
                            Since when was stumbling unto somebody's yard or walking into an open garage on accident the same as "burglary/forceful/unlawful entry" into somebody else's house? The former are completely different than the latter, which is a purposeful and willing felony offense.

                            Generally, people don't "accidently" break into someone's else's house. Instances like that are rare.

                            (Also, referencing shit later in your post, you don't think pulling out a knife or a baseball means you're not prepared to kill someone? Because both are deadly weapons.)

                            Umm, most people wouldn't stop to contemplate chaos theory before offing (or not offing) tween Hitler either; they'd just ponder the obvious moral dilemma posed by the act of killing an innocent child to potentially save millions (even ignoring the butterfly effect, it is not necessarily imperative that Hitler was the sole actor capable of bringing about the Holocaust), or letting him go and having millions die in a future that was perhaps always meant to be as a result. And given how you would only bring this up in a social setting, people aren't going to wait 9785415152154515 years for you to glean the meaning of life (and death). They expect a quick response, or else they're simply gonna call you "faggot" and move on.

                            And again, do note the distinction. Deliberation is what separates second-degree murder from voluntary manslaughter. Deliberation is why Guyger is technically a murderess.
                            It's a dumb comparison, as I said. Your excuse of people expecting a quick response to it's the same only further convinces me of that. It's not even worth discussing. It's false equivalency.

                            Are you fucking serious, lol.
                            Sounds like normal sarcasm to me.

                            Actually, you brought up that extreme scenario.
                            I brought up a group of men breaking into a house. Not a group of heavily armed men all strapped.

                            Yes, managing to kill one before the others blow your brains out and fuck your corpse makes it all better, I'm sure.
                            As opposed to what? Not killing one and they all get away after killing you? If a group of heavily armed men are breaking into someone's house, they intend to kill regardless.

                            If anything, it's you who's avoiding the underlying issue. Sadists existed well before guns were created and will undoubtedly exist well after guns become obsolete. As it stands though, guns make it even easier for scum to continue being scum more than so than it allows "normal" people to protect themselves. Anecdotally, women have gotten away from would-be rapists with knives. I've never heard one where a woman escapes a rapist with a gun.
                            I mean, putting aside the fact that just because you've never heard of it means it didn't happen, just because a knife is sufficient in certain situations doesn't mean a gun wouldn't be more so.

                            And having a personal handgun wouldn't help in that instance either, as it would likely be in her purse and not her person.
                            Uh, same with a knife? Most women don't even carry switchblades. They're more likely to carry a firearm or pepper-spray in their purse. Definitely not on their immediate person.

                            Not only that, guns inherently make the act of killing someone that much more impersonal, which is decidedly unhealthy. On the other hand, you feel that knife going in. If you're going to kill someone, you at least owe it to them to look them in the eye as they pass and understand the gravity of what you've done. Believe it or not, real life isn't like CoD. People don't respawn when they die in the real world.
                            This is the most hilarious shit I've read all day. Serial killers have always preferred using weapons that would allow them to be physically close to their victims because it's that much more personal--whether this be a knife or something that allow for strangulation. Firearms being more impersonal allows for less guilt or depression. It's decidedly not as unhealthy as stabbing someone to death, because not only does it take a lot of force to push a knife deep into somebody's body, but it forces you to be close to them. You sound like you've watched too many movies or tv shows with this over-dramatization. "You at least owe it to them to look them in the eyes. Believe it or not, real life isn't like CoD. People don't respawn when they die in the real world." You speak as though you've actually killed someone before or that you understand the psychology of killing someone. Most sane people don't want to look somebody they're killing in the eye as they die, because that's psychologically destructive. The only people that prefer knife kills or think being personal in the kill is "better" are sociopaths.

                            Regardless, you're ignoring the fact that knives can strike in less lethal areas and if somebody has enough adrenaline, they can still fight hard with a knife wound. It's not particularly safer.

                            Again, that was *your* scenario.
                            One such scenario I named actually happened, like an old woman defending herself from an intruder when she would have otherwise been defenseless.

                            Hardly, because you should assume that everyone and their granny has a gun in this gun-crazy country.
                            Going by this logic, shouldn't you assume an intruder has a gun?

