DC does not have a stand your ground law....

"There’s an objective standard that says, ‘Is it reasonable that you’re in fear of death or serious bodily injury? And did you use reasonable force to combat that?’ Then there’s the subjective part of it, which is, ‘Were you actually in fear for your life or in fear of serious bodily injury?’ So you have to satisfy both.”

(11-27-2023 12:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 11:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 11:20 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 10:53 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 10:51 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  Your arguments keep getting sillier....

the kid was in jail and went on trial fighting for his freedom for the next 60 years.

He won based on it being self defense. Not sure what your point is here.

The point is he had to PROVE his innocents and was charged for protecting himself. After being shot at, hit with a skateboard, and a gun pointing at him at the time he choose to protect himself.

This cop never had to do that and prove he was in fear of his or others life or great bodily danger, From a small woman trying to get through a window still 15 to 20 or so feet from him.

The fact you can't seem to understand the difference....

I will just leave it at that and not say what I started to

mlb never said the shooting of of Babbit was a self-defense issue. He equated the situation to a justified killing -- *like* or similar to the use of the Castle Doctrine,

WaSo went off on a tangent yelling 'Kyle Rittenhouse'. Whom WaSo seems to not understand similarly employed a justification-style defense.

The killing of Babbit, and the Rittenhouse affair all have the common thread of a justification-style defense. Albeit not the exact same justification defense.

And no -- Rittenhouse did not have to *prove* his innocence. Once successfully raised, the state must prove that the defense cannot be applied, or that Rittenouse did not meet the standards of the defense -- by the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard that the state always has to meet in a criminal action.

The bottom bold....you might have TDS but you are not that damn stupid to believe that in a case like this. That kid had to PROVE it and if he hadn't took the stand he most likely would be in prison.

No -- the state had to disprove it once in play. Before you whine on 'not that damn stupid', I suggest some basic civics.

As to the bold - -maybe, maybe not. The defense had done a smashup job showing the self-defense even in the state's case in chief.

Quote:As to the Castle Doctrine I don't believe that is a tool a on duty cop can use. Especially in a public building...

Just try some basic reading comprehension. That is not what I said, nor did mlb.

The defenses of the Castle Doctrine and that of the Capitol are similar in that they are justification defenses. Just as self-defense for Rittenhouse was.

That is what I said. I did not say the cop in Capitol would be able to utilize the Castle Doctrine.

Quote:the Castle Doctrine makes it clear "your home," "your car", Your safety" or to stop a felony that is causing great bodily harm.

It also has this....

"individuals have the right to use reasonable force"

Nice tangent, but far from what I actually said.

Quote:If this happened , just as it did, outside of our home, to me, you, MIB, or 99% of Americans we would have been charged. Let me put it this way you are standing on on the driver side of your car with your family. A person breaks the window on the other side and tries to climb into your car. You shoot and kill them....

you are going to prison

First, your example above is idiotic. Some dumb*** is going to break the window on the passenger side of the car, crawl through the car to get to me standing on the other side?

The better example is if I am standing on the other side of window, period. Someone breaks it and tries crawling through it to get at me? Depending on other factors there very well could be a self-defense defense available and successful. Absolutely.

Second, the self-defense, Castle Doctrine, and shooting of someone in a highly restricted space are all related by being what is known as 'justification defenses' -- that is the killing was done by me, but under circumstances that make it allowable. *That* is point I took from mlb's comment -- not that the speccific Castle Doctrine applies.

Given the extreme sensitivity of the inner Congressional Chamber, and the presence of literally hundreds of people outside wood frame and glass doors, and plate glass windows --- yes, I surmise the Capitol Police specifically *at* that place, *with* the joint session of Congress just at their backs, *with the Vice President present, and with a mob that was literally breaking down the barriers there -- I am not surprised at all that there would be a justification to shoot.

If there was a banquet ballroom, and *just* the VP were on the stage, when 100-200 rioters ripped at the doors and threw them open and tried to swarm the room, after they had exhibited violent behavior elsewhere in the building -- again I would not be surprised if LE shot then and there. If there was a tangible, present threat to the safety of the VP -- yes, there is probably a very good justification for shooting.

