View Full Version : Gun owners killing in self-defense deprives attackers’ rights to fair trial
platoonDaddy
05-24-17, 04:25
Love the comments, especially this one:
Self-Defense is a fair trial!
I can see why Einstein was more sure that man's stupidity was infinite and less certain that the universe is infinite.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/11/liberal-writer-gun-owners-killing-in-self-defense-deprives-attackers-rights-to-fair-trial/
A writer for the Huffington Post noted in a recent piece — “A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III” — that the Second Amendment certainly gives Americans the right to “carry and have a stockpile of guns.”
But Justin Curmi seems to have a bit of an issue with the right to “self-defend with a firearm.”
“The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial,” he writes. “Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.”
Love the comments, especially this one:
I can see why Einstein was more sure that man's stupidity was infinite and less certain that the universe is infinite.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/11/liberal-writer-gun-owners-killing-in-self-defense-deprives-attackers-rights-to-fair-trial/
Sounds like the writer hates women, children, and the impaired... or anyone at a physical disadvantage.
Probably just a low-level click bait piece.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-24-17, 08:30
After reading both articles, all I can say is that I hope both authors shoot themselves in the head. I need to go apologize to my 6th grader for being so hard on him for grammar, punctuation and logic- these adults are lacking all three.
But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.
A 'study' by ABC? WTF. That was a horrible segment on a totally tilted show (that we talked about here on M4C) and was in no way a 'study'. The part they are talking about was the scenario where a shooter enters a classroom and specifically targets and lights up the participant, who is wearing an oversized shirt to hinder draw while sitting down. Total BS.
And yes, the Huffy author is back to the elitist attitude that people are too dumb to handle guns. That you'd put someones right to a 'fair trial' over the right of self defense is about all you need to know about that mental midget.
All I have to say is that if anyone should run across this person being raped, beaten and killed should wait for a fair trial and not do anything to deprive those poor misunderstood youts of their civil rights.
Oh good, so I can go over to his house, f his wife, beat him to death and take all of his valuables because stopping me from doing so prevents me from receiving a fair trial.
This is right up there with "It can't be rape because I wasn't allowed to finish."
A little tidbit from the libtard maggot who wrote the article:
“A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use,” he writes.
Hmmm......interesting. Can't have that now can we?
Averageman
05-24-17, 14:38
I'm willing to bet Mr Curmi sits when he pees and wipes when he is done.
You guys laugh all you want. Somewhere near half the country agrees with this preposterous nonsense, and these idiots are voting on the people, policies and laws that will run, or perhaps ruin, our lives.
It would take too long to type the whole thing, but a few years ago I walked right up to some middle aged white protestors in a conservative area and had a conversation about their signs in support of Trayvon Martin. The ignorant drivel espoused by these people was astounding. Facts and appeals to investigate further than what they heard on the biased evening news were rebuffed instantly. These people were ignorant, knew they were ignorant, and wished to remain ignorant. They said, "Even if any of that were true, he didn't deserve to die." I countered, "Did the innocent peer elected, police trained neighborhood watchman deserve to be murdered for doing what he was trained and elected to do?" "Should he have just politely asked the misunderstood young man to stop trying to smash his skull into the sidewalk?"
I have another co-worker who had a friend murdered by some young thugs one night for no reason. They pulled over their car, walked over to the guy as he was leaving work and getting on his motorcycle to go home and shot him dead for no reason. Didn't even rob him. Just murdered him for fun and to impress the teenage girlies in the car with them. This co-worker friend is not necessarily opposed to guns she says, she just thinks civilians shouldn't have them, and that their presence in our society is actually the cause of all this violence. All of my arguments and demonstrations to the contrary failed to convince her. I implored that if her friend had been armed and trained, the bad guys would be dead instead of him. I explained that if those two had walked up on me, they would be in the morgue instead of me, the good guy. Her answer is that people like me having guns is the reason these young men are so angry and want to kill people. That if we just didn't have so many guns, there wouldn't be so much gun violence. I asked her if she'd ever been the victim of a violent crime. No. No she hadn't. She believes that she's done nothing wrong and that she'll be able to reason her way out of any bad situation she finds herself in. That fantasy ended for me when I was thirteen and 10 bigger older guys beat the hell out of me for being the wrong color in my own neighborhood. Before anyone makes a comment on how strong the stupid is in CA, this was in NC. The dead friend could have been legally armed, if he had chosen to.
