Would You Vote For a Killer for President?

Do I need to write an OP teaching you the English language?

YOU GUYS, does not mean ONE INDIVIDUAL.

I thought I gave you a clue with Right wingers

 

You did not say "you guys". You said "you".

 

YOU guys says it also. Why does your persecution complex not react to this also?

 

No persecution complex. Just pointing out that you clearly said that I considered Zimmerman to be a hero.

I was reacting to one statement you made and one statement only. And in that statement there was no "YOU guys".

Give it up. The hole you are digging for yourself is just getting deeper.

 

If I had meant YOU, I would have phrased it like all literate humans that speak the KINGS engrish do. YOU said this!

 

I am not sure what Kings English you speak, but when I say you I mean you.

You appear to be having a lot of problems with the Kings English. I know I never said "KINGS engrish"

 

Fact remains there had been at least one other wreck that killed someone at that intersection. About a year before the wreck by Laura Welch which indicates it was a dangerous intersection.

And I'm pretty sure they didn't have texting or even cell phones in the 1960s

 

OR that it was a busy or well travelled road. But you would seem to get a clue by her OWN admission, that she blew thru a stop sign. AND was hurrying.

But YOU insist on giving her a pass.

 

I've never denied she drove through a stop sign. She never denied it either.

See next to last paragraph.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/laura-bush-car-accident/

 

So it would be better if all people lived by the code of "thou shalt not kill? And it would really help if a gov't that purports to represent its people, did not indulge in killing, unless absolutely necessary and in self defense. That is, we have to be attacked first. The same principle that applies to us, that we do not kill except in real self defense.

But that code that most individuals are supposed to live by, is not reflected by the gov't, in most cases. And of course a gov't by and for the people should act to protect those people and their nation, their land. And yet if that were the case we would not have fought a war or police action after ww2.

I don't think we have had a moral president since Carter. Congress certainly pays no attention to the gold rule and basic morality.

If the world of nations were individuals, One american, one french, one english, one russian, one chinese, libyan, one syrian, so on and so forth, which ones would be the kind of people you would be fearful of? Would there be bullies, thieves, killers? How good of a neighbor would each nation rate?

To me it looks like a group of thugs, and very murderous, some more than others. I am afraid any moral code is a joke when it comes to gov't. For the codes lived by, by most citizens are thrown in the trash once a citizen becomes an elected ruler. You now have a license to kill, and it does not have to be in self defense. You may kill in protecting some big corporate interest or threat to western banking. The list is long. If we lived as individuals like this, society would be some third world sh*t hole nation.

 

The legs are a way to immobilize a threat, the fatal parts are any place above the pelvis. Arms, although they have vital arteries, are non-fatal as well. "Self-defense" needs a lot more criteria to legally determine if it was indeed self-defense. Anyone who shoots out of self-defense needs to be treated as a possible murderer, taken downtown and have a thorough interrogation with the police. End of story. Cities like Pittsburgh should be pissed of at organizations like the NRA and the gun lobby.

 

You post from pure ignorance; a breach of the femoral artery will bleed someone to death in minutes.

Why do you want to make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves?

 

Most leg shots that would immobilize would also kill (have you heard of the femoral artery). Nobody with any sense thinks you should shoot to wound. I do agree that shooting out of self defense needs to be investigated, however, no automatic arrest should be done. In the state of Florida, if somebody enters an occupied dwelling without permission, shooting them is rightfully allowed.

 

About the only people I've ever known to shoot NOT to kill was a couple of examples of a SWAT team sniper which actually shot the weapon out of the hand of a guy brandishing a gun. Of course the sniper was in a fixed position with a calibrated sniper rifle, a spotter, and the guy with the weapons were largely stationary themselves and holding their weapon well away from their body.

 

You can only hit the "arm and only the arm" if you are either directly in front of someone or directly behind.

Otherwise any bullet hitting the arm at an angle is likely to go thru and thru and hit a person in the chest as well.

 

I still would want people who kill someone, regardless of the threat level, to be treated as if they are murderers. Valences the scales more, and ensures no one can cry wolf with the self-defense remarks.

 

Ultimately,, depending on how long the person bleeds is how fatal or how non-fatal the end result will be. If you Shoot tp kill, you are a murderer, plain and simple.

So Florida has legalized murder now?

 

Why do you want to make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves?
Why do you want innocent people to die?

 

I thought you knew that "self defense" claims are an affirmative defense. You can't simply claim "self defense" if you use force against someone. The burden of proof is not on your side. You have to PROVE your claim of self defense. This has been true for ages.

 

A person defending himself and loved ones should not have to make a snap decision about whether his self defense is legal. The law is written so that no such concern is needed. Anyone who breaks into someones else's home is putting his own life at risk.

 

Proof? If you are a small woman it is self defense. If you are a large man it is murder. There really isn't much more needed than that.

 

That depends on various circumstances. Also given it is an Affirmative Defense, from what I've gathered police and prosecutors can use your personal history against you in determining the truth of your Self Defense/Justification claim.

 

Castle Doctrine I think they call it. That is if someone breaks entry into your place of residence (doesn't have to be a home of course) you are fully justified in assuming malicious intent to commit bodily harm on their part. You are under no obligation to retreat.

On the other hand if you are being menaced on the street and you have an option of safe retreat most law enforcement authorities will insist you do have an obligation to do so.

 

Abused men rarely report so if you are a man it won't be considered self defense.

 

I do not carry a weapon and don't really expect to be menaced on the street. However, because of our remote location, we would be entirely dependent on self defense, if someone broke into our house. Even though I don't expect to happen, it is a very real possibility. I would hate to believe that I have to spend time trying to decide whether it would be considered self defense.