Seems simple enough but it's obviously not or we wouldn't be having this conversation and heading towards another round of social discord.
‘Stand your ground’ law protects shooter in deadly fight over parking space: sheriff
- Thread starter CutBaitNBlowSh*tUp4ALivin
- Start Date
Seems simple enough but it's obviously not or we wouldn't be having this conversation and heading towards another round of social discord.
Recently it came out that Iceland had all but eliminated Down's syndrome, everybody cheered and thought it was great, then it was revealed that it was due to testing and women deciding not to have them and then it was akin to genocide.
Holmes was a progressive sympathizer, at least, earlier in his life; his views evolved. And I agree that it hasn't been overruled completely, which is why I said overruled as applied to punitive sterilization.
When did simple misdemeanor battery become a capital offense?
We also learned that stealing is wrong. Going to start hanging your neighbor for taking your newspaper (look it up, kids!).
Proportionality, people.
It's different.
If he's willing to use violence over something this small and stupid, and has no self control, he's a danger to society. He probably uses violence because he's gotten his way like that before. Physically intimidating people. Not acceptable behaviour in a civilized society.
The only reason we heard about this time was because this time he ****ed with the wrong guy.
So according to the Eighth Cir. “involuntary sterilization is not always unconstitutional.” And to further the issue, "More recently, 150 inmates were sterilized without their consent in California prisons between 2006 and 2010. Last summer, a Tennessee judge offered inmates reduced jail time in exchange for undergoing vasectomies or receiving contraceptive implants." The same thing happened here recently, a woman in court who had around seven kids, all of them drug babies was offered a reduced sentence if she got sterilized. Most opinion on social media went nuts saying her right to be a mother was violated which raises the sticky subject of who's rights are more important the mom's or the kids and their resulting cost to society. It would seem at least to some extent that the shooting case is similar since no matter how it's being spun the question is where the rights of the shooter to self defense rank as opposed to the rights of the deceased to not be bothered and attack someone for doing so.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...-sterilization-case-buck-v-bell-still-matters
Earlier in the thread you dismissed his prior cocaine arrest as not having any bearing in the situation. If his tox screen comes back showing he was coked up which can make some much meaner and quite possibly be perceived by someone in a conflict with him would that to you be a possible cause for the shooter to have more fear and be a factor in why he shot when those judging without being in the situation say it was wrong?
Last edited:
Misdemeanor battery is still not a capital offense. If the battery didn't rise to the level of causing a reasonable man to fear for his life, the shooting isn't justified.
Look, in my criminal law class, I'm the smartarse who, when discussing the Felony Murder Rule, and the prof said "there's no such thing as misdemeanor murder," said "sure there is; misdemeanor murder is when the value of the life of the decedent does not exceed $20." A few in class snickered; the prof shot me a dirty look (he was from Massachusetts; he also didn't appreciate me knocking the Frogman of the Chappaquiddick a couple of times).
I get that society is probably better off without him. But there are rules for the use of lethal force in self defense, and "he needed killin'" isn't it. And, again, his prior behavior, unless known to the shooter at the time of the incident, can't be used to justify the shooting, as it can't affect his state of mind at that time.
I'd say that the prior arrests, if unknown to the shooter, are still irrelevant. However, the tox screen becomes highly relevant, though circumstantial: they don't actually prove he was more violent, just suggest a predisposition. Circumstantial evidence is admissible, though.
Right. I've seen it happen several times at QT. Now I know that if they had kids with them.... among other variables.....they were robbing or shoplifting and planning to make a quick get away. They were obviously going to Woooha some snickers with the 5 yr old and needed to make a quick getaway, just around the corner.
Talk about eugenics stops now. <- for the punctuationally and grammatically challenged, that's a period.
Similar threads
