3/26/2006 2:23am, #31Originally Posted by Poop Loops
Other than an emotional response, that is.
Do you know anything about the law? If you did, you would know that the only ones this law applies too are those who legally own their firearms and defend their home/car aka castle doctrine, and for those who have concealed carry permits.
Your ignorance is bliss, isn't it?Originally Posted by Sifu Rudy Abel
3/26/2006 2:50am, #32
3/26/2006 2:50am, #33Originally Posted by Poop Loops"No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal
3/26/2006 2:57am, #34Originally Posted by Anthony
But go ahead, keep saying I'm wrong. After all, I'm only agreeing with you.
3/26/2006 4:35am, #35Originally Posted by Poop Loops
You think someone can just say I was using the "Stand your ground law" and it all goes away? What world do you live in?
We have one case in Florida, where it was used. Car reposser who shot and killed the guy who's car he was repossesing. He's going to court due to witness testimony and all the bullet holes are from behind.
Posted this in another thread.Originally Posted by Sifu Rudy Abel
3/26/2006 9:54am, #36
There's a lot of hullabaloo about this law because it's easy to call it "License to Murder" and then sit back and watch people froth.
However, the principle this law establishes is already the law of the land in many states and has been for longer than anyone posting to this board has been alive.
It's just not that big a deal, folks. It corrects an issue with self-defense in Florida, that's all.
3/26/2006 10:04am, #37Originally Posted by JohnnyCache
Way to jump into a conversation with insufficent knowledge, say something retarded, and declare yourself the winner, asshat.
3/26/2006 8:04pm, #38
Dude, you tried to make it sound like they had armies that could stand off against china's because they were more warlike because they had "more soldiers per X number of citizens"
that just doesn't work.
They are defenseless next to china.
Hell, china could concievably give us a real sporting run.
France and germany together mount a military less then one quarter the size of China's. They have expensive militaries as first world nations, but the ability to put a few hundred thousand soldiers on the ground matters, too.
What would save them would be Russia, not their militaries. I also happen to think that china would have trouble deploying its army fully or quickly, as they need much of it for domestic control, and I think if they entered a war with the european bloc, or with the US, they'd find our armies would double or triple with volunteers, whereas they would likely have to draft people.
China's recent moves in the global heavy industry sectors make me wonder if they aren't getting ready for a big modernization push sometime in the next few decades, though.
And, no, that wasn't me. Friends don't call freinds asshats.
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 3/26/2006 8:15pm at .
3/26/2006 8:27pm, #39Originally Posted by Anthony
What's there to understand about it?
Now: If you have a chance to run away, you'd better do it or you'll be tried for murder (the article states that this never even happens in practice)
When law takes effect: You can do whatever you need to to someone who is attacking you in order to defend yourself without, worrying about being tried for murder.
Unless there is something I'm missing? Or maybe you're just "trolling" again?
3/26/2006 8:34pm, #40
Juries are rather skeptical about a defense of sleepwalking, and it has only worked a few times as a defense.
The one big prominent case in the US in 1999 that everybody thinks of - the morman that stabbed his wife 44 times - a guilty verdict was returned.
"can use as a defense" in the us is like "can get sued for" in the us - you can say any damn thing in court, but it may or may not stick to the wall.