Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
S
Spartacus
Guest
discontinue cable
no TV
and then judge people yourself
you'll still have plenty on your plate to handle
no TV
and then judge people yourself
you'll still have plenty on your plate to handle
Interesting facts (truth)coming out about Trayvon
- Thread starter JWBurns
- Start date
S
Spartacus
Guest
no Wall Street Journal either
that's cheating
I went through withdrawal
that's cheating
I went through withdrawal
S
Spartacus
Guest
no The Economist either
that pricey sub was easy to cut loose
but my main artery into left thought
relatively balanced
and thus
I now live in a cave
that pricey sub was easy to cut loose
but my main artery into left thought
relatively balanced
and thus
I now live in a cave
S
Spartacus
Guest
as it were
S
Spartacus
Guest
redsamurai
Banned
It was the health issue i've talked about, plunkey knows it already.
S
Spartacus
Guest
you people and your petty arguments
S
Spartacus
Guest
S
Spartacus
Guest
man
that must be rough
that must be rough
S
Spartacus
Guest
what is the argument over food like with dual personalities?
S
Spartacus
Guest
hard boiled eggs with a minimum of sodium etc
damn let's get the deluxe taco salad
damn let's get the deluxe taco salad
S
Spartacus
Guest
the kind of taco salad in which you can eat the bowl
mrplunkey
New member
Horse shit.
If you are involved in an altercation, your CCP status adds no legal obligations, limitations or duties.
If you're so certain of your opinion, then post-up a court finding, regulation or law to support your belief.
Again, you have no clue.
Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine are a safe harbors. Even if you don't qualify under the SYG or CD conditions, you still have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force -- albeit subject to a court's review.
redsamurai
Banned
not if you provoked the altercation homie. If zimmerman can prove he retreated though his stand your ground rights are refreshed....if he did not retreat and was found to have antagonized Trayvon which he does not have the right to do, then he loses his stand your ground rights. As a neighborhood watchmen he does not have the right to confront and question somebody...only follow. If all he did was follow then Trayvon had no right to attack him. All of this remains to be seen. But if someone saw him run after and confront Trayvon in any kind of aggressive manner and nobody saw Trayvon do anything to prompt what basically amounts to a citizen intervention...than zimmerman is fucked. You have the legal right to walk through a neighborhood with a hoodie on and no, a citizen cannot stop you and question you like a LE can. If zimmerman did that then it will easy for prosecutors to contend that he harrassed Trayvon which if the right trigger words are spoken back and forth could lead to a fight...in which case zimmerman DOES NOT have the right to draw his weapon in an altercation that he unlawfully provoked. Read up on this dude. His stand your ground rights would only have been refreshed if he retreated from the altercation, which also means he didn't do something like yell ngr over his shoulder as he was retreating....that's further provocation and doesn't refresh his stand your ground rights. According to the law he has to make a solid reasonable effort to withdraw and then his SYG rights come back.
redsamurai
Banned
peruse your ark CCW permit, there's likely language in there that clarifies you have an enhanced duty to avoid confrontations while you're armed. Even in FL the SYG laws do not apply to altercations you provoked.
mrplunkey
New member
Horse shit
A CCW does not carry an additional duty to avoid altercation beyond a citizen's ordinary obligations.
redsamurai
Banned
it's grey area that's already playing out in other cases. But in cases where the armed person was found to provoke the altercation the sentencing guidelines are tougher in alot of states if the dude was armed at the time. There is language in the permits that speaks of provoking altercations...exactly how that is interpreted and applied is what's being tested in courts. That's why this case will be interesting if it comes out zimmerman did indeed try to act like a LEO.
redsamurai
Banned
Deadly For
Self-Defense
Depending on the specic facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that use of deadly force was justied to excuse his actions, which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense or the defense of another is an afrmative defense that an accused may assert against a criminal charge for an assault or homicide offense.
The term “afrmative defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor,must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense or in defense of another. In other words, the defendant must provethat it is more probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the situation.
Whether this afrmative defense applies to the situation or whether it willlikely succeed against criminal charges depends heavily on the specic facts and circumstances of each situation. The Ohio Supreme Court hasexplained that a defendant must prove three conditions to establish that heacted in defense of himself or another.
Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the rst aggressor or initiator.
However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to otherunrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the focus is on the specic facts of the situation at hand.If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the rst punch, attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation,you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in
proving your afrmative defense.
Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and thathis use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear inmind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death.
The key word is “serious.”
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury canconsider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victimhad, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps from a scufe probably do not meet the legal denition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as hasbeing attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result frombeing struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bator a wooden club. The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger isimportant. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judgeor jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes andconsider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, andknowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly force.
Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid thedanger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing hisintention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.
If one person retreats and the other continues to ght, the person wholeft the confrontation may later be justied in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should alwaystry to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less thandeadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escapethe other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you areabout to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to usedeadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger
Self-Defense
Depending on the specic facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that use of deadly force was justied to excuse his actions, which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense or the defense of another is an afrmative defense that an accused may assert against a criminal charge for an assault or homicide offense.
The term “afrmative defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor,must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense or in defense of another. In other words, the defendant must provethat it is more probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the situation.
Whether this afrmative defense applies to the situation or whether it willlikely succeed against criminal charges depends heavily on the specic facts and circumstances of each situation. The Ohio Supreme Court hasexplained that a defendant must prove three conditions to establish that heacted in defense of himself or another.
Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the rst aggressor or initiator.
However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to otherunrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the focus is on the specic facts of the situation at hand.If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the rst punch, attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation,you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in
proving your afrmative defense.
Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and thathis use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear inmind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death.
The key word is “serious.”
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury canconsider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victimhad, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps from a scufe probably do not meet the legal denition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as hasbeing attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result frombeing struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bator a wooden club. The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger isimportant. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judgeor jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes andconsider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, andknowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly force.
Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid thedanger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing hisintention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.
If one person retreats and the other continues to ght, the person wholeft the confrontation may later be justied in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should alwaystry to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less thandeadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escapethe other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you areabout to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to usedeadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger
redsamurai
Banned
so in my state a stand your ground defense only applies to situations in which you were cut of from retreating by some manner or retrating wouldn't save your life or someone else's. Castle Doctrine applies to your home and vehicle...you do not have a duty to retreat from either of those two.
"Forbidden Carry Zones
Licensed Class D liquor permit premises if you are consuming beer orintoxicating liquor or are under the inuence. If you are
not consuming, you may carry unless there is a conspicuoussign prohibiting carry."
so here they're saying you can walk into a liquor store that allows CW, but if you've had anything to drink you can't. Is that not imposing stricter regulations on people because they're packing?
"13
premises.
In any event, do not consume beer or intoxicatingliquor before carrying a concealed handgun into a licensed premises."
"Forbidden Carry Zones
Licensed Class D liquor permit premises if you are consuming beer orintoxicating liquor or are under the inuence. If you are
not consuming, you may carry unless there is a conspicuoussign prohibiting carry."
so here they're saying you can walk into a liquor store that allows CW, but if you've had anything to drink you can't. Is that not imposing stricter regulations on people because they're packing?
"13
premises.
In any event, do not consume beer or intoxicatingliquor before carrying a concealed handgun into a licensed premises."
Your state does not have SYG then. The whole point of SYG is that theres no duty to retreat
redsamurai
Banned
"if" you haven't provoked the altercation in some way I'm betting is the language homie. Otherwise what a clusterfuck SYG would be. SYG would completely and utterly undermine rational society if that were the case. I mean just think of the possibilities of abuse. You could go after a dude you don't like with a bat, and when he picks up something similiar you drop the bat and immediately draw and fire on him. C'mon dude. You're in Cali right dave? Go look at your CCW and see if it doesn't have the same language. And you can see where they already hold armed citizens to higher standards when it comes to walking into an establishment with a liquor liscense.
WoodyO
New member
Here's all 20 pages of the San Diego CCW application:
http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw_app.pdf
Here's the more important stuff from page 7:
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace
officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.
http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw_app.pdf
Here's the more important stuff from page 7:
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace
officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.
mrplunkey
New member
Horse shit.
A CCW does not carry an additional duty to avoid altercation beyond a citizen's ordinary obligations.
Im in Texas and already posted my states CHL law here. Theres nothing different when armed or unarmed. No one can provoke a fight then claim self defense, armed or unarmed doesnt matter.
mrplunkey
New member
I don't think he understands that CHL and SYG are to totally, separate, unlinked, non-related, non-dependent issues.
WoodyO
New member
mrplunkey
New member
What what what???
