Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by mr friendly guy »

First saw this on TYT.

So basically a retired police officer shot another cinema goer after a dispute started when the now deceased patron was texting (before the movie had started). Apparently a popcorn was thrown at him, and his lawyer is arguing that its irrelevant whether its popcorn. As long as the man feels his life is threaten he can shoot the other guy under stand your ground laws. Whether this will hold remains to be seen.
Linky

Sheriff rejects popcorn killer’s ‘stand your ground’ defense: ‘Why didn’t he move seats?’

By Travis Gettys
Friday, January 17, 2014 8:51 EST

The sheriff who’s investigating the fatal shooting of a moviegoer this week in Florida said the state’s “stand your ground” defense doesn’t apply in this case, but an attorney said it likely does.

“What most people don’t understand is, the law is not concerned with what started your argument; the law is not concerned about how petty it is,” attorney Stephen Romine told First Coast News. “The law is concerned about the acts between two people — the person who died and the person who did the shooting.”

Retired police captain Curtis Reeves was charged with second-degree murder after he shot 43-year-old Chad Oulson to death Monday afternoon because he refused to stop sending a text message to his 2-year-old daughter’s day care provider.

Reeves told investigators that he feared for his safety when he was struck in the face with an object that investigators determined was popcorn, but his attorney suggested may have been a more dangerous object.

Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco dismissed that claim, saying there was no evidence of another object – and besides, the 71-year-old Reeves could have just found another seat.

“It was an empty movie theatre,” Nocco told the Daily Mail. “If he was scared, why didn’t he move seats?”

The sheriff said all the detectives at the scene Monday agreed that the state’s controversial self-defense law did not apply in this case.

“From our investigation, it seems simply that the agitation of someone using their cell phone to text has caused this,” Nocco said. “The suspect was sitting there, they had an argument about texting, the victim turned around, threw something, a shot is fired and the next thing you know a man is dead.”

But Romine, who is not representing Reeves but has tried many high-profile cases, said the state’s law focuses on one thing: Did the retired officer believe that he was in danger?

If so, Romine said, he had the right to use deadly force to defend himself – even if the weapon was popcorn.

Under the state law, a person has the right to use deadly force if he fears death or great bodily harm, even when retreat is possible.

The attorney said the reason the two men fought doesn’t matter under the statute, because all that matters is whether Reeves believed Oulson would hurt him.

Under Florida law, he added, it’s considered a felony offense to strike a person over 65 years old with something as small as a marshmallow.

Reeves and his wife, Vivian, were seated behind Oulson and his wife, Nicole, during a matinee screening of “Lone Survivor” at a Wesley Chapel movie theater when the retired cop asked the younger man to stop using his phone.

Investigators said Reeves went to get a manager but came back alone and continued his dispute with Oulson.

“We believe the manager didn’t have a full conversation with the individual because he was dealing with other customers,” Nocco said. “But the fact the suspect had the ability to go and see the manager shows he had the ability to move his seat.”

After the argument resumed, Oulson threw a bag of popcorn that struck Reeves in the face, and he drew a pistol and fired one shot at the younger man.

Oulson’s wife tried to shield her husband, but the bullet passed through her outstretched hand and struck her husband in the chest.

Authorities said Reeves then calmly sat down and placed the gun on his thigh before he was restrained by an off-duty sheriff’s deputy.

“It was jammed when he put it down on his thigh,” Nocco said. “I can’t tell you if he was trying to shoot again, or what he was doing. We will look at the gun to see what happened In the future, but that isn’t relevant to the second-degree murder charge at present.”

A judge denied bond for Reeves, who retired from the Tampa police department in 1993.

His attorney said Reeves was “heartbroken” that a life was lost in the shooting.
Who the fuck gets upset over texting BEFORE the movie has started. Sheesh.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28788
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Broomstick »

Apparently that old fart does - it has since come to light he had confronted other people on prior occasions for doing the exact same thing.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Mr. Coffee
is an asshole.
Posts: 3258
Joined: 2005-02-26 07:45am
Location: And banging your mom is half the battle... G.I. Joe!

