Honorable men use fist vs. fist. Cowards pull guns to avoid A$$ whippings. Z is a coward. He will scream help even louder in the pen.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Houston man found guilty using stand your ground defense
- Thread starter bassguppy
- Start date
- Status
Honorable men use fist vs. fist. Cowards pull guns to avoid A$$ whippings. Z is a coward. He will scream help even louder in the pen.
I absolutely agree with your first sentence. It is perverse. Defending yourself against a felony charge can set you back hundreds of thousands of dollars -- an acquaintance's parents spent something like $40,000 successfully defending their son against a felony charge 3 decades ago. That's gotta be a half million dollars today.
All laws are subject to abuse and have unintended consequences, it's the nature of things. In a non-stand your ground situation a guy who believed he could not safely retreat, for example, is open to being second guessed by a prosecutor and if the prosecutor's opinion differs, it's time for a second mortgage on the house. And prosecutors, being human, have their own biases, and have been known to prosecute people for reasons that have little if anything to do with justice, which is supposed to be the primary concern of a prosecutor.
No good answers.
I absolutely agree with your first sentence. It is perverse. Defending yourself against a felony charge can set you back hundreds of thousands of dollars -- an acquaintance's parents spent something like $40,000 successfully defending their son against a felony charge 3 decades ago. That's gotta be a half million dollars today.
All laws are subject to abuse and have unintended consequences, it's the nature of things. In a non-stand your ground situation a guy who believed he could not safely retreat, for example, is open to being second guessed by a prosecutor and if the prosecutor's opinion differs, it's time for that second mortgage. And prosecutors, being human, have their own biases, and have been known to prosecute people for reasons that have little if anything to do with justice, which is supposed to be the primary concern of a prosecutor.
No good answers.
Bert Slide said:
Where am I bragging about my carrying a gun?
How does carrying a gun give me something even worth bragging about?
What is special about me when I carry a gun as opposed to someone that doesn't?
Having said that, let's say I did brag about carrying a gun, what is your point?
Are you old enough to be online right now?
Bert Slide said:
The argument as to whether Z is or is not a coward is about as pointless as whether or not he was a racist.
The argument is and always has been, was he legally justified to use deadly force.
There's no question that Z was not a bad @$$ I mean c'mon he got beat up by a teenager.
A coward would have sat in the car though Z at least made an attempt to protect his neighborhood.
Now I don't really argue with the fact that in a organized fight between two men that BOTH men choose to be in fist to fist is noble. Sure
Should one of them start losing and then pull a gun would certainly be a cowardly dishonorable move.
But when one man has no desire to be involved in the fight and has made it clear by his desperate screams for help and he continues to be beat on, there's NOTHING dishonorable about using whatever force necessary to end that threat.
Okay here, maybe the cops in the face eating incident should have just let that go on right I mean the attacker was ONLY using his teeth right?
The victim was already just laying there showing how absolutely tough he was right?
Would that victim have been a coward if he would have had a gun and used it? I mean the attacker was not wielding a gun, only body parts right? No weapons, he was a real man. A real tough guy.
The cops should definitely NOT have used deadly force to end his attack I mean he still had a little face left right?
Get real smart guy, you make absolutely zero sense at all. There's NOTHING tough about just taking it.
There's nothing cool about being a victim to a thug.
I'm really starting to question ever engaging into this conversation with you at all. Your inability to use reason and logic is amazing.
1SHOT1HIT said:
^^ fists are for standing up for yourself, guns are for protecting yourself. and hunting. but as I have said before, I'm a lover, not a fighter
also some old guns make cool mantle pieces!^^ fists are for standing up for yourself, guns are for protecting yourself. and hunting. but as I have said before, I'm a lover, not a fighter
Great point fist are great for standing up for yourself.
Guns are better applied when the situation has moved beyond standing up for yourself.
Guns are for saving lives. A gun is something you resort to in a life and death situation. (Last time I heard, a blow to the head with relatively very little force can kill you) (Therefor having someone bash your head into the ground over and over would be life and death)
I can't wait to see Bert's reasoning behind the whole Florida face eating incident.
I really hope he's not going to come back and say that those cops were cowards for shooting that UNARMED man while he was eating the victims face.
Maybe they should have just let them bite it out huh? I mean fight it out sorry.
I really hope he's not going to come back and say that those cops were cowards for shooting that UNARMED man while he was eating the victims face.
Maybe they should have just let them bite it out huh? I mean fight it out sorry.
1SHOT1HIT said:
when your adrenaline is pumping things get crazy, if he felt his life was at risk then that's how he felt, can't change that. but anyone who kills anyone else needs to be held accountable. not just let to roam free, but not just thrown in jail either. that's what the courts are for. but don't even get me started on those -_-
47 and never needed a gun to end a fight with an unarmed man. My nose is a quite crooked and I have a few scars on my head so maybe I would be prettier had I killed a few guys who handed me my lunch. You?
That's a bit contradicting no?
So should they be held accountable and thrown in jail?
Or not held accountable and not thrown in jail?
So now I have a scenario for you.
Say your mom goes out and buys a gun because of a rise in local break ins.
2 weeks later a man breaks in and begins to beat her severely, she has just enough strength and flexibility to reach into her waist and pull out her new .22 she just picked up and kills the attacker.
Is she a coward too Bert? Should she have just toughened up and used her fists?
And for you,
I ask should she now just be held accountable and dragged through expensive legal proceedings, where she'd have to hire an attorney to defend her leading to tens of thousands in legal fees surely to financially destroy her?
I'm special because I can shoot people? Really?
I don't recall bringing it up, but if I did it was to say that I carry one and can relate with people that do and have to make certain decisions differently because of it. Not in any way to brag.
What gain is there for me to have people know I carry a gun over the internet?
If I wanted to impress people on the internet I'd say I drive a Lamborghini and photo shop some pics of it.
Maybe post some pics of my g/f, Sorry I'm guilty there.
I never called you anything, I said why do I feel an internet tough guy in the works or something to that effect.
Reason being is because for whatever reason I could almost taste the moment when you posted how much of a bad @$$ you were and how many fights you'd been in and how you never needed a gun to fight.
And how your nose is crooked and you have screws in your head to prove it all. Because you were such a tough guy.
Oh wait I feel like I'm in a time warp here, like Deja vu or something. Did this just happen? I knew sooner or later you'd post something about how you've been there and didn't need a gun to fight.
And just as I suspected.
being held accountable doesn't mean being punished, although that may be an outcome, it just means that you did what you did and now you need to deal with what comes next, basically admitting you killed someone, accepting that fact, and being judged by your peers wether or not it was acceptable for you to kill that other person. if it was acceptable, then that's it. now the accountability part is just living with the fact that you killed someone (harder for some than others). if it wasn't acceptable then that is where the punishment comes in.
part 2
like I said, the justice system.... C minus at best. the real question is should it really cost money in the first place? for anyone, gangbanger or little old granny.
part 2
like I said, the justice system.... C minus at best. the real question is should it really cost money in the first place? for anyone, gangbanger or little old granny.
I know it's hard to grasp when you need so desperately to prove Z was in the right tp prove that inept vigilante justice should be encouraged.
@1shot1hit
I'm really enjoying discourse with you! you are a fine debater and don't seem to resort to just screaming at people (if this were in person). a civil debate is awesome!
I'm really enjoying discourse with you! you are a fine debater and don't seem to resort to just screaming at people (if this were in person). a civil debate is awesome!
- Status