We've got to figure out how to stop this propaganda machine and turn this back around. We are headed for disaster here gents, and I don't see how we are going to avert it.
SomeOtherGuy
05-24-17, 15:34
You guys laugh all you want. Somewhere near half the country agrees with this preposterous nonsense, and these idiots are voting on the people, policies and laws that will run, or perhaps ruin, our lives.
100% true.
Problem is, it is literally true that killing someone in self-defense does prevent them from getting a trial in court. That is also beside the point, but it is actually true, and people who aren't capable of (or inclined toward) critical thought will stop there and latch onto this.
Now, why is it beside the point? Because the whole rational basis for lethal self-defense is that the self-defender would otherwise suffer death or extreme harm, and many centuries of legal thought has decided that it's better to let an innocent person kill their attacker, and explain to the authorities why they did so, then prohibit that and have the completely obvious result of more dead innocent people and more living criminals. If you're on M4C you know this at some level (probably consciously!) and are fine with it.
On the propaganda side, you could also spout something like "Self-defense laws kill people!" Again, it's probably literally true. But it kills criminal people and saves innocent people, so those with average-plus thinking ability recognize that, while true, it's not a bad thing in the context.
The best counter to this is an equal propaganda campaign explaining the above, in some correct but entertaining way that completely ridicules the anti's argument. For example: "Criminal-coddling laws against self-defense deprive innocent people of due process, and their lives!"
Averageman
05-24-17, 15:36
We've got to figure out how to stop this propaganda machine and turn this back around. We are headed for disaster here gents, and I don't see how we are going to avert it.
You mean like pointing out that the bombing in Manchester is the direct result of a failed British immigration policy and that perhaps we will experience the same type of violence if we don't get our own together? Pointing out how appointed Judges can over rule Presidential Immigration Policy orders by simply not liking them?
By pointing out how many times a bad guy with a gun is stopped by a good guy with a gun?
I try and point out the hypocrisy of the liberal progressives every chance I get.
Opened the USSA Today app on the plane today. (it's The only newsfeed I can download and read in airplane mode)...
Top story at the time was children's deaths by gun violence. That's right folks, gun control was the number one story today.
Manchester was is the number two story. Can't make this up, was hoping we would get a little break with the new president, but they are just doubling down. I just close the app without reading the story.
Used to be certain that it would never happen in my lifetime, now I'm pretty sure I will be alive when the confiscation occurs. 30-40 years out imho.
RetroRevolver77
05-24-17, 18:53
They want more of your money so they'll vote themselves more of your taxes and vote to have you disarmed so you can't fight back.
You guys laugh all you want. Somewhere near half the country agrees with this preposterous nonsense, and these idiots are voting on the people, policies and laws that will run, or perhaps ruin, our lives.
Said it before but that is because most people identify with the criminal. They think along the lines of "what would happen to me if I needed to steal something or what would happen to my kids if they stole something." They never think "what if I needed to protect myself from a criminal" because they don't want to accept that level of personal responsibility or believe they are that vulnerable in their stupid little society bubble. Besides that is what 911 is for, to come fix their problems for them.
If people had a house fire, how many would try and put it out themselves while waiting for the fire department? I bet half this forum would be running every garden hose in the yard in between "gun runs" where they shuttle the most expensive guns from the safe to the front yard or more realistically into a car parked out front.
But most people in this country are going to just grab the jewelry box on the wait out the door and stand in the front yard and watch the fire get bigger. After all that is why you have homeowners insurance. And you can take the number of people who would try and put the fire out or prevent it from getting bigger on their own and divide that number in half and that is pretty much the percentage or people who are willing to accept responsibility for their own well being and protect themselves and their family with deadly force.
Even if you take all the people who own a shotgun "just in case", you can probably bet that only about 30% of them would actually be willing to use it and stop a criminal or home invader. In the "about 40 years" that I've been involved with firearms I can't count the number of people who "keep an empty chamber" or worse have actually confronted possible intruders with "unloaded firearms" and use them as nothing more than a prop to scare people away from confrontation.