                            Besides, pulling a gun on someone with intent is exactly the type of provocation that the would-be-robber-turned-manslaughterer will be referencing when he stands trial for splitting your wig in a clear-cut case of "self-defense," lol.
                            Except the robber wouldn't be able to argue self-defense by the fucking fact that he was committing a felony the time your death occurred, so any death as a result of his actions would be his fault. We have a thing called "the felony murder rule".

                            Nah. I keep a baseball bat by my nightstand and I'd be too busy swinging that bod boy at 75 MPH before the idiot even knew what hit him. He'd be out like a light and I (probably) wouldn't get hit with a manslaughter charge unless I accidentally caved in his skull.
                            This how I can tell you're naive about this topic and lack any real street mentality. You talk like you're from the shits, but you're not, so stop trying to paint yourself as some experienced fighter. Having a baseball bat near your bedside doesn't make you an invincible superhero lmao

                            I reiterate: guns are for pussies.
                            Guns can be for pussies. But they can also be a valid form of defense, especially for a woman or older person, or in a situation where you're outmatched and outnumbered. And yes, this isn't the rule, but in a lot of circumstances, guns have saved lives.

                            Obviously, a bat might not be of much use in a scenario where there's 3+ motherfuckers in your house, but then, a gun wouldn't' be much help either... Even if they weren't packing, what's stopping one from tackling you, taking the gun, and shooting you with it? What's keeping the rest from kicking you to death even if you manage to blow away their friend?
                            Again with this naive talk like you got the answers for everything. This depends on the situation. In a lot of circumstances, they won't be able to get close enough to tackle you before you fire at them. And for most people, running away from gunfire is the natural, instant reaction, not running towards it.

                            For example



                            Continuously giving in to our baser animal instincts meanwhile maintaining a facade of evolution is why this world is so fucked up, my dude. :/
                            Right, because hitting somebody with a baseball bat isn't giving into your baser animal instincts. lol

                            If you consider prioritizing my life over somebody breaking into my house baser animal instincts, then so be it.

                            Like I said above, if it were me, the intruder would be laid out.
                            You have no way of knowing that, especially if they're the better fighter or you're in a situation where you have a disadvantage. I have no idea where this confidence that you can handle anything thrown at you is coming from, but it just tells me you don't actually have much experience or knowledge about this at all. At the very least, I've studied shit like this in college (my major is, consequently, criminal justice and I work personally with police officers as my job). I know it's not as simple as you're trying to paint this as.

                            Intent (even if entirely innocuous) be damned. I'd then tie him up and call the cops. If he were faking it and came at my head in earnest, then sure, I'd put him down.
                            Lol

                            Arguing a fictitious hypothetical is fine, but at least try to be realistic or believable.

                            I always carry a knife on me for that very reason. But it's meant to be a last resort, not a first resort. In my whole life, I've thankfully only had occasion to flip it open twice, and in both instances they backed down. They knew what time it was. If I'd pulled a gun, they might've shot me in the head the second I turned away.
                            Listen, if you pulled a knife out and those niggas actually had a gun, they would have pulled it out on you. Chill with that.

                            In the first place, if you're dumb enough to pull a gun out and turn your back on the people you pulled the gun out on, you only have your own dumbass self to blame it they shoot you in the back of the head.

                            You know it's funny you're trying to claim guns are a pussy weapon, but on the streets, any weapon outside of your own body can be considered a pussy weapon. You ain't hard because you pulled out a blade that can seriously maim or harm somebody without a whole lot of effort.

                            Guns instill this crippling fear in people like no other weapon will. Hence them exacerbating almost any situation instead of diffusing them.
                            A knife doesn't do much of a good job of diffusing situations either, because a knife is a deadly weapon.

                            It's why some criminals feel pressured into shooting their "way out" when surrounded by cops and not simply because they want to avoid prison. It's because they're afraid.
                            No, most criminals shoot their way out because they don't want to go back to prison and would rather fight. The majority of the time, the only reason a criminal actively engaging in illegal behavior should be scared of a cop pulling a gun on them is if they gave them a reason to pull a gun out on them.

