Don't be so hard on yourself, Ohio

Don't be so hard on yourself, Ohio

There are 27 comments on the The Advocate story from May 1, 2014, titled Don't be so hard on yourself, Ohio. In it, The Advocate reports that:

Ohioans have always had a bit of a complex when it comes to "The Buckeye State," and a recent Gallup poll proves that fact.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Advocate.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#21 May 5, 2014
They cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
Castle doctrine, codified in law on several states, treats home, structures, some include yards or any place a citizen may be such as a restaurant, as sovereign and any force including overwhelming firepower may be used to kill an attacker.
There is an old saying that has been repeated to me by several prosecutors around the country, "Dead men tell no lies on the stand" in other words better to kill them than to wound them and have them lie to investigators, a grand jury, or during a civil case against you later.
I object to such laws on ethical grounds. By "such laws," I include not only to the Castle "make my day" (aka Dirty Harry) laws, but also to "stand your ground" (aka George Zimmerman defense) laws and any other laws specifically tailored to provide legal defense on a selective basis for killing people. The role of law should not be to excuse bad behavior, not limited to but including, killing, nor should laws pertaining to bad behavior be applied unevenly based on irrelevant personal attributes such as gender, race, age, celebrity, ethnicity, religion, etc.

It's certainly true that if you kill people, that will keep them from testifying "on the stand" (or anywhere for that matter. I trust the wisdom of another "old saying" — that you don't have to go after a fly with a cannon.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#22 May 5, 2014
repo69 wrote:
<quoted text>I was a prison guard for 14yrs,everybody in the back door says 'I am innocent' like I said after all appeals('and DNA test) put them to death! We always said"if you couldn't convince 12 jury members,too late to convince me"
What was it like being a prison guard?
Southern Comfort

Dayton, OH

#23 May 6, 2014
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
I object to such laws on ethical grounds. By "such laws," I include not only to the Castle "make my day" (aka Dirty Harry) laws, but also to "stand your ground" (aka George Zimmerman defense) laws and any other laws specifically tailored to provide legal defense on a selective basis for killing people. The role of law should not be to excuse bad behavior, not limited to but including, killing, nor should laws pertaining to bad behavior be applied unevenly based on irrelevant personal attributes such as gender, race, age, celebrity, ethnicity, religion, etc.
It's certainly true that if you kill people, that will keep them from testifying "on the stand" (or anywhere for that matter. I trust the wisdom of another "old saying" — that you don't have to go after a fly with a cannon.
What is unethical about using weapons for self defense?

Police and military and criminals regularly use heavy weapons for offense and defense.

Why do you focus your condemnation on law abiding Joe Citizen using small arms for self defense?

By the way, big government uses all of the special personal attribute categories you've listed to discriminate, always in favor of diversity people.

Are you just another 2 faced leftist, public-sucking meatball?
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#24 May 6, 2014
Southern Comfort wrote:
<quoted text>
What is unethical about using weapons for self defense?
Police and military and criminals regularly use heavy weapons for offense and defense.
Why do you focus your condemnation on law abiding Joe Citizen using small arms for self defense?
By the way, big government uses all of the special personal attribute categories you've listed to discriminate, always in favor of diversity people.
Are you just another 2 faced leftist, public-sucking meatball?
You completely misunderstood my opinion. I didn't say there's anything unethical about using weapons for self defense. The opinion I expressed is about the types of law that I consider unethical. Please reread my post more carefully.

I'm baffled by what you mean by "big government uses all of the special personal attribute categories you've listed to discriminate, always in favor of diversity people." In particular, what do you mean by "the special personal attribute categories you've listed?" I listed only some types of law, not categories of personal attributes. Also, please specify the particular "diversity people" to whom you refer, what you mean by "big government" and document how it discriminates in their favor.

By the way, Southern Comfort, if you continue to include ridiculous personal insults in your responses to my posts, I'll enroll you with free lifetime membership in my Knights of the Satanic Order of the List of Terminally Insulting and Disgusting Without Redeeming Capacity for Reasonable Discourse — or simply “Club SOL” for short. Once so knighted, there’s no opportunity for reinstatement to the Knights of the Holy Order of the List of the Decent, Honorable, Desirable and Reasonable. Jesus still loves members, but they’re in solitary for one eternity. Like a Roach Motel, they check in, but can’t check out and there's no room phone for contacting the front desk or management. However, filling out complaint forms is encouraged.