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Mr. Coffee »

Apparently the guy has a habit of playing hall monitor at movie theaters. He's also an asshole who should not be allowed near firearms ever. Seriously, how the fuck can you reasonably claim self defense when you're the one initiating the confrontation, the one escalating the confrontation, and the only one bringing a goddamn deadly weapon to the confrontation?

Toss this old shithead in gen pop, let everyone know he's a retired cop, and the problem will solve itself.
Image
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas
GALE ForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 7490
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Raw Shark »

mr friendly guy wrote:Who the fuck gets upset over texting BEFORE the movie has started. Sheesh.
I don't know about texting, but I've seen my GF nearly head-butt some douchebag over talking loudly during the previews. Previews = Serious Business.
Last edited by Raw Shark on 2014-01-18 08:21am, edited 2 times in total.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28788
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Broomstick »

For a lot of people the previews are an important part of the movie experience. I'd be annoyed to. But not to the point of physical violence.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Metahive
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2795
Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Metahive »

Popcorn is a deadly weapon. I heard you can walk through the darkest slums without fear as long as you brandish a bag full of it. What, don't believe me? How often have you heard about someone getting assaulted in a slum while holding a bag of popcorn? QED!

Seriously now, what a fucking murderous douchebag. Too much of a wuss to just slap the guy if he annoys you so much? No, have to break out the leadpump of course. Wimpy, paranoid cowards like this should be forever barred from wielding anything more lethal than a plastic knife.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)

Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula

O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by mr friendly guy »

Broomstick wrote:For a lot of people the previews are an important part of the movie experience. I'd be annoyed to. But not to the point of physical violence.
Indeed it is. However if there was a preview that I want to watch again or didn't see it properly because someone was making noise I would just go onto a streaming site like youtube. Or the cinema website.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Simon_Jester »

"Stand your ground" seems to have been originally meant to stop cases where someone claimed self-defense and got convicted because they failed what I've heard called the "duty to retreat." Normally, anyone looking at a self-defense case looks at whether you had a reasonable alternative to violence, such as running away or apologizing.

The idea of "duty to retreat" lines up with the reality of a lot of fights. Which is that they often take place between two posturing idiots, neither of whom has enough common sense to know that they can disengage. Or, well... cases like this, where one party is aggressive and threatening, provokes a fight, escalates to deadly force, and then kills the other guy in it.

So it makes sense for the law to say "look, if you were really defending yourself, your first reaction would be to ensure your own safety. In which case, if running away was clearly an option, and the only thing keeping you in that fight was your stupid ego, you should go to jail."

The problem is that this hole in self-defense gets abused sometimes. I've heard of a case where the prosecution argued that the defendant had a "duty to retreat" by jumping out a second-story window. There are plenty of cases of people being threatened in their own homes; in such a case you might theoretically be able to 'retreat' and let the burglar steal whatever he wants and hope he doesn't hurt any of your family. But it goes against the grain that the law should require you to do so.

Hence the idea of "stand your ground:" that if you feel sufficiently threatened, you can claim self-defense without having to lawyer about whether or not you had the option of retreating. That you're not required to have your 'fight or flight' response be hardwired to 'flight' at all times and fight only when cornered by an overwhelming attacker.

Which then leads to THIS problem because of the wording of the statute- cases where some bozo creates the fight in the first place, sometimes in a way that makes you wonder if the whole thing was the killer trolling for an excuse to kill. Or where two people have a squabble, one kills the other, then claims 'stand your ground' self defense and has a strong case because dead men tell no tales. And it's almost impossible to determine whether someone acted in a way to make the shooter "feel threatened" after they are dead.