                            ...

                            If you didn't wake up with a bullet in the head and they're making away with your TV, chances are they're only here to make away with your TV. You don't rob someone blind and then rape, torture, and kill them. Common sense.
                            Did you actually read what I wrote or are you purposely being disingenuous? Clearly I said you won't sit back and ask somebody why they just broke in your house. I never said shit about them already making off with your tv already.

                            That's why I said circumstances matter. If you already see the dude leaving with your tv, excessive force can be argued. But if you're still ignorant on why they're there and you have a reasonable fear that they're possibly a threat, lethal force can be justified.

                            People in the streets barely even hear gunshots anymore, they're so common. And that's mostly cuz the young niggas who think they thugs always wanna pull they pieces cuz they think they manly and shiiieet.
                            That's not what I meant. I can tell you don't have a street mentality with this passive , expecting the best in people bullshit you're spouting.

                            I am sorry about your uncle. What happened to him is as tragic as what happened to Jean, though it obviously wouldn't have gotten the same publicity. If this isn't too insensitive, do you know whether it was motivated or a terrible act of chance? Dudes be wilin'.
                            It was a gang thing. But the fact remains is that you don't know why and what somebody is breaking into your house for and most of the time, you won't have time to talk it out with them why they're doing it. Most of the time, you'll react immediately. My uncle didn't have time to ask why this nigga was breaking into his house did he?

                            I did no such thing. lol

                            It's far, far, faaar too late to backtrack now. The government couldn't even retroactively outlaw, thus seize, machine guns people stockpiled before '86. They're sure as hell not seizing rifles, pistols, and shotguns. And beyond that, it's just as well. Any militia group who thinks they can go up against the United States Armed Forces and come out on top (which even the Russian Armed Forces can't do) is retarded and deserves to be wiped out, but they are actually right. Absolute trust in the government, any government, is boundlessly stupid. People, even if it's ultimately hopeless, should be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. I'd sooner die than see this country become a North Korea.
                            Then stop whining about people wanting to use guns to defend themselves.

                            It absolutely is. Her former career and training are pertinent and highlight how she could (and should) have handled the situation, and the jury will no doubt be all over that. Not everything is about the judge.
                            if she's not legally required to act a certain way (your words), then it's not going to be legally used as an argument in court.

                            Which is why a notable boost in pay would go a long way in getting skilled laborers interested in a career in law enforcement. Teachers also deserve a bump in pay, but I digress...
                            I agree, they do need better pay. But that's another topic.

                            Edit: Edited a bunch of shit because I was tired when I first typed this out.
                            Last edited by Raniero; December 4th, 2018, 04:23 PM.

                            Comment


                              #54
                              Originally posted by Culpa the Moth Mage View Post
                              When doesn't CNN or the MSM make it a race thing these days.
                              The problem is that all the white people who own the news outlets see that Fox was only blaming mexicans and muslims and shit, and now CNN and other more central or left leaning outlets love to point out when someone is white...
                              You can't make it right by blaming white.
                              White people don't own most of the news outlets, the Jews do.

                              Comment


                                #55
                                Originally posted by Raniero View Post
                                That there's some risk in putting your fate in the hands of 12 strangers.
                                There’s “risk” involved even though cops tend to get off with nary a slap on the wrist for the same crime that a poor or lower-middle-class civilian would get crucified for? They’re afforded the same protections as the rich in this one venue, which is kinda the whole point of this thread…

                                Many times, they're in the right due to certain circumstances. Pulling your gun out and shooting the suspect in the back after they clearly ran away? That, for example, is excessive force. Context matters. You can't try to label everything under the same umbrella.
                                The use of deadly force against an unarmed intruder whose only crime is a property crime is absolutely excessive in jurisdictions that aren’t collectively retarded, yes.

