Man finally exonerated in killing three during home invasion.
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
With the information we have, I don't.
The meter is as follows, by precedent R v Edwards...
1, There has to be a supportable belief that the men have the ability and means to kill.
2, There has to be a valid ongoing threat, ie; contract killing, repeated public statements regarding murdering the accused.
3, They would have to act upon it, seeking out the accused, more than once.
That is what had to be proven and was in that case, for Edwards to get a walk.
With the exclusion of their backgrounds, that's conjecture.
I know you can, but you think shooting an unarmed by-law officer for walking on your property is a god given right.
No, I don't think we can. Which is why I fully believe we need better weapons safety training before one is legally allowed to obtain a firearm.
I won't pretend my training isn't affecting my opinion here.
He went to a greater length to avoid the confrontation than I would have. They wouldn't have made it past the tiles on the floor at the front door.
No it doesn't, and from what I understand (from a source close to the case) the attackers have a long history of criminal issues.
But do they meet the threshold I exampled at the beginning of this post?
I don't know. Until then, shooting them as they lay wounded is not self defense. It may be manslaughter, but from where I sit, it is not justifiable homicide.
It didn't even rate a blip on my radar.
I bet he's convicted of manslaughter.
Last edited:
Like I've told him many times, he's painted his own portrait here.
I conjure nothing.
That is probably one of the most important components in the entire debate but it never gets talked about because it gets lost in the "all or nothing" arguments that reign whenever anyone wants to discuss gun control. And it would go a hell of a long way towards ensuring that self defense actually is self defense.
No happy medians take work, because it's all about compromise. The all or nothing crowd, which has participants on both sides of this or any debate, cannot comprehend that concept. The anti gun crowd just comes across a more hysterical is all, in my opinion.
All I know for absolutely sure is that, were I ever to obtain a firearm, I would make damn sure that I was sufficiently trained enough to operate it in a safe and responsible manner. If that's not being done currently, then it is woefully inadequate. If that contributes to scenarios like the one in the OP, than shame on us (society) for allowing that to happen.
You are right they are hard to come by.
They are also hindered by the serious comprehension issues of some of the pro gun crowd who seem to have a shortage on IQ points. Which is what is fogging the comprehension issues of some of the anti gun crowd.
I have to be honest, it sure fogs mine. When I hear someone like Colpy or Petros or you argue for, yes I sway that way. I see the logic and have no real issue because you guys are trained and rational.
Then I read the average two digit IQer and their vehement, pry it from my cold dead hands, I say, okay, do pry it from their cold dead hands because they sure as HELL should not have a gun in their possession.
And all the anti Obama crap that is flying around about how he wants to deny them their rights is just obfuscating the issue. And this issue does have to be addressed down there. Good heavens, where is their logic? I don't care if they are pro him or anti Obama, but can ya fer gawd's sake be logical and present your arguement for or against so we can have an adult discussion about it? Puleese. If there is only anger behind someone's words with no logic, it's a waste of my time to read further and at my age, I don't waste my time anymore. But my facebook wall is plugged with garbage; anger, slanted illogical views, it's disturbing quite frankly. Some people need to be forced onto meds.
If I chose to have a gun, I would have on-going training because like anything else, what is not used, deteriorates and is eventually totally lost. If one wants guns, earn the right. Period.
That might be at the top end of what is just, unless they "call it quits" at time served.
I don't need to "earn" the right. I have the right to protect my property and family and self from all and every threat, including governmental interference, as I see fit at the time. That right is inherent in nature and no law you or anyone else passes will ever take it away. Sure.you may be able to jail me for exercising that right but that just means you are trampling my rights, it doesn't take them away.
When your right, endangers my life, you lose that right because I too have the same rights as you do...to protection from all and every threat. If you are that threat because of a low IQ and an inability to handle your fire arm, you lose. And I will be doing you and your family a service. And you are welcome.
Indeed, it is really depressing to see some important fact left out because of its untimely nature or any other technicality. I think this sort of thing makes some sense in a rape trial where the defense tries to dredge up all sorts of nonsense to paint the victim as a **** who wanted it; how is promiscuity in any way relevant to consent? Other times it just seems ridiculous to withhold evidence. Hard to strike a balance.
The problem is that he either gets a mandatory minimum from a conviction of manslaughter with a prohibited/restricted weapon or he gets off with the self-defense argument. The self-defense argument doesn't rest solely on the immediate context of the situation, but of the general context. Yes, the man was getting up from the ground and attempting to flee, but this is after a protracted siege on the defendant's home. The question is, would a reasonable person at that point still feel in mortal danger?
The mandatory minimum is really too steep here. Even if you think the defendant was in the wrong, was he really so wrong that he deserves 4 years of prison (with a sentence of life in prison)? Real life is not so cut and dry, the law should not be either. This is one of the many problems with mandatory minimums. Breaking the letter of the law is not in and of itself sufficient justification for locking someone in a cage for 4 years.
Or incompetence, it is hard to accept that if one lawyer is brighter than another, or has the time, power and money to spend more time on the case over another...how is that in anyway fair? If it isn't fair, how is that a search for the truth?
It isn't.
It can get much more depressing in the case of court appointed lawyers, too. In such a case, they may take an overburdened public defendant, drop thousands of pages of documents on the lawyer, force the trial as fast as possible (in perversion of interpreting the right to a speedy trial as an obligation to one), and then watch as the lawyer is incapable of understanding the case fully.
The law has really become divorced from justice and exploded beyond anything a normal person can follow, I think that was Kafka's main point in the Trial. When one sees the law as something to be respected and followed in and of itself, justice become lost. We all end up treated like dogs.
Well we will see how this plays out. They have to do something because their second amendment as it is now interpreted isn't working for them.