Where's the section that says having a CCW permit changes everything??????
All it says is:
I smell shenanigans! Could the Zionists be involved in this plot?
WoodyO
New member
According to the Brady Campaign, Ohio has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation, scoring 7/100:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
I don't think the state with some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation would have too much extra language about added responsibilities that come with a CCW. Hell, CA is the most unfriendly state for gun owners. I already posted the 20 page application that I had to fill out, and even us Californians don't have any extra responsibilities like those mentioned earlier.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
I don't think the state with some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation would have too much extra language about added responsibilities that come with a CCW. Hell, CA is the most unfriendly state for gun owners. I already posted the 20 page application that I had to fill out, and even us Californians don't have any extra responsibilities like those mentioned earlier.
mrplunkey
New member
That's why I threw the bullshit flag on him several pages and days ago.
redsamurai
Banned
woody, dude you just posted the Ohio application. Go look at the actual CCW permit rules, should be at the same AG site for ohio. Everything i posted was cut directly from there dude.
mrplunkey
New member
Horse shit.
A CCW does not carry an additional duty to avoid altercation beyond a citizen's ordinary obligations.
redsamurai
Banned
well, i'm going to crossreference what i pasted with assault guidelines in my state. It sure sounds like they're asking more of you. They're DEFINITELY asking more of you when it comes to consuming ANY alcohol while packing though aren't they? yep. They're saying if you're carrying you cannot become "visibly" intoxicated and be in certain establishments where it would be otehrwise legal to be armed.
redsamurai
Banned
ok so i'm doing some more reading on this and it sounds like if your state doesn't have SYG laws you may have to show you made a reasonable attempt at retreating if possible even if u were not the aggressor. So if there was a plain and obvious avenue of retreat you are supposed to take that FIRST before you can use deadly force. So this already shows that infact there are extra duties to avoid altercations because "so far" i'm not seeing that same kind of language for non deadly confrontations. So if someone starts shit with you in a bar and you knock his ass out you're fine.
more reading....
more reading....
redsamurai
Banned
Ok so reading up on SYG laws....they get rid of the retreat first requirement, which i'm ok with, but they only allow for the matching of force. So if someone comes at you unarmed it's dicey if you claim you had to use deadly force with him. Zimmerman has to claim that not only did he not provoke this altercation, he still has to prove under Fl SYG laws that he feared for his life from this skinny little unarmed kid. If he did "ANY" chasing after this kid his whole case is blown. There is no way, not even in a gun friendly state, that he can claim he didn't provoke the fight and feared for his very life. The fact that it sounds like he shot "after" Trayvon mounted him and punched him a few times that Trayvon got up to leave having giving this dude a whoopin...leaving him with a few bumps and bruises, and Zimmerman shot him at distance. Case closed "if" those are the facts of the case. And it sounds like that even if Trayvon was the aggressor, he gave Zimmerman a little beating yes but if witnesses show that he was disengaging Zimmerman still had no right to shoot him. Zimmerman has to contend that Trayvon was coming back for not only another round but had the intention of killing him.
mrplunkey
New member
You just keep typing and typing in circles.
Horse shit.
A CCW does not carry an additional duty to avoid altercation beyond a citizen's ordinary obligations.
the kids father testified in a statement that the person screaming for help was not T-money, but the victim Zimmerman.. hate to see a father lose a son..
mrplunkey
New member
Exactly. There are duties associated with a CCW (I.e. you can't drink while carrying), but none of those obligations alter SYG, Castle Doctrine or any of the deadly force use laws.
redsamurai
Banned
you can drink while carrying but you cannot become "visibly" intoxicated...grey area wording.
And did you not just confirm my assertion that there are extra duties imposed on CCW carriers that wouldn't normally be put on them if they weren't armed?
dude c'mon
redsamurai
Banned
the topic at hand is whether the law imposes a greater level of duty on an individual to avoid altercations. In my state it definitely looks like it does..even in Fl SYG applies when you feel your life or someone else's is in immediate danger. If Zmmerman really was getting his head bashed into the ground and was able to get up and try to move away and Trayvon continued to assault him...he was definitely in the right to shoot him, even if he provoked the fight. If Trayvon was leaving the area and he still shot him than SYG does not apply. Where is our misunderstanding?