                                You keep saying this, but you just keep coming across as naive. It's not about being afraid about your show. It's about self-preservation. You're yapping about asking questions, but under what circumstances is somebody going to calmly question the criminal why they just broke into their house. Why even have a reason to believe anything they say? Why even assume they'll have anything to say? You don't know what another person's mindset or intent is. You should always assume the worst if somebody is breaking into your house, because they're there to commit a crime, not make friends.
                                Who even said anything about asking them questions? I’d leave that to the police after knocking a fool out cold. All I’m saying is that I wouldn’t instantly go for the kill because I’m not a rabid animal. At least, not in cold blood. In the heat of the moment? Possibly. Probably.

                                Since when is stumbling unto somebody's yard or walking into an open garage on accident "burglary/forceful/unlawful entry" into somebody else's house? The former are completely different than the latter, which is a purposeful and willing felony offense.
                                Question: is striding through a front door that was left unlocked by the owner considered “forceful entry”?
                                If so, would that not also extend to the garage which is generally connected to the house?

                                Generally, people don't "accidently" break into someone's else's house. Instances like that are rare.
                                Just like instances where the intent is to rape and/or kill you are extremely rare as opposed to burglary.

                                I mean, if you’re going to be that rattled, what’s the point of life? Why even crawl out of bed in the morning? You could die when an AC unit falls on your head as you’re walking to the nearby diner.

                                (Also, referencing shit later in your post, you don't think pulling out a knife or a baseball means you're not prepared to kill someone? Because both are deadly weapons.)
                                Are you purposely being obtuse? It’s much, much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is a knife, never mind a bat. It’s easy to miss and hit a vital spot even if your intent was merely wounding the intruder because most people aren’t crack shots. It’s a lot harder to go wide with something as big as a bat and accidentally crush their windpipe or something.

                                It's a dumb comparison, as I said. Your excuse of people expecting a quick response to it's the same only further convinces me of that. It's not even worth discussing. It's false equivalency.
                                The applied theme is the same, but whatever. I’ll drop it because I don’t particularly feel like arguing semantics about a peripheral connection.

                                I brought up a group of men breaking into a house. Not a group of heavily armed men all strapped.
                                Why wouldn’t they be? We have 80-year-old grannies who are strapped, but not a bunch of presumably young dudes in their 20s or 30s? What. The. Fuck? Especially since everyone has a gun according to you which is why it’s best to shoot first, ask questions later, no?

                                As opposed to what? Not killing one and they all get away after killing you? If a group of heavily armed men are breaking into someone's house, they intend to kill regardless.
                                It’s a hollow victory at best, but I guess I can agree with the sentiment. If I knew for a fact that a bunch of randoms wanted my head for whatever perceived slight (I guess brownness can be a little unnerving to the melanin-challenged), I’m taking as many of them as I can down with me.

                                Still, you didn’t answer my earlier query, which was actually totally completely 100% sincere, I promise, in spite of the snark. To “level” the playing field, should machine guns be brought back into circulation for civilian consumption? As it stands, a mere pistol just doesn’t cut it in certain scenarios, man.

                                I mean, putting aside the fact that just because you've never heard of it means it didn't happen, just because a knife is sufficient in certain situations doesn't mean a gun wouldn't be more so.
                                To clarify: the rapist in the scenario has the gun -- not the woman. Guns may have saved some people from sexual assault, sure, but they also make the act of committing it significantly easier. Cue the knife comparison. Similarly, homicide is considerably easier with a gun than anything else. Even a car.

                                Uh, same with a knife? Most women don't even carry switchblades. They're more likely to carry a firearm or pepper-spray in their purse. Definitely not on their immediate person.
                                Women don’t favor knives, true enough, but one so inclined could definitely conceal a small blade in a skirt pocket. Only someone truly retarded would tuck a gun between their belt loop, though. Doubly so if it were a dude.

