Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hoytdwow

Situation in Ferguson, MO

Recommended Posts

I don't think you know what self defense means vis-a-vis use of deadly force :lol: :doh:

You are the moron who brought up "defense of property" in this situation, so I am quite confident I know more about self defense than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the moron who brought up "defense of property" in this situation, so I am quite confident I know more about self defense than you.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

What would happen if just as the 6'-4" 290lb kid was assaulting the clerk half his size the clerk pulled a gun and killed him.......then at trial the clerk told the jury "the guy assaulted me and I thought he was going to kill me. I was in fear for my life"

 

Convicted or acquitted?

 

Acquitted, no question.

 

Of course, if you were his attorney he would get life because you would be up there telling the jury he was protecting a pack of cigars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if just as the 6'-4" 290lb kid was assaulting the clerk half his size the clerk pulled a gun and killed him.......then at trial the clerk told the jury "the guy assaulted me and I thought he was going to kill me. I was in fear for my life"

 

Convicted or acquitted?

 

Acquitted, no question.

 

Of course, if you were his attorney he would get life because you would be up there telling the jury he was protecting a pack of cigars.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we all didn't...

you mean to tell me you didn't rob stores and choke shove store clerks for fun every now and again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean to tell me you didn't rob stores and choke shove store clerks for fun every now and again?

post never did anything fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean to tell me you didn't rob stores and choke shove store clerks for fun every now and again?

Did you miss the part where I said that was going beyond typical dumb teenager stuff? :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if just as the 6'-4" 290lb kid was assaulting the clerk half his size the clerk pulled a gun and killed him.......then at trial the clerk told the jury "the guy assaulted me and I thought he was going to kill me. I was in fear for my life"

 

Convicted or acquitted?

 

Acquitted, no question.

 

Of course, if you were his attorney he would get life because you would be up there telling the jury he was protecting a pack of cigars.

If he could convince the jury that he really feared for his life then yes, you are correct that it would be self defense.

 

What I think most people saw from the tape was a store clerk who actually initiated the altercation (rightly so, but again, it was to protect properly only) and that the kid did not come after him after shoving him out of the way.

 

So it'd probably be a pretty tough sell but then again the jury would not be itching to convict the store clerk, so who knows.

 

What was the point of all this again? I simply said you can't use deadly force to defend property. You said you can use it if you fear for your life, which is true. So I'm not really seeing an argument here: seems like you're just up to your usual trolling antics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the part where I said that was going beyond typical dumb teenager stuff? :doh:

yes i did. i just read the post from posty :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he could convince the jury that he really feared for his life then yes, you are correct that it would be self defense.

 

What I think most people saw from the tape was a store clerk who actually initiated the altercation (rightly so, but again, it was to protect properly only) and that the kid did not come after him after shoving him out of the way.

 

So it'd probably be a pretty tough sell but then again the jury would not be itching to convict the store clerk, so who knows.

 

What was the point of all this again? I simply said you can't use deadly force to defend property. You said you can use it if you fear for your life, which is true. So I'm not really seeing an argument here: seems like you're just up to your usual trolling antics.

the kid came back in the store after him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the part where I said that was going beyond typical dumb teenager stuff? :doh:

Sorry, I never drank or did drugs or shoplifted as a teenager and still don't do these things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the kid came back in the store after him

Ok, so you're building a decent case for the clerk shooting in self-defense. That's a different animal than using deadly force in defense of property, which is what I initially brought up and what you seemed to advocate in your initial responses. If you're pissed because he took your stuff and shoved you aside, you don't get to cap his ass. Now if you actually thought he was going to seriously hurt or kill you, well that's a different matter altogether

 

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you know what self defense means vis-a-vis use of deadly force :lol: :doh:

If he could convince the jury that he really feared for his life then yes, you are correct that it would be self defense.

What I think most people saw from the tape was a store clerk who actually initiated the altercation (rightly so, but again, it was to protect properly only) and that the kid did not come after him after shoving him out of the way.

So it'd probably be a pretty tough sell but then again the jury would not be itching to convict the store clerk, so who knows.

What was the point of all this again? I simply said you can't use deadly force to defend property. You said you can use it if you fear for your life, which is true. So I'm not really seeing an argument here: seems like you're just up to your usual trolling antics.

So I do know what constitutes self defense, and you were just talking out of your ass again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I never drank or did drugs or shoplifted as a teenager and still don't do these things...

Most of my peers drank a bit and did drugs (at least pot) as teenagers. I don't think it necessarily makes you a "bad kid" and certainly doesn't imply you were asking to get shot by a police officer.

 

But again, robbery is clearly a whole different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I do know what constitutes self defense, and you were just talking out of your ass again.