Rather than embarrass yourself by continuing to sling insults, please accept my invitation to demonstrate that you have the ability to think critically, respond logically and behave like a reasonable, intelligent adult capable of participating in an actual discussion. I'm hoping you'll be down for it.
Southern Comfort

Dayton, OH

#25 May 6, 2014
re:kuda font of logic

The laws private citizens follow are the defense of domicile and family laws authorizing the use of deadly force, the same laws you disparage as unethical.
You still haven't explained why you have a problem with the ethics of self defense by law abiding citizens bearing small arms. Instead you've blithered endlesslessly about being cursed with superior logic; basically you are a joke.

Diversity people are victim cult people, whole classes of people designated as societal victims by big-gov, fedgov in particular. Why do I have to explain to you, the font of logic, that fedgov is big-gov?

The diversity scheme includes all of these subclasses of people:

http://www.mindexchange.com/diversity.htm

women
african americans
queer
disabled
jewish
asian
hispanic & latino
native american
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#27 May 6, 2014
Southern Comfort wrote:
re:kuda font of logic
The laws private citizens follow are the defense of domicile and family laws authorizing the use of deadly force, the same laws you disparage as unethical.
You still haven't explained why you have a problem with the ethics of self defense by law abiding citizens bearing small arms. Instead you've blithered endlesslessly about being cursed with superior logic; basically you are a joke.
Diversity people are victim cult people, whole classes of people designated as societal victims by big-gov, fedgov in particular. Why do I have to explain to you, the font of logic, that fedgov is big-gov?
The diversity scheme includes all of these subclasses of people:
http://www.mindexchange.com/diversity.htm
women
african americans
queer
disabled
jewish
asian
hispanic & latino
native american
Congratulations! Your name, Southern Comfort, has earned dishonorable mention on my “do not reply” list of people who either prefer or have only the capacity to post personal insults in lieu of attempting to engage in reasonable discussion. Nice work.

Your complimentary lifetime SOL membership is irrevocable. You may continue to respond to me, but I’ll not respond to you, no matter how strongly you may appeal for me to do so. You may find it just as rewarding, however, to settle on rating all my posts negatively, as has become the tradition of those who have been so disenfranchised. I welcome disagreement, but not personal insults and unwarranted prejudicial diatribes.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28 May 11, 2014
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
I object to such laws on ethical grounds. By "such laws," I include not only to the Castle "make my day" (aka Dirty Harry) laws, but also to "stand your ground" (aka George Zimmerman defense) laws and any other laws specifically tailored to provide legal defense on a selective basis for killing people. The role of law should not be to excuse bad behavior, not limited to but including, killing, nor should laws pertaining to bad behavior be applied unevenly based on irrelevant personal attributes such as gender, race, age, celebrity, ethnicity, religion, etc.
It's certainly true that if you kill people, that will keep them from testifying "on the stand" (or anywhere for that matter. I trust the wisdom of another "old saying" — that you don't have to go after a fly with a cannon.
Before the Castle Doctrine, burglars were able to sue the homeowner for damages if they got hurt in the house. The occupants of the house had to legally leave their home if an escape route was available. If they defended themselves with deadly force, they had to face charges until the case was thrown out of court.

Because of the Castle Doctrine, you no longer have to leave your own home. You can legally protect yourself, your family and your personal belongings without the worry of being held liable using deadly force.

CCW's were one of the greatest things Ohio came out with. Combined with the Castle Doctrine, you can now defend yourself in your vehicle with the same protections as you have using firearms in your home.

If you don't want to get shot, don't attack anybody. It's that simple. The State of Ohio gives CCW holders every benefit of the doubt. A CCW holder can "Use their firearm for the protection of themselves or others if they believe they are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."

If I were to get charged because I shot somebody in self defense, the prosecution would have to prove what I "believed" at the time. They would also have to prove that I was not in jeopardy of "serious bodily harm or death." And of course, there is no legal definition of what serious bodily harm is.

The law is on our side for a change.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mason Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Union Fights to Have Ray Tensing Reinstated 5 hr Jake at State Farm 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 10 hr Oh well 20,085
it's Monday monkey day 14 hr Oh well 4
What the GOOD boys are! Mon Deny it 1
LPD cincy an officers Mon Citizen 2
Heroin In Cinci (Jan '12) Sun Boyboy 105
News Smokers crossing state line to light up (Jun '07) Sun Chuck 782
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mason Mortgages