The LE would seemingly have a pretty good justification defense in shooting at that juncture.

(11-27-2023 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 12:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 11:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 11:20 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 10:53 AM)mlb Wrote:  He won based on it being self defense. Not sure what your point is here.

The point is he had to PROVE his innocents and was charged for protecting himself. After being shot at, hit with a skateboard, and a gun pointing at him at the time he choose to protect himself.

This cop never had to do that and prove he was in fear of his or others life or great bodily danger, From a small woman trying to get through a window still 15 to 20 or so feet from him.

The fact you can't seem to understand the difference....

I will just leave it at that and not say what I started to

mlb never said the shooting of of Babbit was a self-defense issue. He equated the situation to a justified killing -- *like* or similar to the use of the Castle Doctrine,

WaSo went off on a tangent yelling 'Kyle Rittenhouse'. Whom WaSo seems to not understand similarly employed a justification-style defense.

The killing of Babbit, and the Rittenhouse affair all have the common thread of a justification-style defense. Albeit not the exact same justification defense.

And no -- Rittenhouse did not have to *prove* his innocence. Once successfully raised, the state must prove that the defense cannot be applied, or that Rittenouse did not meet the standards of the defense -- by the same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard that the state always has to meet in a criminal action.

The bottom bold....you might have TDS but you are not that damn stupid to believe that in a case like this. That kid had to PROVE it and if he hadn't took the stand he most likely would be in prison.

No -- the state had to disprove it once in play. Before you whine on 'not that damn stupid', I suggest some basic civics.

As to the bold - -maybe, maybe not. The defense had done a smashup job showing the self-defense even in the state's case in chief.

Quote:As to the Castle Doctrine I don't believe that is a tool a on duty cop can use. Especially in a public building...

Just try some basic reading comprehension. That is not what I said, nor did mlb.

The defenses of the Castle Doctrine and that of the Capitol are similar in that they are justification defenses. Just as self-defense for Rittenhouse was.

That is what I said. I did not say the cop in Capitol would be able to utilize the Castle Doctrine.

Quote:the Castle Doctrine makes it clear "your home," "your car", Your safety" or to stop a felony that is causing great bodily harm.

It also has this....

"individuals have the right to use reasonable force"

Nice tangent, but far from what I actually said.

Quote:If this happened , just as it did, outside of our home, to me, you, MIB, or 99% of Americans we would have been charged. Let me put it this way you are standing on on the driver side of your car with your family. A person breaks the window on the other side and tries to climb into your car. You shoot and kill them....

you are going to prison

First, your example above is idiotic. Some dumb*** is going to break the window on the passenger side of the car, crawl through the car to get to me standing on the other side?

The better example is if I am standing on the other side of window, period. Someone breaks it and tries crawling through it to get at me? Depending on other factors there very well could be a self-defense defense available and successful. Absolutely.

Second, the self-defense, Castle Doctrine, and shooting of someone in a highly restricted space are all related by being what is known as 'justification defenses' -- that is the killing was done by me, but under circumstances that make it allowable. *That* is point I took from mlb's comment -- not that the speccific Castle Doctrine applies.

Given the extreme sensitivity of the inner Congressional Chamber, and the presence of literally hundreds of people outside wood frame and glass doors, and plate glass windows --- yes, I surmise the Capitol Police specifically *at* that place, *with* the joint session of Congress just at their backs, *with the Vice President present, and with a mob that was literally breaking down the barriers there -- I am not surprised at all that there would be a justification to shoot.

If there was a banquet ballroom, and *just* the VP were on the stage, when 100-200 rioters ripped at the doors and threw them open and tried to swarm the room, after they had exhibited violent behavior elsewhere in the building -- again I would not be surprised if LE shot then and there. If there was a tangible, present threat to the safety of the VP -- yes, there is probably a very good justification for shooting.

The LE would seemingly have a pretty good justification defense in shooting at that juncture.

