this is a felony.

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
farmingfisherman said:
If you point a gun at someone you ought to understand that you are likely the one that could get shot. Waving, pointing or even brandishing a firearm is considered a reckless act and can mean felony charges.. First thing they teach you in a concealed weapons class is the firearm is the last line of defense. Those people are clueless and I hope they lose their 2 amendment rights forever.
Click to expand...
bbbut "castle doctrine".
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ are you going to need to take a xanex before the afternoon is up fugdub

Gun toteing ammo sexuals have been using stand your ground laws and castle doctrines to justify murder, agression and yes brandishing for a long time.

Me stating that is not condoning its use or justifying it... ffs you all want to participate in discourse but are you even attempting to be aprt of a conversation or just get worked up over your manufactured outrage...

Democrats are doomed if you are there base
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
Jesus Christ are you going to need to take a xanex before the afternoon is up fugdub

Gun toteing ammo sexuals have been using stand your ground laws and castle doctrines to justify murder, agression and yes brandishing for a long time.

Me stating that is not condoning its use or justifying it... ffs you all want to participate in discourse but are you even attempting to be aprt of a conversation or just get worked up over your manufactured outrage...

Democrats are doomed if you are there base
Click to expand...
Explain how the castle doctrine applied to Mr and Mrs Pastyface?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
@UncleBuck foblob is hardly a worthy sidekick
Click to expand...
Hey, you are the one who wants to talk about the castle doctrine. So, tell us, how does castle doctrine apply to this situation? I don't mean how it could be misinterpreted, resulting an unjustified shooting. I mean, objectively, how does castle doctrine apply?

I'll give you the fact that that white couple were terrified of those black people, so start with the premise of unjustified racial fear. Was that enough to justify invoking the castle doctrine?
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Yep, you are gaslighting.

Show me where the prosecutor said anything about "castle doctrine" that you used in a fantasy about killing those protesters. I can understand why you want to deny talking about it. What you said is clearly written in the posts above. By the way, in case you don't know, that's what gaslighting is. Gaslighting is outright lying by somebody to deny doing something that people saw them doing. Narcissists like Trump are famous for that.

Be honest. Do you think those protesters should have been shot and killed? Because of castle doctrine?
Click to expand...
I never said the prosecuter said anything.. please re read what I wrote, becasue you are not reading what I wrote
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
Section 3 at its bottom allows retriant in defense of property. Legal definition of restraint encompasses their use of brandishing as a restraint...

Section 2 allows use of weapons as a restraint...

Same shit different day
Click to expand...
Name the conditions that applied on that street that day. Because I don't see the conditions being met. Neither did the prosecutor.
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Name the conditions that applied on that street that day. Because I don't see the conditions being met. Neither did the prosecutor.
Click to expand...
The prosecuter doesnt use defensive arguments...they are not trying to get the defendants off... they are trying to convict the defendant's...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
Moving my goal post ffs...

just present why you think it doesnt apply..dont ask me to make your case for you, thats lazy. stand by your words
Click to expand...
You brought up castle doctrine as if that's all one needs to kill somebody. I'm just asking what objective criteria justifies that defense. I don't see it. If you have such a hard on for the castle doctrine in this situation, you must be seeing something that I don't.

What I see is two frightened old white people menacing a crowd of black people for no good reason. So, what's their objective reason?
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
yes i believe the defense will use the castle doctrine.

I already explained my thoughts, your inability to grasp basic laws is not my problem.

If you think the castle doctrine doesnt apply ok. Cool. Either explain why or stop crying about it...

I couldnt possibly know what their objective reasoning is...how could anyone but them...
 
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
yes i believe the defense will use the castle doctrine.

I already explained my thoughts, your inability to grasp basic laws is not my problem.

If you think the castle doctrine doesnt apply ok. Cool. Either explain why or stop crying about it...

I couldnt possibly know what their objective reasoning is...how could anyone but them...
Click to expand...
Too bad she’s not in her “castle” outside isn’t her domain. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top