I have literally heard the same basic story over a hundred times where somebody catches someone in their garage or back yard and they brought an unloaded shotgun or handgun with them. When they get away with it ONE TIME it reinforces to them that they have done things correctly and are later joking about how much they scarred a bad guy usually with some shit about "You should have seen how big his eyes got when I racked the pump."
Even when I was in high school all I could think about when hearing these stories was how completely retarded the gun owner was. If the bad guy had been anything more than a "snatch and grab" type they not only would have killed the home owner but would have gotten another firearm as a prize.
To this day I still get idiots asking me where to buy "rock salt" loads because they want to handle the bad guys but don't want to kill anyone.
platoonDaddy
05-25-17, 05:15
Concealed Carry Up 215%, Murder Rate Down 14%, Libs are going to go nuts
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/24/concealed-carry-215-percent/
Moose-Knuckle
05-25-17, 05:45
This was kicked into high gear during the Obama years after the Treyvon Martin debacle. I created a thread then with direct quotes from then AG Eric "Fast & Furious" Holder and members of the Democratic Black Caucus proclaiming that self-defense laws such as Stand Your Ground and the Castle doctrine are in fact vestiges of institutional racism and that the very concept of self-defense is racist. Ignoring the blatant racism of the criminals victim selection. So we have the first African-American AG and members of the Democrat Black Caucus essentially admit that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes in this country all the while bemoaning that those very same violent criminals are the real victims in society.
This is the mentality that we face:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZGSQXmJPaQ
I can't find it now but a year or so ago another upstanding member of the community decided to take up armed robbery instead of gainful employment and attempted to hold up a Waffle House. Said upstanding member of the community died as a result of gunfire from one of his intended victims. At a press conference his mother stated that; "There was no reason for that man to shoot my baby, he was just trying to rob them".
You can't make this shit up.
And the only thing worse than the "didn't do nuffin wrong" mentality that permeates from the criminal culture in this country is the one from the bleeding heart libtards who think if all guns were banned violent crime would magically go away, that capital punishment is mean and unfair, and that it's the governments job to keep everyone safe and not an individual's responsibility to protect one's self, family, and or property. These same ****ing moon bats never speak of victims advocacy . . . ever.
All I could think of while reading this thread were phrases like "preaching to the choir" and "beating a dead horse". Solutions, gentlemen, are what we need and I am sorry to say I don't have any. It took many years for our society to get this way and I see no quick fixes. I feel lucky to have been born in the 40s and to have had the life I have had, but it makes me glad I am old, cause i sure don't like where this is headed.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-25-17, 06:33
Opened the USSA Today app on the plane today. (it's The only newsfeed I can download and read in airplane mode)...
Top story at the time was children's deaths by gun violence. That's right folks, gun control was the number one story today.
Manchester was is the number two story. Can't make this up, was hoping we would get a little break with the new president, but they are just doubling down. I just close the app without reading the story.
Used to be certain that it would never happen in my lifetime, now I'm pretty sure I will be alive when the confiscation occurs. 30-40 years out imho.
USA Yesterday
sevenhelmet
05-25-17, 08:44
The longer society puts criminals' rights ahead of citizens', the more depraved it will become.
What about my right to life? Well, I guess that's secondary to ghetto Paul and his jealousy that my hard work yielded actual results. Give him a fair trial. I'll be dead- one less hard-working "white privileged" taxpayer walking around.
This narrative needs to STOP.
titsonritz
05-25-17, 15:03
The longer society puts criminals' rights ahead of citizens', the more depraved it will become.
They are, after all, "community member" (http://www.leoaffairs.com/news/seattle-police-must-now-refer-suspects-community-members/)
platoonDaddy
05-25-17, 15:06
They are, after all, "community member" (http://www.leoaffairs.com/news/seattle-police-must-now-refer-suspects-community-members/)
Good one! The LEO's in Seattle are probably pulling their hair out. What a friging shame.