There is no stand your ground laws in DC self defense is something you use after being charged. Other than in a more clear cut cases than this...someone pointing a gun at your head and you shoot. You probably not getting charged. Well unless you're last name is Rittenhouse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that but if you can't see this kid had to prove he was in danger for his life. You are that idiot.

Find me the law that says it's different if it's the VP in the other room or you or I? That seems to be the biggest part of your argument that the life of the VP when it comes to criminal charges has one set of rules and its different for you or I.

I bet you can't find that law and if you can't it's time you stop using that argument...over and over. DC "self defense" law and I did not see a word about unless it's the VP and then we must use a different set of laws.

"There’s an objective standard that says, ‘Is it reasonable that you’re in fear of death or serious bodily injury? And did you use reasonable force to combat that?’ Then there’s the subjective part of it, which is, ‘Were you actually in fear for your life or in fear of serious bodily injury?’ So you have to satisfy both.”

I see now you started using IF his life was in danger

(11-27-2023 07:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 06:03 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-22-2023 08:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(11-22-2023 08:17 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The bottom line is it's perfectly OK with the unhinged Left for people on the Right to be murdered. It fits their agenda. They don't even bother to hide that they feel this way.

Prog filth should keep in mind that not all of us are unarmed and helpless.

+3

Rittenhouse helped remind them. Kyle took out the trash. More Americans need to be prepared to do the same. Violence is the only thing the Left understands.

Funny enough, seemingly that applies to certain portions of today's right from the above discourse.

Aren’t you going to add “far-right”? That’s the progressive dog whistle for any Conservative who doesn’t bend a knee or kiss the ring to their warped twisted demented ideologies.

I will go to my grave standing up for the unborn, standing against sexualization of children, and the corporate sickness that is gender affirming care. (If genitals don’t define gender, how does removing them affirm it?)

As for violence who lords over urban areas where crime is rampant? Who takes to the streets rioting, burning and looting? Who stands in front of polling places attempting to intimidate elderly voters?

It’s not Conservatives you see burning down urban areas in “peaceful protest”

(11-27-2023 12:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  DC does not have a stand your ground law....

"There’s an objective standard that says, ‘Is it reasonable that you’re in fear of death or serious bodily injury? And did you use reasonable force to combat that?’ Then there’s the subjective part of it, which is, ‘Were you actually in fear for your life or in fear of serious bodily injury?’ So you have to satisfy both.”

According to our Constitution we our given rights to keep and bare arms that cannot be infringed upon by a liberalized central government.

I don’t care where I am. If a social justice warrior thug comes toward me my family or friends, I will exercise my constitutional right to ventilate him. I will put them down like the animals they are.

And yes I value “my stuff” more than the lives of any of these liberal lunatics who foam at the mouth at everything they disagree with. Act like an animal die like an animal.

I would put them down and sleep well after doing it.

(11-27-2023 01:16 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 12:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  DC does not have a stand your ground law....

"There’s an objective standard that says, ‘Is it reasonable that you’re in fear of death or serious bodily injury? And did you use reasonable force to combat that?’ Then there’s the subjective part of it, which is, ‘Were you actually in fear for your life or in fear of serious bodily injury?’ So you have to satisfy both.”

According to our Constitution we our given rights to keep and bare arms that cannot be infringed upon by a liberalized central government.

I don’t care where I am. If a social justice warrior thug comes toward me my family or friends, I will exercise my constitutional right to ventilate him. I will put them down like the animals they are.

And yes I value “my stuff” more than the lives of any of these liberal lunatics who foam at the mouth at everything they disagree with. Act like an animal die like an animal.

I would put them down and sleep well after doing it.

In DC and many states you would be facing criminal charges. The Constitution right to own a firearm does not override laws on the use of it.

(11-27-2023 12:57 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There is no stand your ground laws in DC self defense is something you use after being charged. Other than in a more clear cut cases than this...someone pointing a gun at your head and you shoot. You probably not getting charged. Well unless you're last name is Rittenhouse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that but if you can't see this kid had to prove he was in danger for his life. You are that idiot.