If someone in a bar starts a fight with you, even if there's the possibility of just leaving if you fight back within a reasonable amount of time you're in the clear. So that shows it is a different standard between fists and armed confrontation. Even in Fl SYG only applies if someone is coming at you with the intent to maim or kill...you have to show that definitively. If someone is just yelling swear words at you and draw on him that does not fall under SYG. And if you provoke a fist fight you are also not covered under SYG to escalate to deadly force unless you can show you disengaged and the other guy then became the aggressor..only then does SYG refresh.
The standard for drawing down on someone is "reasonable fear for ones life". If Brock Lesnar starts a bar fight with me, I can reasonably draw down without any higher standard even if brock doesnt have a gun. So in any given fight situation the justification to draw down can change very fast. If joe blow breaks a bottle and threatens to cut a bitch, I can draw down justifiable. In TX I do not have a duty to retreat whether Im armed or not. The only duty is "reasonable fear for my life or that of a 3rd partys life".
But once again, if Im starting shit with people and it escalates to where they are justifiably threatening me with bodily harm, I cant justifiably draw down. But that would be the case whether I was armed not so once again we are back to there being no higher standard for this whether there is a CCW or not.
Cant start shit and expect to be justified drawing down on someone when they defend, retaliate.
Cant start shit and expect to be justified kicking someones ass when they defend, retaliate.
themondtster
New member
My CW instructer said it doesn't matter who it is, if threatened(by an unarmed person) you must declare that you are either uncomfortable or threatened and that you're armed. If they take one more step towards armed or not you can shoot. But then its up to you to prove justification of no witness. Even with someone following you in parking lot and gives you a weird feeling, you turn and tell them to stop and that you are armed(do not brandish). If they continue then you can draw. And if they continue to advance you may defend. But then again you must justify and if no witnesses it could be trouble. His advice was if it can be avoided to just go on.
So this is what's going on now. George has to prove that it was defense or was it provoked.
Also SD not sure what the law is called but I like it. The one in Texas about intruders in your home. Shoot to Kill or something.
So this is what's going on now. George has to prove that it was defense or was it provoked.
Also SD not sure what the law is called but I like it. The one in Texas about intruders in your home. Shoot to Kill or something.
themondtster
New member
Also about the bar fight comment, we were told that the only place you're allowed to have a weapon where they serve alcohol are consenting restaurants. Even if you're not drinking.
jnevin
New member
I don't know shit about gun laws, don't own a gun. I know Utah has laws that are seemingly pro gun owner on paper, but if people actually pull or use their firearm they seem to be prosecuted more often than not. There was a guy here that owned a gun store and was driving through a neighborhood too fast. Some guys chased him down and when he got to the end of the street they cornered him. One guy smashed his taillight with a rock and held on to it and walked toward the douche. He told them to stop and he was armed, they didn't stop, and he pulled his gun. He got prosecuted and lost his license to sell guns.
I don't know shit about this, but I know the results.
I don't know shit about this, but I know the results.
mrplunkey
New member
Use of deadly force in your home generally falls under what is called the "Castle Doctrine".
themondtster
New member
See here if pulled gun out and warned them first, he has to give them a chance to leave. If they advance he has the right to defend but can be subjected to prosecution which is why its best to try and avoid if possible. Like my CW instructor said, if you think your life is in danger its better to be alive and take your chance in court later then to be dead and leave your loved ones behind.
My aunt had a friend who was downtown at night. A homeless man jumped in his truck and tried to car jack telling him he had a gun. The guy paniced and pulled his gun and shot the homeless man in the head. Police couldn't find a weapon on the homeless guy. So not only did he catch a manslaughter charge but also became HIV positive from the blood splattered on him. Sux but sometimes defending yourself can turn on you, especially if you don't use your better judgement.