So, poorly thought out law. I wonder what it's done to the Florida murder rate. Or killing rate, anyway.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
energiewende
Padawan Learner
Posts: 499
Joined: 2013-05-13 12:59pm

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by energiewende »

mr friendly guy wrote:So basically a retired police officer shot another cinema goer after a dispute started when the now deceased patron was texting (before the movie had started). Apparently a popcorn was thrown at him, and his lawyer is arguing that its irrelevant whether its popcorn.
That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?
Simon_Jester wrote:"Stand your ground" seems to have been originally meant to stop cases where someone claimed self-defense and got convicted because they failed what I've heard called the "duty to retreat." Normally, anyone looking at a self-defense case looks at whether you had a reasonable alternative to violence, such as running away or apologizing.
The duty to retreat means you may not lawfully use violence to defend yourself until you have exhausted possibilities to avoid attack; that doesn't include giving in to demands made by the attacker like apologising to them, only physically removing yourself from the situation.

Note however that duty to retreat does not exist even in all common law jurisdictions. In England, for instance, there is no duty to retreat and you could lawfully kill someone if you believed that popcorn being thrown at you placed your life in imminent danger. The difficulty is proving such an implausible claim. Stand your ground-like law has not produced strange outcomes in those jurisdictions. I think these sorts of laws are unfairly criticised by people whose real objection is to private gun ownership. They may or may not be right about private gun ownership but stand your ground is not the key issue in these cases.
User avatar
Kitsune
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3412
Joined: 2003-04-05 10:52pm
Location: Foxes Den
Contact:

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Kitsune »

Simon_Jester wrote:"Stand your ground" seems to have been originally meant to stop cases where someone claimed self-defense and got convicted because they failed what I've heard called the "duty to retreat." Normally, anyone looking at a self-defense case looks at whether you had a reasonable alternative to violence, such as running away or apologizing.

The idea of "duty to retreat" lines up with the reality of a lot of fights. Which is that they often take place between two posturing idiots, neither of whom has enough common sense to know that they can disengage. Or, well... cases like this, where one party is aggressive and threatening, provokes a fight, escalates to deadly force, and then kills the other guy in it.

So it makes sense for the law to say "look, if you were really defending yourself, your first reaction would be to ensure your own safety. In which case, if running away was clearly an option, and the only thing keeping you in that fight was your stupid ego, you should go to jail."

The problem is that this hole in self-defense gets abused sometimes. I've heard of a case where the prosecution argued that the defendant had a "duty to retreat" by jumping out a second-story window. There are plenty of cases of people being threatened in their own homes; in such a case you might theoretically be able to 'retreat' and let the burglar steal whatever he wants and hope he doesn't hurt any of your family. But it goes against the grain that the law should require you to do so.

Hence the idea of "stand your ground:" that if you feel sufficiently threatened, you can claim self-defense without having to lawyer about whether or not you had the option of retreating. That you're not required to have your 'fight or flight' response be hardwired to 'flight' at all times and fight only when cornered by an overwhelming attacker.

Which then leads to THIS problem because of the wording of the statute- cases where some bozo creates the fight in the first place, sometimes in a way that makes you wonder if the whole thing was the killer trolling for an excuse to kill. Or where two people have a squabble, one kills the other, then claims 'stand your ground' self defense and has a strong case because dead men tell no tales. And it's almost impossible to determine whether someone acted in a way to make the shooter "feel threatened" after they are dead.

So, poorly thought out law. I wonder what it's done to the Florida murder rate. Or killing rate, anyway.
Wouldn't castle laws make more sense in most of such cases?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Purple »

energiewende wrote:That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?
Yes I do. A person who honestly believes that he can be murdered with popcorn belongs in a Monty Python sketch or a mental hospital, not in a crowded public place holding a firearm.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Kitsune
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3412
Joined: 2003-04-05 10:52pm
Location: Foxes Den
Contact:

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Kitsune »

Can you use this "Stand your ground" to defend from an investigation of mental illness?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12216
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Lord Revan »

