Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600745 Oct 11, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, different is probably the nicest way to put it
:)
And there are all sorts of crazy laws still on the books from hundreds of years ago that just never have been officially taken off. But this one is modern. If I hadn't seen it i would have assumed it was 100 years old
I mean what kind of list is arson, rape, assault, and then somehow criminal mischief at night where you can shoot someone if its past 7pm for something you can't prior to that?
Gotta love Texas
But they knew what they were doing. They knew they had to include the elements needed for deadly force. They simply found a weird discretionary end-run by adding a very subjective thing to the list as far as what can be defined as criminal mischief and the night exemption
I'd be impressed almost if I didn't find it such a disturbing social commentary
I just listened to the Gambler the other day
Although who doesn't know that?
(T) Peace
And Americans think China is weird.

I don't know if it's actually true or not but I heard that it's against the law in Kentucky to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. I hope not. That's how Tide lured me in. He did say it was Yogurt though. He's a gentleman.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600746 Oct 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I thought the law was that if a reasonable person would have felt they were in danger, then force is ok.
There are no reasonable people here.

I like that.

:-)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#600747 Oct 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I thought the law was that if a reasonable person would have felt they were in danger, then force is ok.
That's one part of it

The other is that they were in imminent danger

Imminent danger is the requirement for self-defense in general. And self-defense in general means only enough force necessary to stop an attack.

So not only you need imminent danger, you then would need to show why it was reasonable to perceive that imminent danger was life threatening

Please also note there is a difference between justifiable homicide under a stand your ground law where deadly force is allowed and an accidental shooting:

Accidental Killing

"A death caused by a lawful act done under the reasonable belief that no harm was likely to result.

Accidental killing is different from Involuntary Manslaughter, which causes death by an unlawful act or a lawful act done in an unlawful way"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Also keep in mind the conversation was about someone still being outside a locked door of a house where they haven't entered or outside a car where no assault on the person has occurred

There is only one situation I can even fathom that no imminent harm actually existed where someone could say they reasonably feared for their life and that would be perhaps a family member entering a home when another family member wasn't expecting them and thinking it is a break-in. But even with that, stand your ground doesn't mean you can go charging after the intruder or someone you think is an intruder an open fire on them. No duty to retreat means just that. You don't have to run but you also can't run towards the potentially life-threatening situation as an excuse to shoot

So maybe a situation where they entered a room the person was in at night and surprised them. You also have to keep in mind prosecutors have discretion and if they feel it was accidental and someone is already suffering because they accidentally killed a family member, they may decide not to pursue involuntary manslaughter. Doesn't mean they couldn't potentially get a guilty if they had decided to charge

But short of someone entering the home, pretty much every state requires there is some sort of assault to constitute imminent thread and then requires the reasonable belief it is life-threatening

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#600748 Oct 11, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
And Americans think China is weird.
I don't know if it's actually true or not but I heard that it's against the law in Kentucky to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. I hope not. That's how Tide lured me in. He did say it was Yogurt though. He's a gentleman.
Heh

You wanna read some funny laws on the books?

Check out this site

http://www.dumblaws.com/
Bongo

Westbury, NY

#600749 Oct 11, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I intercepted some of your mail.
Your tests came back negative for crotch critters.
That's pediculous. Have you checked RT for cooties?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#600750 Oct 11, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I thought the law was that if a reasonable person would have felt they were in danger, then force is ok.
The specific example was if someone was banging on someone's front door and was still outside the house and the door was still locked, there is no way someone could use Stand Your Ground and claim they felt they were in Imminent Danger and also reasonably had reason to fear for their life

I did say if the person had gained access to the home it would be different

But he poster i was talking to insisted that even if there was no imminent danger, so long as the person reasonably thought there was they would be legally justified in shooting the person

There is literally no way any legal agency would determine that a person still outside the house on the other side of a locked door constituted an imminent threat where it was then reasonable to assume they were facing deadly harm

The other example was if someone manually used something to hit your windshield one time and didn't so much as break the glass and then ceased the destruction of property. Someone inside the car could not claim that one hit constituted not only imminent harm but a reasonable fear of deadly harm

I did however say if the person was going to town with an object trying to break through the windshield to get to the driver that would be a different matter

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600751 Oct 11, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> That's pediculous. Have you checked RT for cooties?
Who's Cooties?