Sent from my PG86100 using EliteFitness
redsamurai
Banned
This is not about castle doctrine dude, there is no debate that if someone comes into your home you don't have to announce your intentions politely or nothin...and that's the way it ought to be. This Zimmerman issue has nothing to do with CD so stop bringing it up
redsamurai
Banned
wow so the dude jumps into the back of his truck and verbally threatens deadly force and they still prosecuted the guy? that doesn't sound just whatsoever. Your vehicle is considered like your house from what i've been reading so i thought CD would apply in a situation like that.
jnevin
New member
redsamurai
Banned
So plunkey..now we have someone in this thread who's actually been through CW training and is posting what he was taught. Are you going to continue your line of arguing despite not having done one sentence of your own research and basically blowing it out your ass yet again. The notion that the law would treat armed and unarmed conflicts the same should strike the normal rational person as utterly absurd. Why on earth would you think that your individual responsability while armed amounts to the same as if you were walking down the street unarmed and skipping like a fag? It's precisely people like you that shouldn't be allowed to really have any sort of firearm at all let alone be able to conceal. You don't get it, you don't get the responsability. Do you feel that if you can walk around in a video game with an assault rifle that what's the big deal with this whole CW thing? I'm all for citizens being armed until it comes down to people like you who think it's just another free market right that comes with as much responsability as walking down teh street with an ice cream cone.
WoodyO
New member
I have a CCW issued by the San Diego sheriffs office. I've been through the training and I already posted the 20 page application I had to fill out. I'm allowed to carry three concealed weapons in the most unfriendly state for gun owners & I've never heard of anything like what you are saying RS.
jnevin
New member
You take things too literally and der plunkenheimer states things bare bones. He wins your debates because he's an effective debater. While you mean well you go off on tangents and lose your point in the process. While you mean well he effectively shoots you down, but he obviously enjoys your input.
Fuck this shit, I have a pinup girl coming over soon. I'll post pics if she lets me take them.
redsamurai
Banned
woody you posted the application, i saw nothing about rules. I posted the laws specific to OH CCW, straight from the AG's website. Those were copy and pasted segments. What you posted showed where you put your name and address in when you're filing for an application, obviously there is a supplemental handbook that came with your liscense....try posting that.
And you've heard nothing about the duty to try to retreat? I find that hard to beleive...even in FL SYG ruling you have to match force. So you have to show you reasonably expected great bodily harm. THat's why I was surprised about the case that was posted about the dude who jumped in the back of the truck and verbally threatened the guys life and said he had a gun. So based off what you've been saying, how would that guy have been found criminally negligent by shooting the guy who jumped in his truck...which is a vehicle and covered under CD?
redsamurai
Banned
what tangent have I gone off on? He's just wrong and did no research of his own. That's what he always does and no one calls him on it but me and a few other people. Yes, he is quite an effective debater because the way he talks makes it sound like he "knows". But you press him and the insults come out...and then the real tangents start. If that's "winning" than i guess our definition of win is different. In this case I've stuck on point have I not? I knew from the beginning there absolutely was a greater duty imposed on people to try to withdraw from conflicts while armed then not...
jnevin
New member
In a real debate there is a point that is argued. Plain and simple. Plunky is very effective, technically, because he focuses on one point of the debate and he is very thorough. You try to cover too much ground (I think you do well, but it's usually an argument that is very broad). He sticks to hi9s guns and technically wins. I think you both mean well and challenge each other to a degree, but it's obvious that you let him frustrate you.
themondtster
New member
That's why everyone was so surprised. He actually jumped in the passenger door and told the driver to get out or he would shoot so driver shot first. Just couldn't prove what happened. So instead of murder they felt justified by giving him manslaughter. He family sure didn't think it was.
Sent from my PG86100 using EliteFitness
redsamurai
Banned
oh i thought he jumped in the back...he actually jumped in the passenger side seat? dude what state do you live in that is insane. I mean fuck that situation sounds like what you need a gun for in the first place...if the fact he jumped into the car wasn't debated, how in teh world....??
redsamurai
Banned
basically all he's said here is horseshit...offered no real analysis of his own based any research whatsoever. And now we have someone in teh thread who has gone through the CCW training.
WoodyO
New member
The application contains the rules and regulations. There are no separate bylaws or code of conduct other than a quick lecture basically telling you that you better be able to prove you or your family was in imminent danger, and a warning that you can still be charged with a crime or sued. Then there's the off- the-record comments telling you to make sure you shoot to kill to minimize a lawsuit.
That's all there is to it in San Diego. I'm betting it's about the same in most other states.
jnevin
New member
A real debate is based on cut and dry facts, not a slippery slope argument. You tend to go by interpretation, which doesn't apply in a real debate. That's why he sticks to his guns and that's why he wins.
