cops. What would happen if the gun dad killed Bart

Topic List	Page List: 1
UnfairRepresent 12/21/19 9:43:07 AM #1:	https://youtu.be/bDfCtBcUHbI Sounds like a fun legal hypothetical. Say the blast caught Bart right in the lungs and he died 12 minutes later. Did he have the right to shoot at them? They were on his property and staring into his windows but they didnt break in and he didnt warn them before shooting. Also they were running away when he fired. Would it make a difference legally speaking if he told police he was aiming for Bart, aiming for Homer, attempted a warning shot or couldn't see the figures he was aiming at? What would the differences be if he hit Homer or Marge instead? Discuss --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:931879244] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>https://youtu.be/bDfCtBcUHbI Sounds like a fun legal hypothetical. Say the blast caught Bart right in the lungs and he died 12 minutes later. Did he have the right to shoot at them? They were on his property and staring into his windows but they didnt break in and he didnt warn them before shooting. Also they were running away when he fired. Would it make a difference legally speaking if he told police he was aiming for Bart, aiming for Homer, attempted a warning shot or couldn't see the figures he was aiming at? What would the differences be if he hit Homer or Marge instead? Discuss</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
divot1338 12/21/19 9:53:24 AM #2:	Based on the laws of the state of ~~lol nope~~ its clear that Gun Dad would be horsewhipped and left in shame in the pillories in the town square. --- Moustache twirling villian https://i.imgur.com/U3lt3H4.jpg- Kerbey <cite>divot1338 posted [p:931879479] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>Based on the laws of the state of lol nope its clear that Gun Dad would be horsewhipped and left in shame in the pillories in the town square. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 12/21/19 10:18:51 AM #3:	This won't be super in-depth, but I'll cover the major things (Third year law student/legal clerk). UnfairRepresent posted... Did he have the right to shoot at them? They were on his property and staring into his windows but they didnt break in and he didnt warn them before shooting. Depends on the state, but the moment they fled would guaranteed be the end of any claim of self-defense. Most states don't look too kindly upon lethal force in defense of property, but it all depends on the facts. Here? I would say he'd certainly have an uphill climb to make in any negligence/battery claim. Would likely come out in the Simpsons' favor. UnfairRepresent posted... Would it make a difference legally speaking if he told police he was aiming for Bart, aiming for Homer, attempted a warning shot or couldn't see the figures he was aiming at? In the cases of aiming for Bart or Homer, no. All states have adopted the doctrine of transferred intent with respect to intentional torts and criminal acts, and negligence covers for that as well. Attempting a warning shot would still likely subject him to battery due to the definition applied from the Restatement on Torts which the majority of jurisdictions have adopted for battery claims ("Intent to cause apprehension of any such harmful/unconsented contact" or there's abouts) and still subject him to criminal liability for (at minimum) criminal negligence and any similarly situated homicide statute. Likely the same story if he indeed simply shot into the brushes and didn't see who he shot at, but the case for battery is weaker while the case for negligence is still stronger. UnfairRepresent posted... What would the differences be if he hit Homer or Marge instead? Major difference would be the damages awarded, since the "value" Marge and Homer provide to all parties differs due to their roles (Marge as homemaker, Homer as wageearner). Both can be qualified for the purpose of award amounts. Homer's health could also a play a factor in damage calculations, as statistically his high risk of injury (based on his history) and generally being overweight would reduce his likely lifespan. Damages related to his wages would be argued up or down and adjusted accordingly (or at least considered by the jury). Tl;dr: Anyone dies, the dad is getting hit with manslaughter minimum. If they were fleeing when shots fired, this is basically a prosecutor's wet dream in this circumstance. If someone gets hit, the dad is getting hit with assault/battery/whatever the state calls it, as well as any particular statute concerning firearm discharges. In either of these circumstances, the Simpsons have oodles, canoodles, and toaster strudels of civil claims to choose from, and will likely prevail. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:931880102] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>This won't be super in-depth, but I'll cover the major things (Third year law student/legal clerk). UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>Did he have the right to shoot at them? They were on his property and staring into his windows but they didnt break in and he didnt warn them before shooting.