Nobody checks RT without a high stick to the throat. Do you think this is a game?
Bongo

Westbury, NY

#600752 Oct 11, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's Cooties?
Nobody checks RT without a high stick to the throat. Do you think this is a game?
Youre not game, you only deal with cock in emergencies.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#600753 Oct 11, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Hilarious
The guy who still refuses to admit you can't presume you were in imminent danger and you actually must be in imminent danger and THEN show why it was reasonable to presume you had reason to fear for your life is talking to the guy who is still denying I asked him specifically to link his source about someone else not admitting when they are wrong!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#600754 Oct 11, 2013
River Tam wrote:
And Americans think China is weird.
I don't know if it's actually true or not but I heard that it's against the law in Kentucky to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket. I hope not. That's how Tide lured me in. He did say it was Yogurt though. He's a gentleman.
It was Activia. I'm a little embarrassed that you saw it actually.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#600755 Oct 11, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, great source
A law firm trying to solicit clients that also says right on their page
"None of the information above was intended to be used as legal advice. The information is general and not inclusive of all matters of law that could be included in the topics discussed."
Of course they aren't going to tell people its not ok that you were dead wrong and thought you were in danger despite no element of imminent threat existing
They are going to tell you even if you were mistaken you may still be able to shoot someone. But mind you, this isn't legal advice. Come on down and we can talk about it during billable hours!
Find a website with some credibility that doesn't post disclaimers that what it says can't be taken at face value
What was provided is the exact same thing provided in the Tennessee Laws and Statutes Annotated Codes, and the Tennessee Jury Pattern instructions.

How about I provide the Tennessee Jury Pattern instructions? It encompasses the same thing I've said all along.

Quoting:

Included in the defendant's plea of not guilty is [his][her] plea of necessity as a defense.
It is a defense to the offense [charged][included] that:1
(1) the defendant reasonably believed the conduct was immediately
necessary to avoid imminent harm; and
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweighed, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.

2. "Imminent" means near at hand; on the point of happening. "Ordinary standards of reasonableness" means the care an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person would have taken under same or similar circumstances.

If evidence is introduced supporting the defense of necessity, the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant did not act out of necessity.

3. If from all the facts and circumstances you find the defendant acted out of necessity, or if you have a reasonable doubt whether [he][she] acted out of necessity, then you must find the defendant not guilty.4

FOOTNOTES
1. Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-609.
2. The trial judge may wish to use an alternate wording for element (2): "The defendant's need to avoid the harm to [himself][herself] or to the person or property of another clearly outweighed, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law which the defendant is accused of violating."
3. Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-201(a)(3).
4. Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-203(d).
http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/40_05.htm

Here's the specific code http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/ti... as quoted on the site you found issue with, which also provided the Tennessee Jury Pattern instructions, albeit in a more condensed form.

Do you understand, now?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#600756 Oct 11, 2013
Bongo wrote:
That's pediculous. Have you checked RT for cooties?
I checked her kitchen for cookies.

Have you checked your hairbrush for brain cells?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#600757 Oct 11, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
And it also says:
"The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time;
and The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds."
Can you think of any example where no imminent danger exists. There is no assault, no attack of any kind. Yet someone not only reasonably believes they are in imminent danger but also reasonably believes that danger is life threatening?
Because, I am sure this has nothing to do with lawyers trying to solicit clients while telling you what they posted isn't legal advice. But any example where there actually was no danger let alone no life threatening danger were you think someone would still be allowed to legally kill someone will do
You're starting to babble now.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600758 Oct 11, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Youre not game, you only deal with cock in emergencies.
Seriously? Youre?

Such a simple word for somebody so grandiloquent.

Should I get out from under your skin now? It's so comfortable here.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600759 Oct 11, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I checked her kitchen for cookies.
Have you checked your hairbrush for brain cells?
I dumped all my cookies so I could give numerous judgits at will.

I love thisfuckin game.

:-)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600760 Oct 11, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You're starting to babble now.
I have the cure.

Bongo

Westbury, NY

#600761 Oct 11, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Youre?
Such a simple word for somebody so grandiloquent.
Should I get out from under your skin now? It's so comfortable here.
I thought you were just under my thumb?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#600762 Oct 11, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I thought you were just under my thumb?
I am quite submissive. I thought you knew.

The thumb is a major component of the finger dance. Have you had the pleasure?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#600763 Oct 11, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> I thought you were just under my thumb?
Don't be ridiculous.

You have no thumbs.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#600764 Oct 11, 2013
River Tam wrote:
I dumped all my cookies so I could give numerous judgits at will.
I love thisfuckin game.
:-)
I could shift the balance of power by writing a web app for assigning multiple judgits, but with the current instability in the middle east, perhaps I shouldn't.

Goodnight.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Catcher1 841,577
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 21 min Patrick Daniels 591,343
Beautiful Contemporary Instumental NEW AGE MUSI... 33 min Doctor REALITY 2
Ask Me A Trivia Question -- 2 -- (Mar '10) 37 min andet1987 191,506
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 55 min Paul is dead 3,092
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 59 min RiccardoFire 4,769
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 271,465
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 100,205
More from around the web