In this instance I think it’s a case of the innocent-until-guilty principle running into difficult reality. The dead person can’t testify. Killers could claim self-defense every time and it would almost impossible to disprove their tale.
What has he said that was racist?
This is why it is pointless to argue with you. You are using your own definitions for words. No debate is possible without a common language, and you are clearly making it up as you go along. I’m just going to declare victory and seek out someone who agrees words have meanings and are not subject to fanciful interpretations just to suit your viewpoint.
I’d rather a few murderers getting away with it than victims of crime who were forced to defend themselves being criminalised.
There is a commonality to those people he describes as thugs who deserve to die and to those people who feel threatened and should never be convicted when they kill someone. Can you guess what it is?
The people that I’ve claimed deserve to die don’t exist. The people who feel threatened and should not be convicted do. Are those the commonalities you’re looking for?
But it wouldn’t be just a few, if it were this easy – people who wanted to kill would only have to expend a little effort to ensure that they shot someone in the front, that the only witnesses were friends of the deceased, and that it wasn’t on film. Just invite them and their friends to a party, and shoot him in the heart as he walks in the door – and claim he had a weapon. Only his friends were witnesses.
It would become trivially easy to plan and execute a murder and get away with it.
You said that you have “no complaints” about Davis’s death.
Do you really mean that? You have no complaints about a non-violent kid who was killed for being obnoxious?
Erm, OK. I disagree with how easy it would be to control every single unpredictable factor, but that’s not really relevant.
I actually doubt there’s vast numbers of people who would murder if only it was easier to get away with, but again that’s irrelevant.
I don’t consider that an increase in the amount of murders is a valid criticism of my argument. Better for people to get away with murder than for victims of crime to be locked up for it.
No, at no point did I say I have no complaints about a non-violent kid being killed for being obnoxious.
I said I have no complaints about someone being killed in self defence. I maintain that.
A very vigilant, forceful attitude towards crime and perceived threats.
I don’t think there’s “vast numbers of people” – but there are still plenty, I think. I think lots of people would go from fantasizing about murdering their boss/ex/cuckold/etc. to actually murdering them if it were this easy to get away with it.
Suppose my “party scenario murder” happened – the killer shoots the deceased as soon as he walks in the door, in the chest, and the only witnesses are the deceased’s friends and family. After the shooting they all flee and call the police outside the house. The killer claims the deceased had a gun and was aiming it at him, and his lawyers suggest the victim’s friends picked up the gun and disposed of it as they fled. The witnesses all deny the deceased had a gun or did anything threatening.
What should the jury do?
You said you have no complaints about Davis’s death. No complaints that he’s dead – you didn’t say anything about self-defense.
Either you’re absolutely certain that Davis tried to kill Dunn and it was self-defense, or you have no complaints about a potentially non-self-defense shooting of a non-violent kid. Which is it?
You must have found Electric Company to be very challenging.
Wait, people who disagree with you are opposed to the principle of self defense? Do we also hate kittens?
Innocent kid who gets brutally murdered = **Steophan **calls him a thug.
Violent man who murders a kid, tries to kill several others, was abusive to his ex-wives, planned the contract killing of someone who upset him earlier, is sentenced to life in prison = **Steophan **thinks he was unjustly imprisoned.
Guess the races of the people involved.
Now do this with every discussion he’s ever been involved in on this board.
Prior to being called out on it on this thread, Steophan had never discussed any black person on this board without calling him a thug. Prior to being called out on it in this thread, **Steophan **had never called a white person a thug.
For a certain class of person “thug” is code for “nigger”. If you’re only calling black people thugs, you’re that class of person. See also “urban”.
You opinion of humanity, and specifically its violent tendencies, appears to be even lower than mine. I’m surprised, if you believe there are that many potential murderers about, you don’t support stronger self defence laws.
But, say you’re right. So what? People should have the right to protect themselves from all these potential murderers.
Did the deceased have a gun? Did someone dispose of it? It’s your hypothetical, and yet these are relevant details you don’t mention.
And if not, how do you intend to prove it?
Nonsense. I don’t need to be certain that Davis tried to kill Dunn to believe the killing was in self defence. Apart from anything else, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of self defence.
Liar.
Are you talking about Davis? I’ve repeatedly said he belongs in prison.
Or don’t, as it’s irrelevant. Why are you so obsessed with race?
Liar. To pick one black person who I’ve discussed without calling them a thug, Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, who testified at Zimmerman’s trial. I also haven’t referred to Davis’ three companions as thugs. You’re an idiot, and anyone who chooses to believe your unsubstantiated claims is doubly idiotic.
Neither “thug” nor “urban” refer to race. The first refers to behaviour, the second (in the sense you’re using it) to a culture. You are, I suspect deliberately, seeing racism where none exists, in an attempt to prevent criticism of violent, antisocial behaviour and damaging cultures.
I support strong self-defense laws – what you describe makes self-defense weaker, in my view.
All the witnesses say there was no gun. No gun is found (except the killer’s gun). The only claim of a gun in the victim’s hand comes from the killer.
To prove there was no gun? Because no gun is found inside or anywhere near, and multiple witnesses say there was no gun. If this isn’t enough, then my party scenario makes murder incredibly easy to get away with.
No, but if you’re a human being with compassion, you’d need to be certain Davis tried to kill Dunn to have “no complaints” about Davis’s death.
No, I’m talking about your feelings about Davis’s death. Even if it was legally self-defense (and it wasn’t, according to the jury), unless you’re certain that Davis was actually trying to kill Dunn, I would think a person with a heart would be sad that a kid was killed who might not have done anything wrong other than playing loud music.
Serious question: Does your mental illness prevent you from remembering the words that have come out of your mouth? In that case I forgive this blatant falsehood.
This is just stupid. Stop being so stupid.
Congratulations, you found one.
If anyone is interested, when looking through **Steophan’s **old posts I found this gem:
Hey everyone, let’s all trust **Steophan’s **judgment on things!
“Texas A&M University researchers published a study in May 2012 that examined FBI homicide data …Holding other factors constant, it found passage of a Stand Your Ground law was associated with either a 7% or 9% increase in total homicides,
depending on the statistical method used. It did not find any evidence that rates of burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault were affected by these laws” [http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf"]Cite
“The researchers found that when white shooters kill black victims, 34% of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable, while only 3.3% of deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white” Cite
"Overall, SYG laws do not appear to reduce racial disparities and in important ways make them more pronounced. " Cite