Averageman
05-25-17, 18:22
That I should choose to die rather than to defend my Life by any necessary means is a rather unique and very misguided way to think.
Preservation of my life, the lives of my family and my property is a very natural and primal thing.
It isn't about my value of your rights when you choose to assault or steal from me, it's about you putting both our lives at risk when you attempt to do so.
Don't ask me to value your life more than you do.
I have mentioned this before. I had the discussion with our family attorney about the costs for defending oneself in a civil suit after dispatching a home invader. Even if a totally justified killing, the perpetrator's next of kin can force you to run up a legal tab in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. Even if you win, you lose, since those bringing the suit probably have little or no assets to help you recover your legal expenses.
That's why in rural New Mexico over decades, people just disappear off the face of the earth. Probably that criminal's biggest contribution to planet Earth is providing nutrition to some Pinon pine, or food for that roaming Coyote.
After reading both articles, all I can say is that I hope both authors shoot themselves in the head. I need to go apologize to my 6th grader for being so hard on him for grammar, punctuation and logic- these adults are lacking all three.
A 'study' by ABC? WTF. That was a horrible segment on a totally tilted show (that we talked about here on M4C) and was in no way a 'study'. The part they are talking about was the scenario where a shooter enters a classroom and specifically targets and lights up the participant, who is wearing an oversized shirt to hinder draw while sitting down. Total BS.
And yes, the Huffy author is back to the elitist attitude that people are too dumb to handle guns. That you'd put someones right to a 'fair trial' over the right of self defense is about all you need to know about that mental midget.
Yes the classic SWAT trained "aggressor" verses the I have a shotgun for home defense FUDD test.
I have a number of friends who range from slightly liberal to Stupid liberal.
One of the Facebook groups I am in with them has been discussing this. The general consensus even among them is that this is stupid. One or two of the more extreme agree with it but they seem to be the outsiders..
Yes the classic SWAT trained "aggressor" verses the I have a shotgun for home defense FUDD test.
That was classic. No control, total set up. "It didn't work in this 1 scenario we setup, so it can never work"
Let's disregard the thousands of data points where it did work. I bet the same people who came up with that "test" partook in the "March for science" to boot.
sevenhelmet
05-25-17, 20:52
That I should choose to die rather than to defend my Life by any necessary means is a rather unique and very misguided way to think.
Preservation of my life, the lives of my family and my property is a very natural and primal thing.
It isn't about my value of your rights when you choose to assault or steal from me, it's about you putting both our lives at risk when you attempt to do so.
Don't ask me to value your life more than you do.
Well said.
I have a number of friends who range from slightly liberal to Stupid liberal.
One of the Facebook groups I am in with them has been discussing this. The general consensus even among them is that this is stupid. One or two of the more extreme agree with it but they seem to be the outsiders..
That's good to hear. I hope even the majority of liberals don't subscribe to this. Otherwise, we are truly lost.
Moose-Knuckle
05-26-17, 04:28
I have mentioned this before. I had the discussion with our family attorney about the costs for defending oneself in a civil suit after dispatching a home invader. Even if a totally justified killing, the perpetrator's next of kin can force you to run up a legal tab in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. Even if you win, you lose, since those bringing the suit probably have little or no assets to help you recover your legal expenses.
That's why in rural New Mexico over decades, people just disappear off the face of the earth. Probably that criminal's biggest contribution to planet Earth is providing nutrition to some Pinon pine, or food for that roaming Coyote.
I keep a law firm on retainer with an annual "membership" fee. I have coverage for my wife and I both in our home state and in the other forty nine that cover all manner of self-defense from deadly force with a firearm to something as simple as pepper spray should an assault charge arise from something so mundane.
For $250 a year in the event either one of us is forced to use deadly force or ANY self-defense measures 100% of our attorney/legal fees are covered no matter how long the case plays out. In these parts, the top criminal defense lawyer that specializes in self-defense case law charges $400+ an hour. There are multiple law firms out there with similar programs; the one LAV endorses, the NRA's, and several others.
As for the perps family filing suit, I would like to see the victims of violent street thugs start suing the egg and sperm donors in the aftermath of these crimes as well. They should be held accountable for bringing such a "community member" forth into society.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.