newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 3:49 am

Yobbo wrote:It is insane!!! The 2nd amendment has ironically become a level of fundamentalism that has progressed to extremism & makes jihad look like a hobby. So many people don't see reason through their right & entitlement! Selfish fuckers!!!

How about the 1st Amendment? The right of citizens to free speech? Is that an extremist fundamentalist idea that makes jihad look like a hobby as well?

Or how about the 4th of 5th Amendments? The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right of trial by jury or not allowing double jeopardy?

Heck, one could argue that the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the American Experiment in this thing called Democracy is a most dangerous idea. One that courageous Americans have fought and died for over the centuries,

Yobbo - making every topic sound like the arrival of the end of the world makes everything that is not the end of the world sound reasonable.

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm i stand with this: still think he was NOT the brightest kid on the block



legally he got away with murder but that day will haunt him forever.

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:33 am

hanno wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:49 am Most civilized countries define self-defence differently, i.e. you cannot shoot an unarmed person. But in the USA, you can shoot a kid coming around on Halloween trick-or-treating.

I challenge that statement. Most common law countries (inc Australia and Canada) follow English law on self-defence. Basically the force used must be reasonable and proportionate - and that is judged objectively, i.e. if the defendant was unusually paranoid, he will likley be convicted because the test is whether a reasonable person would have reacted the way he did.
The question of whether the force used was reasonable and proportionate is one for the jury to decide. It would always be difficult to get acquitted after killing an unarmed person but never impossible.
I know this degree of flexibility must be challenging for people from Civil Code jurisdictions!

ItWasntMe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:08 pm

tightenupvolume1 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:21 pm I am playing the devils advocate here

What about if I went with a legal handgun to a BLM demo and then raised a sign saying "white lives matter" then when somebody attacked me cos they almost certainly will just shoot them ?

You're saying what if you went armed to a protest with the intention to start trouble and then proceed to shoot people as they respond to your aggression vs going with the intention to protect property and respond to being attacked for protecting said property?

Do you honestly believe that is a fair comparison?

That being said despite your opinions about <insert whatever> nobody has the right to attack you. If they attack you they are in the wrong and you are allowed to defend yourself. If you are allowed to carry a gun for protection it makes sense you would be allowed to use that gun in such a situation since otherwise the attackers might seize it from you and use it against you.

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:26 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:09 pm Someone mentioned "To protect the community". Sorry. Not his job.

Well, law enforcement didn't do their job and let rioting go on for three nights. Local business owners requested the civilian security.

On a national level, many Americans supported the looting and arson. Many Americans did not.