                                This is the most hilarious shit I've read all day. Serial killers have always preferred using weapons that would allow them to be physically close to their victims because it's that more personal--whether this be a knife or some tools that allow for strangulation. Firearms being more impersonal allows for less guilt or depression. It's decidedly not as unhealthy as stabbing someone to death, because not only does it take a lot of force to push a knife deep into somebody's body, but it forces you to be close to them. You sound like you've watched too many movies or tv shows with this over-dramatization. "You at least owe it to them to look them in the eyes. Believe it or not, real life isn't like CoD. People don't respawn when they die in the real world." You speak as though you've actually killed someone before or that you understand the psychology of killing someone. Most sane people don't want to look somebody they're killing in the eye as they die, because that's psychologically destructive. The only people that prefer knife kills or think being personal in the kill is "better" are sociopaths.
                                Yeah, that’s kind of the whole point. Unless you’re a literal psychopath, taking a life shouldn’t come easy. The fact that guns allow you to compartmentalize more easily than knives isn’t a good thing, lmfao. We want people feeling regret after doing bad things for “good” reasons. That’s how we avoid more senseless death in the future. The fuck?

                                If that’s meant to be an allusion to Game of Thrones, you’re probably talking about what Ned Stark said. And is he wrong? If you want someone dead, you should nut up and do the dirty work with your own two hands. Similarly, you should be able to gaze upon your own handiwork. If you’re “man” enough (lol) to shoot someone dead just because they might have posed a threat, then surely you’re man enough to face what you’ve done.

                                Regardless, you're ignoring the fact that knives can strike in less lethal areas and if somebody has enough adrenaline, they can still fight hard with a knife wound. It's not particularity safer.
                                It’s not particularly safer, no, but a gash will bleed harder than a plugged hole (unless the bullet went clean through) and induce shock.

                                One such scenario I named actually happened, like an old woman defending herself from an intruder when she would have otherwise been defenseless.
                                Great. People are scared (and rightfully so) of people older than 70, even 60, behind a wheel, but you’re cool with people over 80 having access to firearms. Okay. Are you forgetting about Cheney’s hunting accident? Granted, it was likely an “accident” as opposed to an honest mistake, but still… Old people are senile; old people have poor eyesight. Thus, old people + vehicles/firearms = recipe for disaster.

                                And it’s potentially as disastrous in a household with young children and the mentally retarded. Because kids have accidentally shot themselves and their little brothers and will continue to do so as long as people keep guns in their homes.

                                Going by this logic, shouldn't you assume an intruder has a gun?
                                Yes, and you should also be ready to possibly be lit up for trying to light someone up. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s not “street” to complain about getting your wig split after attempting to split someone else’s first. Nor is it “street” to abuse legal loopholes to catch bodies. People who are street don’t give a FUCK that they might go to prison. In fact, some of these guys even welcome it.

                                Except the robber wouldn't be able to argue self-defense by the fucking fact that he was committing a felony the time your death occurred, so any death as a result of his actions would be his fault. We have a thing called "the felony murder rule".
                                Concession accepted (by you) on this point. Can’t believe I blanked on this, Shob or somebody else here referenced it before in a particularly absurd case, iirc.

                                This how I can tell you're naive about this topic and lack any real street mentality. You talk like you're from the shits, but you're not, so stop trying to paint yourself as some experienced fighter. Having a baseball bat near your bedside doesn't make you an invincible superhero lmao
                                ????

                                Being able to catch a single intruder off-guard with a baseball bat is somehow meant to convey that I’m this invincible MMA god or something? Bruh… And believe it or not, most criminals aren’t even as “well-trained” as cops when it comes to hand-to-hand combat or accuracy with a firearm. Which is why dumb-ass bangers who hold their MAC-10s sideways get blown away by cops armed with only Glocks all the time. It is also why most criminals, such as petty thieves, are effortlessly tackled and restrained by fat-ass donut-munching cops more often than not. While I am somewhat more trained than the average guy, that’s not even relevant here because nobody’s going to be catching my bat mid-swing with their bare hands like they’re this ex-Special Forces supersoldier GOON. Haha, who’s been watching too much Japanese daytime programming? And look… I even admitted that I’d almost certainly get bodied by 3+ people even if I had a gun on me… But yup, I definitely think I’m Batman. :/

                                You keep saying “street this, street that” but the streets being hot is why 12 y.o.s whose closest encounter with a gun should have been the new Call of Duty get closed-casket funerals. It’s why 19 is the highest life expectancy for some of these guys. Are you really trying to use communities where gun violence is especially rife (even for the US) as people whose unique outlook to emulate? Seriously? Gang violence (and other types of gun violence) is what makes an already inhabitable place into a veritable war zone. Nobody lucky enough to escape the streets should continue to have that mindset even after getting out. Going to drive yourself crazy. On that PTSD shit.

