Oh. Judiciary errors never happen, then? Sounds like something the Soviets would have come up with...

Okay.

So I understand, and I happen to think you're confusing two separate issues here. I am not questioning these rights of yours, I am questioning the way the current laws protect them. I am of the opinion that these laws violate the right of other citizens to be protected FROM you.

How? When? Sorry, I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.

That's all well and good, but If the said government drone cannot do his job, then you've just protected some of your rights at the detriment of others, the right to life, to be precise. I know you don't care, but still.

Nah.

I thought I had. I can't really help it if some perceptions happen to be erroneous.

If there's no murder, there's nothing to solve, so I don't really get what you're objecting to.

Sure they happen. That, however, does not preclude someone being able to defend himself...

I carry a gun. It only gets drawn if I feel substantially threatened. In what way am I a threat to someone who doesn't first threaten me?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

The point was, the law must written so as to minimize the possibility of judicial error. You disagree?

That's hardly relevant, Steve. I'm sure you're an outstanding citizen, but that doesn't mean that everybody is.

Not at all. But that's a separate issue...

It's not irrelevant at all.

Your statement was:

I am of the opinion that these laws violate the right of other citizens to be protected FROM you.

Could you expound on that statement a bit?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Well, sure. You guys keep saying that you have the right to defend yourselves. Fine. But so does the guy YOU say is attacking you. He's entitled to the protection of the law, and the fact that YOU say he attacked you doesn't in any way negate that. You could be lying, or you could be wrong, in which case the police would be failing in their duty to protect the innocent if they took your word for it. Which is why I think it's important that the law be written so as to make sure that the use of deadly force be only acceptable as a last resort. And I mean absolutely fucking last. IMO, the right of citizens not to be murdered in error because some guy thought he HAD to defend himself should be protected above that of citizens to defend themselves with deadly force. Actually, I think it already is, you know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...gnagna....arms(far down the list).

Yeah - we do. In fact, so do you.
Gee, thanks. Like i needed your permission.
Not QUITE. He isnt defending himself - he started the fight. See how that works? Do you not understand the difference?
No, he really ISN'T. Someone who violates MY rights by attacking me has legally chosen to not be protected by the law, but instead to be prosecuted by it. I have every legal and moral right to stop that attack, and if my assailant ends up dead in the process, thats really just too fucking bad for him.
If he did, indeed, attack me, he has already made the choice to not be protected. If I attack him, then it is I who has chosen to violate HIS rights.
Yes, this is a possibility, which is why there would of course be an investigation of the event. This investigation will consider a variety of factors and facts and based upon the result, the DA will decide whether or not to file charges. This is how the justice system works my friend. This should be self evident even to you.

Do they just simply lock up everyone in France if a crime is committed and take an approach of "Let God sort it out"? Do they simply assume the survivor is guilty and put him in jail while they figure out the facts, and too bad for him if it turns out they cant find any information other than his word?
That "last resort" must be determined by the people involved in the event, NOT by some self-righteous armchair quarterback after the fact.
Why? What you're saying with that is, a person must BE murdered to defend himself. Seriously - thats what you're suggesting. If there are no witnesses - i.e. I'm alone with no one to assist me - and someone attacks me, your argument seems to be that I have to wait to respond until I can find witnesses to the fact that I am receiving grave physical harm. I should not have to worry about being jailed because I defended myself. Do you not see the idiocy in that perspective?
No, its not far down the list.. With life comes the absolute right to protect that life. God DAMN but you're dense.

How much more do people have to spell it out for you?

Seriously man, are you retarded? Do you have a learning disability? A comprehension problem? Are there words we're writing which you do not understand? Are there words YOU'RE writing which you don't understand? Are you on drugs? Should you be?

Here's a scenario for you: You're a woman, alone at night in your home. A large man breaks in and comes into your bedroom. He has not touched you, but he is moving toward you. There are no witnesses. You have a gun in your nightstand that you can get to. WHAT DO YOU DO? You have 5 seconds to make up your mind and take action.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Absolutely. However, if the guy is committing a crime at the time he defends himself, he's not "protected" by the law. Rather, he is held accountable to it...

True.

In my case, it was quite evident that they threatened me...

But only if I was lying or wrong.

Again, in my case, neither of those were the case...

I would just love for you to show me where it says anything different.

That'd be just swell...

That would come down to ones' understanding of the laws.

I'm pretty fucking familiar with the law where it regards the use of deadly force. Some other guy may not be. I should, though, retain the right to defend myself even if some hammerhead who just bought a gun doesn't know the law.

In the case of the hammerhead, if he shoots someone because the guy yelled at him, odds are he'll be held responsible for his irresponsible use of a firearm.

If someone is yelling at me, I'm not going to pull my sidearm. If he's yelling at me and he has a knife in his hand, I absolutely will.

It's the concept of "escalation of force" which you seem to not understand...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Yeah. So what?

How fucking lame.

Nope.

And if you end up dead, he'll just say you attacked him, and that's just too fucking bad. Who'd have thought that this nice Mr. EricOKC was a criminal, after all, what a shame...

I trust I've spent enough time pointing out how impractical that approach is...

But it is. Which is why I mentioned how likely it was that there would be a great many judicial errors committed.

Not as far as I know.

Well, I don't know. The police most likely won't have been "involved in the event", after all.

You're assuming too much, and that seems to be your usual modus operandi. What I'm suggesting is that you'd better be able to prove you were about to receive grave physical harm.

Considering how consistently you misinterpret even my simplest sentences, I think you should ask yourself these questions. Or maybe not, you might not like the answers.

LOL...I shoot him. Next question.

Well, I don't think so. AFAIK, committing crime does not mean you forfeit your right to live. Of course, you may be killed if it's the only way to stop you from harming someone, but that's not quite the same thing.

Okay, so what? Can't you conceive of a more ambiguous situation?

Well, okay, that was the conclusion of the police. But they could have come to a different conclusion.

Well, obviously, I can't know the laws of all countries, I don't even know those of my own. You and Eric don't even live in the same state. I'm not arguing about the law, I'm arguing about the interpretation of the law you've made here.

I'm not questioning your right to defend yourself, nor your capacity to use it competently. I am suggesting that a law that puts too much emphasis on protecting your right to defend yourself may ultimately protect some creep who will have erroneously shot you or your kin.

Why don't you explain?

Actually, it kinda' is...

So because my situation runs counter to your position, it's ambiguous?

That's just funny...

Only if they ignored the evidence and witness statements...

Then please stop arguing as though you do. It makes you look silly and ignorant...

Why am I not surprised by this?

So what?

How can you argue the interpretation without arguing the law?

I'm sorry but, as far as I'm concerned, someone who would erroneously shoot me or my kin is not deserving of protection...

Briefly, if someone attacks you with a knife, you can defend yourself with a gun...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Do you think the DA would have pressed charges if your attackers were unarmed, and not already known by the police?

Btw, Happy New Year! Just dont celebrate it like the Muslims do!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?