LogFAQs > #931885648

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Question for armchair lawyers/cops. What would happen if the gun dad killed Bart
UnfairRepresent 12/21/19 1:26:43 PM #15:	TheVipaGTS posted... How so? If they come back and are no longer fleeing, directly putting your life at risk, go ahead and defend yourself. Don't shoot at the fleeing person with your justification being "but they might come back!I had to get them before they did!"....Even for you, what i said isn't that difficult to comprehend. But I know your gimmick and you're just going to find some way to twist what i;m saying to further an argument so let me stop you there and save us both a lot of time...I;m not gonna respond to it so you don't have to. Wow Needless barrage of insults there. It's just that I've seen you in Zimmerman/Martin topics when someone points out that Trayvon got home, turned around and went after Zimmerman, returned to him, ambushed him and attacked him, you argued Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself because he walked down a public street and that scared Trayvon, therefore Travyon returning to attack Zimmerman was justified Here you argue that returning to attack someone means self defense is justified Thats an 180. Pretty sure you're aware of it too since you already preempted that you wont be able to defend it Which is probably a good thing since I don't want this topic derailed, i want it about Bart. it's just interesting to see the cognitive dissonance in real time. PrettyBoyFloyd posted... By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later. sure but does that justify "defense "? Look at this very example. Simpsons were 0 threat to gun dad. it was a misunderstanding You dont get to preempt self-defense. You only get to defend yourself --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:931885648] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>TheVipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote> How so? If they come back and are no longer fleeing, directly putting your life at risk, go ahead and defend yourself. Don't shoot at the fleeing person with your justification being "but they might come back!I had to get them before they did!"....Even for you, what i said isn't that difficult to comprehend. But I know your gimmick and you're just going to find some way to twist what i;m saying to further an argument so let me stop you there and save us both a lot of time...I;m not gonna respond to it so you don't have to. </quote> Wow Needless barrage of insults there. It's just that I've seen you in Zimmerman/Martin topics when someone points out that Trayvon got home, turned around and went after Zimmerman, returned to him, ambushed him and attacked him, you argued Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself because he walked down a public street and that scared Trayvon, therefore Travyon returning to attack Zimmerman was justified Here you argue that returning to attack someone means self defense is justified Thats an 180. Pretty sure you're aware of it too since you already preempted that you wont be able to defend it Which is probably a good thing since I don't want this topic derailed, i want it about Bart. it's just interesting to see the cognitive dissonance in real time. PrettyBoyFloyd posted...</cite> <quote> By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later. </quote> sure but does that justify "defense "? Look at this very example. Simpsons were 0 threat to gun dad. it was a misunderstanding You dont get to preempt self-defense. You only get to defend yourself --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1