Islandpacket.com reports on some of the controversial decisions facing the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Why they are controversial or even being considered is beyond me. Of the three examples given, one is a shooting after the fact, Jerome Ersland style, or even worse. The other two are shootings in the back, for crying out loud.
The fact that gun-rights folks argue these types of incidents trying to justify them indicates that they aren't interested in the truth or what's right. They're only interested in expanding and extending gun rights.
The castle doctrine they want would allow for anyone who feels threatened to shoot and kill. Do they really think that will be used properly more times than it will be abused? I certainly don't. And I don't think they believe that either. I think they don't care how often it would be abused. They just want the rights expanded, regardless of the cost.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
mikeb said..."Why they are controversial or even being considered is beyond me. [...] The castle doctrine they want would allow for anyone who feels threatened to shoot and kill."
ReplyDeleteThe only reason the Castle Doctrine is 'controversial' is because you and the Joyce puppets make it that way. The anti-rights cultists are opposed to any law that doesn't restrict the keeping or bearing of arms, and, as in this post, misrepresent what the Castle Doctrine is. The Castle Doctrine is not about feeling threatened, but believing that you are in danger. The Castle Doctrine also sets forth certain presumptions, but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.
The castle doctrine mentality and all its related laws and philosophies is sick and twisted thinking which makes it easier to get away with taking another person's life.
DeleteThe prime consideration should always be avoiding doing that, not making it easier to justify.
When someone kills another, isn't he always going to say he felt threatened, especially with laws like these?
As long as you and the Joyce Puppets promote the Castle Doctrine and SYG laws as "kill at will" laws, some people will believe that they are "kill at will" laws and do just that.
Delete"When someone kills another, isn't he always going to say he felt threatened, especially with laws like these?"
No, no, no and no
You're right. I said it wrong. They don't ALWAYS fall back on the old felt threatened justification, but it's too easy to do so under the castle doctrine.
DeleteThere's no link to Islandpacket's report, but I found it anyway. These aren't gun-rights cases, really. The high court is looking at two specific cases, and based on the reporting, will make a decision on the facts.
ReplyDelete