Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
oh i know the difference between and vs or, and a semi colan vs a comma, DO YOU?
WHY WAS DEADLY FORCE NECESSARY? BY LAW, HE was allowed TO USE FORCE, BUT deadly source, WAS NOT IMMINENT.....necessary, according TO THE LAW.
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
When you kill someone in self-defense you arent punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them. Thus, this argument holds no water.What? There are no laws protecting property?
Killing someone for stealing is too steep of a punishment
oh i know the difference between and vs or, and a semi colan vs a comma, DO YOU?
WHY WAS DEADLY FORCE NECESSARY? BY LAW, HE was allowed TO USE FORCE, BUT deadly source, WAS NOT IMMINENT.....necessary, according TO THE LAW.
When you shoot someone in the back as they are running away you're nothing buy a psychotic coward.When you kill someone in self-defense you arent punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them. Thus, this argument holds no water.
Even if he is running away with your infant child in his arms?When you shoot someone in the back as they are running away you're nothing buy a psychotic coward.
Even if he is running away with your infant child in his arms?
Never mind that your statement doesnt change the fact that when you kill someone in self-defense you aren't punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them.
Not does it change the fact that your argument to that end holds no water.
Maybe a remedial reading class will help you. I said killing someone for stealing property is too steep a punishment.
and again.. in terms of trial and sentencing, YES.... in terms to a reactions in a dangerous situation of protecting one's self or property... NO
It is not a punishment
If you react to your child in an unknown danger situation that is thrust upon you, and you somehow break that child's arm in the reaction... it was not that you were punishing the child by breaking their arm
No offense, but this is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen here.
I' sorry - i didnt see you comment:
If you shoot someone while he running away with your infant child in his arms, are you nothing but a psychotic coward?
And maybe you don't understand that defense of property is a subset of self-defense.
And even if you dont, it doesnt change the fact that when you kill someone in self-defense you aren't punishing them, you're protecting yourself from them.
Not does it change the fact that your argument to that end holds no water.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.
In this case, the man wasn't in any danger when he decided to go outside and kill two people for breaking into his neighbor's house. You may judge him a hero, I judge him a psychotic coward.
Funny... you were hanging an entire argument on the idea that 'death for stealing was too harsh a punishment'. Now, it's 'beside the point'. Hmm.I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.
Oh. Well, who cares?I judge him a psychotic coward.
fair enough.. opinions and assholes, Ravi.
i'll choose Joe Horn for a neighbor before you all day long.
Funny... you were hanging an entire argument on the idea that 'death for stealing was too harsh a punishment'. Now, it's 'beside the point'. Hmm.
Oh. Well, who cares?
It IS the point if that's your argument.That we disagree on the definition is besides the point.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, except maybe the definition of punishment, but that's besides the point.
In this case, the man wasn't in any danger when he decided to go outside and kill two people for breaking into his neighbor's house. You may judge him a hero, I judge him a psychotic coward.
I'd pick him over you as well.