Just sayin'
themondtster
New member
I forget exactly what my aunt said, but had something to do with the guy bot actually showing a gun, no gun found on him, and I believe the police said after he drew his weapon since the other guy didn't have one showing he should have gave him the chance to flee. This was awhile back right around the time car jackings started becoming big so it was kind of extreme. Goes along with point I was talking about how you have to use good judgement with self defense because it can backfire on you.
Sent from my PG86100 using EliteFitness
redsamurai
Banned
there was a whole pdf file on CCW laws here for OH. I know CA has one of those, you prbably just haven't seen it. I'll bet CA's is twice as long too. lols
WoodyO
New member
We do. And it's basically the same thing for all states that have CCW. It's pretty much impossible to get a CCW in CA. Only the sheriffs office will do it. None of the regular police stations will approve an application.
Classes are taught by fellow gun nuts and they consist of hypothetical stories and situations, and how the instructor feels those situations should be played out.
redsamurai
Banned
I cut segments directly from OH CCW laws....that would tend to be facts no?
redsamurai
Banned
you can't be serious...seriously? Just some good old boys who do the teaching? wtf?
anyway, it's not quite the same thing for every state because they have different SYG laws. I was looking at what's your duty to retreat in the case of say a fistfight. If someone starts a fight with you in a bar it doesn't say you have a duty to look for a possible retreat first. Heck, i think it might still be legal to punch some guy if he comes on to you unprovoked. I'm serious...it may have changed now but back in 2000 I took a CJ elective class and back then it was legal, if you weren't in a gay bar or otherwise place where someone would rationally assume you were gay....if a guy made a pass at another man who was straight you could whoop him legally. Obviously if you stroll into an all dude bathhouse where they hand you lube and condoms at the door....u ain't covered. So is there not an increased amount of responsability as it relates to altercations if you're packing? I mean explain to me how the law views it the same given the fact there's language in the CCW laws that state how and when your SYG gets refreshed. It's obviously different.
redsamurai
Banned
well if someone else has a different interpretation I"m all ears...seriously if I'm wrong I don't care. It's a kind of a pertinent subject and I find the debate fascinating, as long as the people I'm debating with are actually adding something....which Plunk never does. Just review his statements. It's the same thing. I'm sure there's a vibram or all natural pot joke somewhere here. That's what he does. It's less than nothing.
redsamurai
Banned
what isn't?
jnevin
New member
What you enlarged. An experience or an opinion isn't a guideline. There's no way you can't grasp this concept. I'll give you points on your passion when it comes to things, but your execution is flawed.
redsamurai
Banned
wait, woody is saying he took those classes...he has a CCW permit from Sand Diego Sherriff's, so he's gone through it and that was his experience and I'm taking him on his word...so if you have some reason why he would be bullshitting i'm all ears cause I don't know him. Just saying it didn't sound like hearsay...he said he went through the training and that's how he was taught. Or are you talking about something else?
jnevin
New member
I'm talking verifiable guidelines that are actual laws or guidelines. What a person says or does in their private correspondence is not valid. Unless they're an actual verifiable representative of the gov't when it comes to matters like this, what they say isn't valid. They're a contracted employee and they're on the hook for what they say in print. They can be approved by the state, but they're individually responsible for their actions. Know what I mean?
redsamurai
Banned
yeah i get what you're saying, I'm just taking him at his word I guess if he's big into the gun culture, which he seems to be. Maybe they don't operate like that in the whole state but even if it just happens in a couple municipalaties it's enough to be cringy.
Seems videos surface of Zimmerman criticizing the Sanford Police Dept, he want happy with their performance, seems he decided to take matter into hi own hands, I just dont get what he was thinking, why he decided to chase the kid, he was just walking around..... so weird.
mrplunkey
New member
1) Plunkey waits for you to say something that's just plain wrong. In this example, it was your implication that a person's CCW status has some bearing on their duty to avoid altercations or withhold the use of deadly force beyond their existing requirements.
2) Then Plunkey throws the bullshit flag on you.
3) Then instead of manning-up and saying "Oh, I was wrong on that one", you blather on for pages and days trying to ramble yourself out of your own mess.
4) Then Plunkey and others make fun of you. Mirth is enjoyed by all.
I'm on my second or third year of doing this to you (I'd have to check the dates). And periodically I explicitly type-out what I'm doing (usually a few times a year). I spell it out for you just like I'm doing right now. Yet you still haven't figured-out the process. That alone makes it even more funny. You're like a goldfish.
Now carry on. Tell us more!
Similar threads
