Red Mosquito

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

It's ok to defend yourself with violence from violent aggressors who want to harm you. It the court backs that up, good for the court.

In a lawless situation, whether it's ok or not, it is gun owners who get to decide... well ... everything. If guns were banned, then that power would fall to whoever is the biggest, strongest, most numerous, etc. So that's hardly an improvement is it? Better to recognize the reality that lawlessness can occur and alter one's values accordingly.

The beautiful part is that protestors also have the right to defend themselves from violent aggressors, whether the law is present or not (but especially when it's not). It's a win/win!

This the beauty of having clear values based on something more substantial than vague intuitions or just thrown together in an ad hoc manner!

lawlessness can occur, let's just get rid of laws!

Wat

What laws exactly?

all of them!

Don't threaten me with a good time!

Bi_3's position appears to be that if you have property you would like to look after (the term 'defend' seem to be off putting) in an area experiencing civil unrest, you may do so, but only without means to defend yourself.

This is an insane carveout. Banning people from having the means of self defense in general would be a more defensible position. (And totally untenable, thanks Defcad!)

simple schoolboy wrote:Bi_3's position appears to be that if you have property you would like to look after (the term 'defend' seem to be off putting) in an area experiencing civil unrest, you may do so, but only without means to defend yourself.

This is an insane carveout. Banning people from having the means of self defense in general would be a more defensible position. (And totally untenable, thanks Defcad!)

Is that the argument? I can't figure out what it is to be honest.

I'm kinda surprised that he seems to think that if enough people feel that something is bad (even if they can't articulate why), then there should be a law against that thing. That's just tyranny of majority. Laws still have to be justified beyond that.

simple schoolboy wrote:Bi_3's position appears to be that if you have property you would like to look after (the term 'defend' seem to be off putting) in an area experiencing civil unrest, you may do so, but only without means to defend yourself.

This is an insane carveout. Banning people from having the means of self defense in general would be a more defensible position. (And totally untenable, thanks Defcad!)

No.

I believe that you can stand on your property with a weapon and defend it, including with lethal force.

I do not believe you can take it upon yourself to assume the role of defender of someone else's property without invitation (i am NOT implying that happened here in this specific instance, i don't know if K-Rit was invited to the carsource or not). Like, I cannot decide that I am the great protector of Burger King and shoot people who enter it during a riot.

But, even in the case of defending your own property, once you leave it, you are in essence entering the equivalent of a battlefield. If you freely choose to approach the other side with a weapon, not retreat to safety but approach the other side, you are no longer a defender. You could be engaged in a false surrender like that Gauge guy tried to pull. I think that is an important distinction.

I think the judge is craftier than we give him credit for. He was able to basically punt responsibility for the verdict today by allowing the jury to see the enhanced image and drone video and keeping certain secondary charges intact. The existence of the secondary charges, regardless of their validity, could defeat the self-defense claim. Defense will need a hell of a close.


Edit: looks like nut job Twitter might be crafty too:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Bi_3's position appears to be that if you have property you would like to look after (the term 'defend' seem to be off putting) in an area experiencing civil unrest, you may do so, but only without means to defend yourself.

This is an insane carveout. Banning people from having the means of self defense in general would be a more defensible position. (And totally untenable, thanks Defcad!)

No.

I believe that you can stand on your property with a weapon and defend it, including with lethal force.

I do not believe you can take it upon yourself to assume the role of defender of someone else's property without invitation (i am NOT implying that happened here in this specific instance, i don't know if K-Rit was invited to the carsource or not). Like, I cannot decide that I am the great protector of Burger King and shoot people who enter it during a riot.

Good thing that has nothing to do with anything that happened, but a good number of drive by CNN viewers are convinced what happened.

Bi_3 wrote: But, even in the case of defending your own property, once you leave it, you are in essence entering the equivalent of a battlefield. If you freely choose to approach the other side with a weapon, not retreat to safety but approach the other side, you are no longer a defender. You could be engaged in a false surrender like that Gauge guy tried to pull. I think that is an important distinction.

Yes, lets cede large swaths of urban areas to the protesters du jour and the rioters that accompany them. What do you mean by, "approaching the other side"?

Its bizarre to characterize Kyle and crew as combatants. They were pro private property existing and against burning shit down. You suggest a moral equivalence to the breaking windows and burning things crew.

If you paid better attention, you would know that Kyle was physically separated from the group he was with by the police. That was part of the reason why he was attacked.

Its almost as if they should have deployed the National Guard the first day of riots to avoid civic minded individuals coming out to fill the vacuum of the state maintaining civic order.

schoolboy, I'll reply later.

National Guard is being deployed to Kenosha today, so there shouldn’t be a need for armed civilian teenagers this time around.

spike wrote:National Guard is being deployed to Kenosha today, so there shouldn’t be a need for armed civilian teenagers this time around.

Maybe we learned something.

So, I suppose all those screaming about carrying an illegal gun across state lines will reconsider what else they might be wrong about?

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote:National Guard is being deployed to Kenosha today, so there shouldn’t be a need for armed civilian teenagers this time around.

Maybe we learned something.

Or maybe they want to remind the jury the riots will be their fault if they dont convict.

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote:National Guard is being deployed to Kenosha today, so there shouldn’t be a need for armed civilian teenagers this time around.

Maybe we learned something.

Or maybe they want to remind the jury the riots will be their fault if they dont convict.

Trying to be optimistic.

simple schoolboy wrote:So, I suppose all those screaming about carrying an illegal gun across state lines will reconsider what else they might be wrong about?

Wasn’t it dismissed this morning?

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

spike wrote:National Guard is being deployed to Kenosha today, so there shouldn’t be a need for armed civilian teenagers this time around.

Maybe we learned something.

Or maybe they want to remind the jury the riots will be their fault if they dont convict.

Good lord, man.

spike wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:So, I suppose all those screaming about carrying an illegal gun across state lines will reconsider what else they might be wrong about?

Wasn’t it dismissed this morning?

Yes.

there is no doubt in my mind that if it was an african american kid who did this they already would have changed the laws to make it illegal and charged him retroactively

Peeps wrote:there is no doubt in my mind that if it was an african american kid who did this they already would have changed the laws to make it illegal and charged him retroactively

Good lord, man.

Prosecutor is doing well. I can see a conviction on lesser charges.

is jump kick man the kato kaelin of this trial?