</quote>Depends on the state, but the moment they fled would guaranteed be the end of any claim of self-defense. Most states don't look too kindly upon lethal force in defense of property, but it all depends on the facts. Here? I would say he'd certainly have an uphill climb to make in any negligence/battery claim. Would likely come out in the Simpsons' favor. UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>Would it make a difference legally speaking if he told police he was aiming for Bart, aiming for Homer, attempted a warning shot or couldn't see the figures he was aiming at?</quote>In the cases of aiming for Bart or Homer, no. All states have adopted the doctrine of transferred intent with respect to intentional torts and criminal acts, and negligence covers for that as well. Attempting a warning shot would still likely subject him to battery due to the definition applied from the Restatement on Torts which the majority of jurisdictions have adopted for battery claims ("Intent to cause apprehension of any such harmful/unconsented contact" or there's abouts) and still subject him to criminal liability for (at minimum) criminal negligence and any similarly situated homicide statute. Likely the same story if he indeed simply shot into the brushes and didn't see who he shot at, but the case for battery is weaker while the case for negligence is still stronger. UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>What would the differences be if he hit Homer or Marge instead?</quote>Major difference would be the damages awarded, since the "value" Marge and Homer provide to all parties differs due to their roles (Marge as homemaker, Homer as wageearner). Both can be qualified for the purpose of award amounts. Homer's health could also a play a factor in damage calculations, as statistically his high risk of injury (based on his history) and generally being overweight would reduce his likely lifespan. Damages related to his wages would be argued up or down and adjusted accordingly (or at least considered by the jury). Tl;dr: Anyone dies, the dad is getting hit with manslaughter minimum. If they were fleeing when shots fired, this is basically a prosecutor's wet dream in this circumstance. If someone gets hit, the dad is getting hit with assault/battery/whatever the state calls it, as well as any particular statute concerning firearm discharges. In either of these circumstances, the Simpsons have oodles, canoodles, and toaster strudels of civil claims to choose from, and will likely prevail. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/21/19 11:18:32 AM #4:	ThePieReborn posted... This won't be super in-depth, but I'll cover the major things (Third year law student/legal clerk). Depends on the state, but the moment they fled would guaranteed be the end of any claim of self-defense. Most states don't look too kindly upon lethal force in defense of property, but it all depends on the facts. Here? I would say he'd certainly have an uphill climb to make in any negligence/battery claim. Would likely come out in the Simpsons' favor. In the cases of aiming for Bart or Homer, no. All states have adopted the doctrine of transferred intent with respect to intentional torts and criminal acts, and negligence covers for that as well. Attempting a warning shot would still likely subject him to battery due to the definition applied from the Restatement on Torts which the majority of jurisdictions have adopted for battery claims ("Intent to cause apprehension of any such harmful/unconsented contact" or there's abouts) and still subject him to criminal liability for (at minimum) criminal negligence and any similarly situated homicide statute. Likely the same story if he indeed simply shot into the brushes and didn't see who he shot at, but the case for battery is weaker while the case for negligence is still stronger. Major difference would be the damages awarded, since the "value" Marge and Homer provide to all parties differs due to their roles (Marge as homemaker, Homer as wageearner). Both can be qualified for the purpose of award amounts. Homer's health could also a play a factor in damage calculations, as statistically his high risk of injury (based on his history) and generally being overweight would reduce his likely lifespan. Damages related to his wages would be argued up or down and adjusted accordingly (or at least considered by the jury). Tl;dr: Anyone dies, the dad is getting hit with manslaughter minimum. If they were fleeing when shots fired, this is basically a prosecutor's wet dream in this circumstance. If someone gets hit, the dad is getting hit with assault/battery/whatever the state calls it, as well as any particular statute concerning firearm discharges. In either of these circumstances, the Simpsons have oodles, canoodles, and toaster strudels of civil claims to choose from, and will likely prevail. I would have assumed that his ass would be grass because he hit a kid Am I misunderstanding the post or you saying hes more in the shit if he hit Homer because Homer's job and adulthood would be taken into account in damages? --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:931881797] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>ThePieReborn posted...