STAND YOUR GROUND - Use of deadly force being allowed!!!

**Poop Loops** · Posted On: 3/26/2006 8:43pm

No, but like you said, sleep walking got some people off. That's a lot more far fetched than say inviting someone over, then killing him in "self-defense" or something like that.

I'm not saying it will be rampant. I don't know where anybody got that from. I am simply saying that someone WILL use that as a defense because he is a scumbag.

**Roidie McDouchebag** · Posted On: 3/26/2006 8:45pm

**MEGA JESUS-SAMA** · Posted On: 3/26/2006 9:16pm

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

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.

The point was that France and Germany aren't helpless nations, capable of existing only if America wills it. I don't see any reason to discuss France and Germany's ability to fight China, because it won't happen.

I wasn't implicating you with the second statement, but someone else. I don't remember his name and going back to the last page would take too long, but you understand.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 3/26/2006 9:22pm

I do agree that SFGOON's idea that social services in those countries are paid for with a surplus created by a lack of military budget is overinflated, at best. Those social services are paid for with higher taxes, mostly, and in some countries by being content with less then perfect taxes.

And the reason I said it wasn't me was because there was one quote, from me, and then another one, unsigned, which was something I wouldn't say, and to a third reader it could look like both were from me.

**Pandinha** · Posted On: 3/26/2006 11:10pm

Originally Posted by Poop Loops

Last I checked, no law was fool proof and people even get away with saying they killed people while sleep walking, therefore it's not their fault.

Post proof

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)

You read the article, but nothing about the law. Nice, I love arguing with an ignorant person.

Stand your ground protects you in criminal and civil cases. It is not a catch all. I posted earlier regarding the tow truck driver as example.

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?

You have part but not all.

You for instance, cannot use this law if you decided to go into a bar and shoot the guy who you propositioned for some glory hole action in the men's room and who turned you down and shoved you away calling you a ******.

1. You are in a bar, where carrying a firearm is illegal
2. You don't have a CCW

Of course you would know this if you had any idea of what you are arguing about regarding Stand Your Ground. But since you are talking out of ignorance, like every other anti in this thread, you are as usual blabbing your emotional issues, versus the facts.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 3/27/2006 2:45am

You also haven't been attacked, you are attacking instead.

**Don Gwinn** · Posted On: 3/27/2006 10:46pm

The law does not invalidate the "reasonable man" principle.

You don't get acquitted by reason of self-defense just because you swear up and down on a stack of bibles that you were in fear for your life. You don't even get acquitted because the jury believes that you were genuinely in fear for your life.

You get acquitted if you can convince the jury that a hypothetical "reasonable man" standing "in your shoes" during your encounter would have been in fear for his life or the lives of innocents. That's the law.

This law does not change that bedrock principle of self-defense law, which has stood the test of hundreds of years. Anyone who tells you that this law is going to allow someone to simply state that he feared for his life and be acquitted is either lying to you or has not read and understood the law himself.

The sky is not falling.

That is all.

**Judah Maccabee** · Posted On: 3/27/2006 11:08pm

Originally Posted by Poop Loops

No, but like you said, sleep walking got some people off. That's a lot more far fetched than say inviting someone over, then killing him in "self-defense" or something like that.

I'm not saying it will be rampant. I don't know where anybody got that from. I am simply saying that someone WILL use that as a defense because he is a scumbag.

The "sexsomnia" defense has rarely been used, and even more rarely accepted as legitimate. The most recent example was this:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...0-072232-2477r

(recently discussed on Bullshido here: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...ight=sexsomnia )

**Newaza** · Posted On: 4/03/2006 2:40pm

FYI, i know people in both the french and german military. France has a small but professional army mainly used for overseas deployment as they have minimal risk of being invaded. Germany has voluntary conscription for 1 year after men leave high school, which mainly means its large but underfunded and poorly trained (for the most part). Its mainly for show, they are adverse to having any real military power because of you know what.

If China invaded Germany and/or France, they would be fighting the entirity of europe and the surrounding area, even the UK as much as we hate frenchies. Even if their army is bigger the sheer logistics of it would make it impossible, ignoring the fact that China has no reason whatsoever to invade. The only way they could get so far is by navy, and the falklands proved how vulnerable ships are to modern weaponry.

But all of that doesn't mean **** anyway because UK and france have nuclear weapons. This is just stupid ego talk.

**elipson** · Posted On: 4/03/2006 2:59pm

China would have a hell of a time getting to anywhere French. The distance alone makes it highly unlikely. Any attempt that was supplied from the sea would have a hard time avoiding french carriers, packing fun toys like the exocet and newer more dangerous kinds of missiles.

Hell, its much more likely that france will fall to its own ppl than to a foreign power!