It was those stray shots that got him found guilty (attempted murder).
Wonkette addresses this truly US legal phenomenon in the post: OUR COLD DEAD HANDS--These People Trapping And Shooting These Teenagers Are Not Very Nice, No, Not At All
Thankfully, with a lot of states broadening the scope of what counts as “self defense,” several brave Responsible Gun Owners have taken to killing folks for the sake of finding out what kinds of homicide are justified. No applause necessary; these everyday Second Amendment Heroes just see it as their civic duty.Some people see these wonderful new laws that prove that life is worth less than property and that the concept of "right to life" by not having life arbitrarily taken is something that means they can see if they can indeed "get away with murder".
Wonkette's conclusion:
And so our glorious experiment in ground-standing continues; future cases will no doubt help us gain a better understanding of just when it becomes OK to purposefully set a trap for a human being you want to kill. We bet there will be lots of volunteers from the Responsible Gun Owning community to serve as the armed portion of those experiments, and tough shit for those who get killed, because they never should have been there in the first place.These laws prove that the US is in no way a "Christian Nation" which believes in the sanctity of life.
And as we've said over and over again, standing your ground means not having to flee an attacker before defending yourself. It does not mean laying a trap and murdering someone. These laws don't authorize this at all, but that doesn't stop our sarcastic zero of a lawyer from propounding the idea.
ReplyDeleteIdiot gun owners all over the country who are too stupid to understand what the law really means feel empowered to shoot first when in doubt.
DeleteWow, it's their fault for being stupid enough to believe what you guys say about the law? You're reaching new levels, Mike.
DeleteNo, that's not it at all. They believe in what you guys keep preaching, that bullshit that was flying at the NRA convention last week about being very afraid, the world is a dangerous place, etc., etc. They take that fear-message and add to it all the talk about having the right to kill intruders rather than retreat and you've got a royal mess. You've got people getting away with manslaughter. The fact that some don't doesn't change the fact.
DeleteThis reminds me of the joke about atheists in Northern Ireland. You're allowed to be an atheist, but you have to specify which God you don't believe in.
DeleteIn these cases, do we have any evidence that the people in question received arguments or information from either side?
Laci: “These laws prove that the US is in no way a "Christian Nation" which believes in the sanctity of life.”
ReplyDeleteHow do these law prove that when setting traps isn’t a protected act of self-defense, given that we see one of them convicted of murder and the other charged? Will you admit at least that these laws don’t protect setting traps?
Or in general explain what acts are not protected by these laws? That is a challenge I put out to you and all your other friends who bash SYG and Castle Doctrine- explain what it doesn’t protect? Can you do that, or does prime directive programming take over? must…not…speak…honestly…and… rationally…
These laws encourage many gun owners to shoot in cases they wouldn't have in the past. That's your fault.
DeleteMike, can you answer my challenge? Talk about an action that is NOT protected by SYG/castle doctrine. You talk about the problem of stupid people thinking it gives them a license to murder, so maybe you could do your part to try and correct that misinformation, rather than trying to exacerbate the problem.
DeleteIn my opinion there is no redeeming aspect to the SYG and castle doctrine laws. Lawful people acting lawfully were already covered by the age-old rules of self-defense. But being fanatics, that wasn't good enough for you.
DeleteI'm not asking you if you find anything redeeming. What I was asking for is for you to speak a little about the limitations about what it does and doesn't protect.
DeleteThe problem is that abusive prosecutors went after people who defended their lives. See what happens when government power goes too far?
DeleteLike the guy in Florida who was "defending his life" against tossed popcorn.
DeleteLaci, did the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz frighten you when you were a child? You have an obsession with strawmen.
ReplyDeleteThere are laws which give senior citizens a less rigid standard of what a threat to them is. Added to stand your ground, it's easy to justify murder.
ReplyDeleteFalse.
DeleteNot false. Florida has that law.
DeleteWhat was false is your claim that it's easy to justify murder.
DeleteOh, you didn't specify what was false you just said it was false as the liar you are, and yes, that does make it easier to justify murder, so you are wrong again, no surprise.
DeleteOnce again, brave Anonymous accuses someone of lying. Proof, of course, it too hard for someone of your intelligence.
DeleteAnonymous May 4, 2014 at 12:25 AM
ReplyDeleteThere are laws which give senior citizens a less rigid standard of what a threat to them is. Added to stand your ground, it's easy to justify murder.
Replies
Greg Camp May 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM
False.
Anonymous May 5, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Not false. Florida has that law.
Greg Camp May 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM
What was false is your claim that it's easy to justify murder.
Anonymous May 5, 2014 at 7:33 PM
Oh, you didn't specify what was false you just said it was false as the liar you are, and yes, that does make it easier to justify murder, so you are wrong again, no surprise.
Greg Camp May 6, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Once again, brave Anonymous accuses someone of lying. Proof, of course, it too hard for someone of your intelligence.
Here we see Greg's typical lie. I said some States have laws that give senior citizens a less rigid standard of what a threat to them is. Greg replies false, then rescinds that by replying they do but that's not what he was saying. I call him on his lie, that first he said false, then he said yes, then he calls me the liar. Again, his own words prove he is the liar, as they have all the time on multiple issues.