</cite> <quote>This won't be super in-depth, but I'll cover the major things (Third year law student/legal clerk). Depends on the state, but the moment they fled would guaranteed be the end of any claim of self-defense. Most states don't look too kindly upon lethal force in defense of property, but it all depends on the facts. Here? I would say he'd certainly have an uphill climb to make in any negligence/battery claim. Would likely come out in the Simpsons' favor. In the cases of aiming for Bart or Homer, no. All states have adopted the doctrine of transferred intent with respect to intentional torts and criminal acts, and negligence covers for that as well. Attempting a warning shot would still likely subject him to battery due to the definition applied from the Restatement on Torts which the majority of jurisdictions have adopted for battery claims ("Intent to cause apprehension of any such harmful/unconsented contact" or there's abouts) and still subject him to criminal liability for (at minimum) criminal negligence and any similarly situated homicide statute. Likely the same story if he indeed simply shot into the brushes and didn't see who he shot at, but the case for battery is weaker while the case for negligence is still stronger. Major difference would be the damages awarded, since the "value" Marge and Homer provide to all parties differs due to their roles (Marge as homemaker, Homer as wageearner). Both can be qualified for the purpose of award amounts. Homer's health could also a play a factor in damage calculations, as statistically his high risk of injury (based on his history) and generally being overweight would reduce his likely lifespan. Damages related to his wages would be argued up or down and adjusted accordingly (or at least considered by the jury). Tl;dr: Anyone dies, the dad is getting hit with manslaughter minimum. If they were fleeing when shots fired, this is basically a prosecutor's wet dream in this circumstance. If someone gets hit, the dad is getting hit with assault/battery/whatever the state calls it, as well as any particular statute concerning firearm discharges. In either of these circumstances, the Simpsons have oodles, canoodles, and toaster strudels of civil claims to choose from, and will likely prevail. </quote> I would have assumed that his ass would be grass because he hit a kid Am I misunderstanding the post or you saying hes more in the shit if he hit Homer because Homer's job and adulthood would be taken into account in damages?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 12/21/19 12:28:41 PM #5:	UnfairRepresent posted... I would have assumed that his ass would be grass because he hit a kid Am I misunderstanding the post or you saying hes more in the shit if he hit Homer because Homer's job and adulthood would be taken into account in damages? There would be more sources of damages in the case of wrongful death than the emotional trauma/loss of companionship/etc. While Bart has those intangibles going in the Simpsons' favor in any wrongful death action for him (and the jury would be more incited because a kid was killed), Bart doesn't have that easy-to-calculate amount of guaranteed damages for the loss of income/homemaking services that Homer and Marge have. Not necessarily "more in the shit," but rather the amount of damages beyond the ever nebulous emotional harm caused by the death is much more certain and less subject to the whims of the jury because we can attach a hard value to the loss of Homer's wages or Marge's homemaking. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:931883886] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>I would have assumed that his ass would be grass because he hit a kid Am I misunderstanding the post or you saying hes more in the shit if he hit Homer because Homer's job and adulthood would be taken into account in damages?</quote>There would be more sources of damages in the case of wrongful death than the emotional trauma/loss of companionship/etc. While Bart has those intangibles going in the Simpsons' favor in any wrongful death action for him (and the jury would be more incited because a kid was killed), Bart doesn't have that easy-to-calculate amount of guaranteed damages for the loss of income/homemaking services that Homer and Marge have. Not necessarily "more in the shit," but rather the amount of damages beyond the ever nebulous emotional harm caused by the death is much more certain and less subject to the whims of the jury because we can attach a hard value to the loss of Homer's wages or Marge's homemaking. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/21/19 12:43:12 PM #6:	But that's just a civil suit right? In terms of damages. What about criminal charges? Isnt there a different or more serious law/clause for assaulting/killing a minor or would the charges be much the same? I would have assumed wrongful death or manslaughter or assault of a child would carry harsher sentences than that of an adult, even if the action was the same --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:931884288] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>But that's just a civil suit right? In terms of damages. What about criminal charges? Isnt there a different or more serious law/clause for assaulting/killing a minor or would the charges be much the same? I would have assumed wrongful death or manslaughter or assault of a child would carry harsher sentences than that of an adult, even if the action was the same</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jumi 12/21/19 12:50:52 PM #7:	That was before Stand Your Ground laws and they were running away and not in his house. He would be subject to prosecution. Likely manslaughter 1 or 2. --- XBL Gamertag: Rob Thorsman Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/robertvsilvers <cite>jumi posted [p:931884535] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>That was before Stand Your Ground laws and they were running away and not in his house. He would be subject to prosecution. Likely manslaughter 1 or 2. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheVipaGTS 12/21/19 1:06:01 PM #8:	jumi posted... That was before Stand Your Ground laws and they were running away and not in his house. He would be subject to prosecution. Likely manslaughter 1 or 2. And even then, shooting at someone who is running away should not be considered "stand your ground"...once they choose to flee you are no longer standing your ground to defend your own life. them running away is not putting your life at risk. The "BUT WHAT IF THEY COME BACK" argument is always used here and i disagree with it...if they come back then you can defend yourself. just not when they're running away. --- Dallas Cowboys: 1 - 1 <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:931885003] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>jumi posted... </cite> <quote>That was before Stand Your Ground laws and they were running away and not in his house. He would be subject to prosecution. Likely manslaughter 1 or 2.</quote>And even then, shooting at someone who is running away should not be considered "stand your ground"...once they choose to flee you are no longer standing your ground to defend your own life. them running away is not putting your life at risk. The "BUT WHAT IF THEY COME BACK" argument is always used here and i disagree with it...if they come back then you can defend yourself. just not when they're running away. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/21/19 1:11:17 PM #9:	TheVipaGTS posted... The "BUT WHAT IF THEY COME BACK" argument is always used here and i disagree with it...if they come back then you can defend yourself. Man you 180ed on this fierce --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:931885148] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>TheVipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote>The "BUT WHAT IF THEY COME BACK" argument is always used here and i disagree with it...if they come back then you can defend yourself. </quote> Man you 180ed on this fierce</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheVipaGTS 12/21/19 1:16:57 PM #10:	UnfairRepresent posted... Man you 180ed on this fierce 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. --- Dallas Cowboys: 1 - 1 <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:931885328] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>Man you 180ed on this fierce</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> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PrettyBoyFloyd 12/21/19 1:18:27 PM #11:	TheVipaGTS posted... And even then, shooting at someone who is running away should not be considered "stand your ground"...once they choose to flee you are no longer standing your ground to defend your own life. them running away is not putting your life at risk. The "BUT WHAT IF THEY COME BACK" argument is always used here and i disagree with it...if they come back then you can defend yourself. just not when they're running away. UnfairRepresent posted... Man you 180ed on this fierce By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later. --- The Evil Republicans - Est.2004 - WoT [Government Destabilizing Branch] <cite>PrettyBoyFloyd posted [p:931885378] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>TheVipaGTS posted... </cite> <quote>And even then, shooting at someone who is running away should not be considered "stand your ground"...once they choose to flee you are no longer standing your ground to defend your own life. them running away is not putting your life at risk. The "BUT WHAT IF THEY COME BACK" argument is always used here and i disagree with it...if they come back then you can defend yourself. just not when they're running away.