                                Guns can be for pussies. But they can also be a valid form of defense, especially for a woman or older person, or in a situation where you're outmatched and outnumbered. And yes, this isn't the rule, but in a lot of circumstances, guns have saved lives.
                                Preemptive self-defense doesn’t count as “saving lives,” but OK. There’s a reason why countries get backlash for promoting the same policy on a national scale, so what makes you think it’s acceptable on a personal level? The discrepancy in scale? Pfft.

                                But yes, they do act like an equalizer of sorts in select cases. Should still only be used as a deterrent until absolutely necessary.

                                Again with this naive talk like you got the answers for everything. This depends on the situation. In a lot of circumstances, they won't be able to get close enough to tackle you before you fire at them. And for most people, running away from gunfire is the natural reactive, instant decision, not running towards it.
                                If you’re trigger-happy enough to start firing at people just standing a safe distance away, chances are that you’re gonna fire at their fleeing backs as well so their best chance of survival is actually giving you the bum’s rush. Yes, I realize that running away from gunfire is instinctual. Getting revenge for a fallen buddy is also instinctual, however. Whether self-preservation overrides the need for vengeance remains to be seen as it’s a case-by-case basis.

                                In any case, you’re positively touched in the head if you think you can drop three grown men in quick succession with a fucking pistol before you get eviscerated, shot by your own gun, or brutally beaten to death. But by all means, don’t let me stop you if you wanna LARP as Frank Castle because you recently watched the first season of The Punisher on Netflix. See how that works out for you.

                                Right, because hitting somebody with a baseball bat isn't giving into your baser animal instincts. lol
                                Just because I’m not a deluded pacifist who thinks the world is all rainbows and sunshine isn’t the same as “giving in.” Outside of a potent mishit in an unfortunate location like the throat, nose, or ribs, baseball bats are generally only lethal if you fly into a rage and bash someone’s head in with continued blows. Very few scenarios would lead to something like that.

                                If you consider prioritizing my life over somebody breaking into my house baser anime instincts, then so be it.
                                Prioritizing self-preservation above all else (even at the expense of others) is pure base instinct, yes. Some take it further still and even throw their “loved” ones under the bus to save their own pathetic lives. Which, I guess, is a discourtesy to animals…

                                You have no way of knowing that, especially if they're the better fighter or you're in a situation where you have a disadvantage. I have no idea where this confidence that you can handle anything thrown at you is coming from, but it just tells me you don't actually have much experience or knowledge about this at all. At the very least, I've studied shit like this in college (my major is, consequently, criminal justice and I work personally with police officers as my job). I know it's not as simple as you're trying to paint this as.
                                I mean, yeah, if the intruder is standing above my bed with a gun aimed at me, I’m dead no matter what. No matter how many guns I may or may not own.

                                But if I’m woken up by a sudden noise and creep to the door with my bat, chances are that I’ll get the drop on him. Being a better fighter is totally irrelevant because I’d be using the element of surprise, not trying to have a “fair” fight with some sneaky bum motherfucker. To that end, most people who aren’t brain-dead know where the creaky floorboards and steps in their house are located and can use that knowledge to their advantage.

                                Nobody said it’s simple, Massa. Please don’t become a presumptuous, condescending twat like J peth evidently has. I never claimed to know more about this subject than you (for you, it’s your field of study/career path; for me, it’s merely a hobby), nor did I assert that it was “simple” (in fact, I stated the opposite when I was talking about how nuanced law is…).

                                Lol

                                Arguing fictitious hypothetical, but at least try to be realistic or believable.
                                So, I’m to believe that you’re this stone-cold rock-hard OG who could shoot someone to death in cold blood, yet you can’t suspend your “disbelief” enough to think I’d stab a fool even when warranted in the heat of the moment? Oof.