You take it as established that the clerk legitimately feared for his life. I'm not sure that was the case. At any rate the clerk didn't shoot him so who gives a fockity fock? :lol: :doh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You take it as established that the clerk legitimately feared for his life. I'm not sure that was the case. At any rate the clerk didn't shoot him so who gives a fockity fock? :lol: :doh:

I'm sure that was the case because that is the scenario I laid out.

 

Is this moving too fast for ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so you're building a decent case for the clerk shooting in self-defense. That's a different animal than using deadly force in defense of property, which is what I initially brought up and what you seemed to advocate in your initial responses. If you're pissed because he took your stuff and shoved you aside, you don't get to cap his ass. Now if you actually thought he was going to seriously hurt or kill you, well that's a different matter altogether

 

:dunno:

i said that the clerk should have shot him in this case. he should have never made it to the cop. i stand by it. he robbed his store, put his hands on his neck, and shoved him....then came back at him after leaving store. if clerk pulled gun at that point and shot him....i think anybody who would have a problem with that is a complete moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral of the story -- if you are white (in some cases even hispanic) it is never okay to kill black people - unless you want riots and death threats to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You take it as established that the clerk legitimately feared for his life. I'm not sure that was the case. At any rate the clerk didn't shoot him so who gives a fockity fock? :lol: :doh:

 

Why do you even try with him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moral of the story -- if you are white (in some cases even hispanic) it is never okay to kill black people - unless you want riots and death threats to follow.

You mean white-hispanic, which I didn't even know existed until George Zimmerman. White hispanic is defined as a half hispanic who got a white name. He can't even follow a black guy. Barack Obama was raised whiter than George Zimmerman, but he is completely black, due to his name. He can bust a cap in anyone he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama was raised whiter than George Zimmerman, but he is completely black, due to his name. He can bust a cap in anyone he wants.

Unlikely... Have you ever seen him shoot hoops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The white house sent more reps to this thugs funeral than the generals who was killed in a terrorist attack.

 

:doh:

 

Biggest hack joke of an administration in the history of forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The white house sent more reps to this thugs funeral than the generals who was killed in a terrorist attack.

:doh:

Biggest hack joke of an administration in the history of forever.

I heard earlier they sent 3 to the thug's funeral, zero to the General's. If true, that is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard earlier they sent 3 to the thug's funeral, zero to the General's. If true, that is pathetic.

a disgrace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard earlier they sent 3 to the thug's funeral, zero to the General's. If true, that is pathetic.

It's not true. While 3 is a lot to send to Browns funeral, Chuck Hagel attended the funeral of the deceased General.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not true. While 3 is a lot to send to Browns funeral, Chuck Hagel attended the funeral of the deceased General.

That makes sense that Hagel was there.

 

 

I just saw this and found it pertinent since Obama felt the need to push back a tee time to address it.

 

 

Obama Sent No Representative to Memorial Mass for Beheaded Journalist James Foley

 

 

 

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama sent no White House representative to the memorial Mass held yesterday in Rochester, New Hampshire, for James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) terrorists.

 

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/obama-sent-no-representative-memorial-mass-beheaded-journalist-james

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes sense that Hagel was there.

 

 

I just saw this and found it pertinent since Obama felt the need to push back a tee time to address it.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/obama-sent-no-representative-memorial-mass-beheaded-journalist-james

Duh. The journalist was whi......nevermind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you guys saying he stole cigars? i thought it was reported that he paid for them but got in an argument with the shop owner about showing ID.

...and i'm not even following this story. why are you guys arguing over false facts??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you guys saying he stole cigars? i thought it was reported that he paid for them but got in an argument with the shop owner about showing ID.

...and i'm not even following this story. why are you guys arguing over false facts??

Cause they're retards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you guys saying he stole cigars? i thought it was reported that he paid for them but got in an argument with the shop owner about showing ID.

...and i'm not even following this story. why are you guys arguing over false facts??

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you guys saying he stole cigars? i thought it was reported that he paid for them but got in an argument with the shop owner about showing ID.

...and i'm not even following this story. why are you guys arguing over false facts??

 

Nothing every confirmed about him actually paying for them.

I think Kos might have been the biggest place that had reported it...and it can't even really be found there.

There was another report too that the clerk didn't even call the cops about the incident...but someone else did.

 

Not sure any report that he paid for them was credible at this point given no real source ever picked up that story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing every confirmed about him actually paying for them.

 

Good grief.

 

Your English teacher needs to be clubbed to death. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief.

 

Your English teacher needs to be clubbed to death. :doh:

You know you look like a fagg0t when you do this, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×