Purple wrote:
energiewende wrote:That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?
Yes I do. A person who honestly believes that he can be murdered with popcorn belongs in a Monty Python sketch or a mental hospital, not in a crowded public place holding a firearm.
what he said, in addition it would set nasty precedent that could essentially turn the law to convenient excuse to murder anyone you want, by saying you felt that your life was in danger by their actions.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
energiewende
Padawan Learner
Posts: 499
Joined: 2013-05-13 12:59pm

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by energiewende »

Kitsune wrote:Wouldn't castle laws make more sense in most of such cases?
The main problem with duty to retreat is that it forces victims to take actions that can place them in greater danger, eg. if someone breaks into my house and I have a duty to run away until I hit the locked back door and am forced to turn and face my assailant, he now has control of the situation and if I am using a gun I probably do not have much distance on him. If I were able to shoot him as he came in through the front door then the positioning is much better for me.

Now making it difficult to defend oneself with guns seems to be the unstated objective of the anti-SYG faction, but even if they are right about guns I don't think that is the best way to resolve the issue. Duty to retreat creates perverse incentives and has a lot of potential to harm innocent people.
Kitsune wrote:Can you use this "Stand your ground" to defend from an investigation of mental illness?
If that investigation were non-consensual so as to constitute battery, perhaps. Shooting someone may not be considered a proportional response.
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Grumman »

energiewende wrote:That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?
"Oh no! My allergies!" :D
Kitsune wrote:Wouldn't castle laws make more sense in most of such cases?
Not enough cases, in my opinion. If someone is actually trying to murder you, rape you, mug you or whatever, the onus should be on them to cease their attempt. I don't think the innocent victim should have any obligation to bet their life on the fact that they can run faster than their aggressor.

Of course, if the "aggressor" isn't doing any of these things, like in this case, then throw the fucking book at the guy.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Purple »

energiewende wrote:The main problem with duty to retreat is that it forces victims to take actions that can place them in greater danger, eg. if someone breaks into my house and I have a duty to run away until I hit the locked back door and am forced to turn and face my assailant, he now has control of the situation and if I am using a gun I probably do not have much distance on him. If I were able to shoot him as he came in through the front door then the positioning is much better for me.
Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you? What if he was a burglar that only planed to tie you up, take your stuff and leave? Or what if he was merely trying to rob you and would have surrendered or fled in panic if confronted? Or if he was a drunk that got the wrong house? You don't know and you newer will because he is dead.

That's what duty to retreat is about. A death, any death is a tragedy for society. Be it yours or someone else's. And all people are equal. Thus laws are made to ensure that it is the duty of everyone to prevent a death, anyone's death including that of a criminal from happening unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Grumman »

Purple wrote:Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you? What if he was a burglar that only planed to tie you up, take your stuff and leave?
Then you are a fucking retard, if you would be happy to put yourself completely at the mercy of someone who has just proven that they don't give a fuck about your rights.
Dr. Trainwreck
Jedi Knight
Posts: 834
Joined: 2012-06-07 04:24pm

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Dr. Trainwreck »

energiewende wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:So basically a retired police officer shot another cinema goer after a dispute started when the now deceased patron was texting (before the movie had started). Apparently a popcorn was thrown at him, and his lawyer is arguing that its irrelevant whether its popcorn.
That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?
"I can't wait to see you explain this one to a fucking Suffolk County jury you fucking cocksucker. This is gonna be fucking fun!" Let us thank Matt Damon for this awesome line that so befits a discussion in SDN.
Ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμϐαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ. Δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης.