                                Listen, if you pulled a knife out and those niggas actually had a gun, they would have pulled it out on you. Chill with that.
                                And the one who pulled first would’ve gotten gutted before I got shot by his boys, so I suppose we’re both lucky he didn’t pull then. Regardless, I was outnumbered in that second instance (the first instance was just this one dude who whipped out his knife first) and there was a very real chance that I was going to die there and then. If you’re going to go, might as well go out swinging.

                                In the first place, if you're dumb enough to pull a gun out and turn your back on the people you pulled the gun out on, you only have your own dumbass self to blame it they shoot you in the back of the head.
                                Obviously not right after. But some people really are petty enough to bide their time for 30+ minutes, pretend everything is cool, then cap your ass once you’ve lowered your guard. Smarter (and even pettier) people bide their time for days, even.

                                You know it's funny you're trying to claim guns are a pussy weapon, but on the streets, any weapon outside of your own body can be considered a pussy weapon. You ain't hard because you pulled out a blade that can seriously maim or harm somebody without a whole lot of effort.
                                Like I said, I’ve only pulled my knife twice because I’ve only had cause to go into kill-or-be-killed mode twice. I don’t pull out my blade lightly. It’s not a toy. You fight with your words or, if need be, your fists. You survive with a knife.

                                Not like it matters since not being a pussy and being hard aren’t mutually inclusive. I never claimed to be a blood, blood.

                                A knife doesn't do much of a good job of diffusing situations either, because a knife is a deadly weapon.
                                It’s threatening enough that only somebody extremely fucked-up in the head would seek a confrontation after seeing it but not so threatening that people think they have to “nip” you “in the bud” as it were. A knife is a threat, a gun is a promise.

                                No, most criminals shoot their way out because they don't want to go back to prison and would rather fight. The majority of the time, the only reason a criminal actively engaging in illegal behavior should be scared of a cop pulling a gun on them is if they gave them a reason to pull a gun out on them.
                                Only a truly deranged individual thinks they’ll shoot their way past six cops. Most criminals who’d rather die than go back to prison know they’re going to die and attempt to go out in a blaze of glory. That’s suicide by cop. It’s not the same thing as panicking with multiple guns trained on you and attempting to “fight” despite not actually having a death wish. Because that happens too. Especially when SWAT goes in.

                                Did you actually read what I wrote or are you purposely being disingenuous? Clearly I said you won't sit back and ask somebody why they just broke in your house. I never said shit about them already making off with your tv already.
                                Yes, that was my bad. Probably shouldn’t be reading essays at 4:30 in the morning…

                                That's not what I meant. I can tell you don't have a street mentality with this passive , expecting the best in people (oh, they're just here to take my tv, not hurt me, i'll let them be) bullshit you're spouting.
                                Yeesh. If you think cracking someone in the fucking temple is “letting them be,” no wonder you think shooting any and all potential threats isn’t the least bit excessive.

                                It was a gang thing. But the fact remains is that you don't know why and what somebody is breaking into your house for and most of the time, you won't have time to talk it out with them why they're doing it. My uncle didn't have time to ask why this nigga was breaking into his house did he?
                                Ah. But why would he even get involved in gang business without a piece of his own? Or did the scumbag just get the jump on him?

                                Thing is, if it was gang-related, they would’ve eventually gotten him one way or another, sad to say. If not like that, then via drive-by. Gangsters aren’t the types to forgive and forget. Crazy how even WITSEC (unless it was just a random beef with some street-leveler) wasn’t an option because they’d just go after your loved ones for snitching. Life on the streets really is some shit, huh. I grew up in a pretty poor neighborhood comprised of 60-70% Mexicans where we had minor crimes going down every other day but at least it wasn’t all… that.

                                Then stop whining about people wanting to use guns to defend themselves.
                                Yes, how dare I have a nonconformist view. We should just accept everything as it is and not how it should be. Acquiescence is our greatest civic duty. Things will get better if we just leave them alone. I don’t know how, but they will. You just have to belieeeeeeve, Scully.

                                if she's not legally required to act a certain way (your words), then it's not going to magically be legally used as an argument in court.
                                If that were true, what’s the point of having character witnesses? They have no legal bearing in the courtroom beyond swaying the jury one way or another.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X