Try basic English comprehension. I've explained it twice, and you are still clueless.

try basic civics as well. Or just rant and rave.

Quote:Find me the law that says it's different if it's the VP in the other room or you or I?

You dont think a use of deadly force is justified in protecting the VP and President? Really? Seriously? Lolz.

Quote: That seems to be the biggest part of your argument that the life of the VP when it comes to criminal charges has one set of rules and its different for you or I.

Im rather certain that if I charged the VP and was deemed a threat to his/her safety I would be gunned down. And that it would be justifiable. Absolutely. And that boundary of a 'threat' is probably quite lower than if I charged some rando in a parking lot.

Quote:I bet you can't find that law and if you can't it's time you stop using that argument...over and over. DC "self defense" law and I did not see a word about unless it's the VP and then we must use a different set of laws.

Lolz. Not many short bus people actually think that use of force would not be justified when protecting a VP or a President. Seems I have found one. Not surprised it is on this forum.

Quote:"There’s an objective standard that says, ‘Is it reasonable that you’re in fear of death or serious bodily injury? And did you use reasonable force to combat that?’ Then there’s the subjective part of it, which is, ‘Were you actually in fear for your life or in fear of serious bodily injury?’ So you have to satisfy both.”

And I am sure it is not the only standard in play when dealing with a President or VP safety issue. Do you think it is?

Quote:I see now you started using IF his life was in danger

And your point is, exactly, -- -what?

(11-27-2023 01:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 07:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 06:03 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-22-2023 08:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(11-22-2023 08:17 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The bottom line is it's perfectly OK with the unhinged Left for people on the Right to be murdered. It fits their agenda. They don't even bother to hide that they feel this way.

Prog filth should keep in mind that not all of us are unarmed and helpless.

+3

Rittenhouse helped remind them. Kyle took out the trash. More Americans need to be prepared to do the same. Violence is the only thing the Left understands.

Funny enough, seemingly that applies to certain portions of today's right from the above discourse.

Aren’t you going to add “far-right”?

Nope.

Quote:That’s the progressive dog whistle for any Conservative who doesn’t bend a knee or kiss the ring to their warped twisted demented ideologies.

Im sure it is. Please keep beating that 'stupid' drum some more.

Quote:I will go to my grave standing up for the unborn, standing against sexualization of children, and the corporate sickness that is gender affirming care. (If genitals don’t define gender, how does removing them affirm it?)

Okay. Sounds good to me. And that has exactly what to do with the current topic?

Quote:As for violence who lords over urban areas where crime is rampant? Who takes to the streets rioting, burning and looting? Who stands in front of polling places attempting to intimidate elderly voters?

Apparently in your mind superheroes like you.

Quote:It’s not Conservatives you see burning down urban areas in “peaceful protest”

They only riot when there guy loses an election. Good for them.

(11-27-2023 01:16 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(11-27-2023 12:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  DC does not have a stand your ground law....

"There’s an objective standard that says, ‘Is it reasonable that you’re in fear of death or serious bodily injury? And did you use reasonable force to combat that?’ Then there’s the subjective part of it, which is, ‘Were you actually in fear for your life or in fear of serious bodily injury?’ So you have to satisfy both.”

According to our Constitution we our given rights to keep and bare arms that cannot be infringed upon by a liberalized central government.

'bear'. And I agree with you wholeheartedly in that regard.

Quote:I don’t care where I am. If a social justice warrior thug comes toward me my family or friends, I will exercise my constitutional right to ventilate him. I will put them down like the animals they are.

What about a right wing white supremacist cracker head **** for brains thug who 'comes toward' your family? Same spittle flying rhetorical flourish?

Quote:And yes I value “my stuff” more than the lives of any of these liberal lunatics who foam at the mouth at everything they disagree with. Act like an animal die like an animal.

I like your 'foam at the mouth' description. I guess self-analysis isnt a strong point with you and rhetoric.

Quote:I would put them down and sleep well after doing it.

I have zero issue with anyone exercising a right to defend oneself, I would do so as well. I dont feel the need to epeen about it though.