The seller was a Filipino called Dr. Wilson Lim, a self-declared friend of the M.I.L.F. -Grumman
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Purple »

Grumman wrote:
Purple wrote:Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you? What if he was a burglar that only planed to tie you up, take your stuff and leave?
Then you are a fucking retard, if you would be happy to put yourself completely at the mercy of someone who has just proven that they don't give a fuck about your rights.
Because there is absolutely no intermediate action between complete surrender and shooting to kill on sight.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Flagg »

Victim wasn't black, so he'll be convicted.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
energiewende
Padawan Learner
Posts: 499
Joined: 2013-05-13 12:59pm

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by energiewende »

Purple wrote:
energiewende wrote:The main problem with duty to retreat is that it forces victims to take actions that can place them in greater danger, eg. if someone breaks into my house and I have a duty to run away until I hit the locked back door and am forced to turn and face my assailant, he now has control of the situation and if I am using a gun I probably do not have much distance on him. If I were able to shoot him as he came in through the front door then the positioning is much better for me.
Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you?
I neither can nor desire to be.
That's what duty to retreat is about. A death, any death is a tragedy for society. Be it yours or someone else's. And all people are equal.
People are equal but their actions are not. The death of someone who woke up one morning and decided to be a predator on his fellow man is not as much a tragedy as the death of a peaceable neighbour.
Last edited by energiewende on 2014-01-18 01:25pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dr. Trainwreck
Jedi Knight
Posts: 834
Joined: 2012-06-07 04:24pm

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Dr. Trainwreck »

Purple wrote:Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you? What if he was a burglar that only planed to tie you up, take your stuff and leave? Or what if he was merely trying to rob you and would have surrendered or fled in panic if confronted? Or if he was a drunk that got the wrong house? You don't know and you newer will because he is dead.
Then it would be a death that was unnecessary in the strict sense (especially if he was just a drunkard). But, truth be told, anything with an instinct of self-preservation would rather not take this risk.
Ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμϐαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ. Δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης.

The seller was a Filipino called Dr. Wilson Lim, a self-declared friend of the M.I.L.F. -Grumman
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Purple »

Dr. Trainwreck wrote:Then it would be a death that was unnecessary in the strict sense (especially if he was just a drunkard). But, truth be told, anything with an instinct of self-preservation would rather not take this risk.
And that is why laws exist to reign in our behavior and instincts to ensure we act civilized and at least go through the motions of assessing if we really, really need to kill someone.
energiewende wrote:People are equal but their actions are not. The death of someone who woke up one morning and decided to be a predator on his fellow man is not as much a tragedy as the death of a peaceable neighbour.
But it is a much greater tragedy than that same neighbor ending up with a few stitches or a broken arm. And we humans tend to have rather strong self preservation instincts and rather crappy judgment. That is why laws exist to ensure you only kill someone when the point of "no choice" has been reached rather than when ever you feel any danger and hyperventilate because of it.

To give an example, I am not saying that you should not shoot someone who breaks into your house with a shotgun and points it at your chest but at the same time I can not condone shooting someone who broke into your house unarmed and tried to take your TV.
Last edited by Purple on 2014-01-18 01:36pm, edited 1 time in total.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2488
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Grumman »

Purple wrote:
Grumman wrote:
Purple wrote:Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you? What if he was a burglar that only planed to tie you up, take your stuff and leave?
Then you are a fucking retard, if you would be happy to put yourself completely at the mercy of someone who has just proven that they don't give a fuck about your rights.
Because there is absolutely no intermediate action between complete surrender and shooting to kill on sight.
A criminal who breaks into your house with the intent of tying you up is a mortal threat, and should be treated as such. If he doesn't want his actions to be misinterpreted as a prelude to rape, murder or kidnapping, he shouldn't break into people's houses to tie them up.
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

Post by Purple »

Grumman wrote:A criminal who breaks into your house with the intent of tying you up is a mortal threat, and should be treated as such. If he doesn't want his actions to be misinterpreted as a prelude to rape, murder or kidnapping, he shouldn't break into people's houses to tie them up.
That is a good point. My example was very bad indeed in that respect. I was merely trying to point at the average robber who is not out to rape, murder or kill you. But is breaking into your house hoping no one is on and simply wants to pilfer your jewelry and what not.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Post Reply