</quote> UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>Man you 180ed on this fierce</quote> By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThePieReborn 12/21/19 1:21:09 PM #12:	UnfairRepresent posted... But that's just a civil suit right? In terms of damages. What about criminal charges? Isnt there a different or more serious law/clause for assaulting/killing a minor or would the charges be much the same? I would have assumed wrongful death or manslaughter or assault of a child would carry harsher sentences than that of an adult, even if the action was the same I don't know of any states that make a distinction with the age of the victim in this context (other than the fetal homicide laws which are their own can of worms). Granted, the judge would have discretion with respect to the sentence, and killing a minor may play into aggravation of the sentence within the statutory range of years. PrettyBoyFloyd posted... By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later. This generally doesn't fly. Self-defense requires the threat to be imminent. --- Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire! <cite>ThePieReborn posted [p:931885469] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>But that's just a civil suit right? In terms of damages. What about criminal charges? Isnt there a different or more serious law/clause for assaulting/killing a minor or would the charges be much the same? I would have assumed wrongful death or manslaughter or assault of a child would carry harsher sentences than that of an adult, even if the action was the same</quote>I don't know of any states that make a distinction with the age of the victim in this context (other than the fetal homicide laws which are their own can of worms). Granted, the judge would have discretion with respect to the sentence, and killing a minor may play into aggravation of the sentence within the statutory range of years. PrettyBoyFloyd posted... </cite> <quote>By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later.</quote>This generally doesn't fly. Self-defense requires the threat to be imminent. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#13	Post #13 was unavailable or deleted.
TheVipaGTS 12/21/19 1:24:04 PM #14:	PrettyBoyFloyd posted... By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later. And guess what, it shouldn't be ok for citizens to kill people on assumptions like that. In this instance, the Simpsons weren't trying to hurt anyone. Sure the family didn't know that, but that is why things like that shouldn't be normalized in a normal society. What if someone was walking their dog, lost control of the leash and the dog ran under a bush in that guys yard. the owner of the dog goes, simply to get the dog out, guy comes out with gun and shoots him dead while he's running....by your logic, because the home owner THOUGHT he was a threat and might harm others its ok to shoot at someone running away? "but the dog guy could have just explained that to the home owner"....kinda of hard to reason with and have a conversation with someone who steps out with a shot gun and points it at you. fight or flight does kick in, and if they choose flight and run away, put the weapon down. --- Dallas Cowboys: 1 - 1 <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:931885562] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>PrettyBoyFloyd posted... </cite> <quote>By allowing them to get away could mean that they could cause harm or death to someone else later.</quote>And guess what, it shouldn't be ok for citizens to kill people on assumptions like that. In this instance, the Simpsons weren't trying to hurt anyone. Sure the family didn't know that, but that is why things like that shouldn't be normalized in a normal society. What if someone was walking their dog, lost control of the leash and the dog ran under a bush in that guys yard. the owner of the dog goes, simply to get the dog out, guy comes out with gun and shoots him dead while he's running....by your logic, because the home owner THOUGHT he was a threat and might harm others its ok to shoot at someone running away? "but the dog guy could have just explained that to the home owner"....kinda of hard to reason with and have a conversation with someone who steps out with a shot gun and points it at you. fight or flight does kick in, and if they choose flight and run away, put the weapon down. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
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</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#16	Post #16 was unavailable or deleted.
TheVipaGTS 12/21/19 1:35:40 PM #17:	shockthemonkey posted... Oh shit UR randomly brought up his lie about Trayvon Martin in a topic about the Simpsons, thisll definitely end well Yea its funny that he is trying to compare the two situations to "get" me...its why i really don't respond to him seriously, anymore. I sort of regret having done it earlier on lol. The funny part is Trayvon didn't do anything to appear to be a threat except walk home. Meanwhile, Zimmerman was following him and hiding in bushes, appearing to be a threat...followed him to his dad's home where his little brother was and was hiding in bushes watching the house. So in this case, if you want to make the comparison, Trayvon is the dad of the family and Zimmerman was technically the Simpsons lmao. you don't get hide behind things and follow someone home then claim stand your ground when you kill that person for standing their ground against your perceived threat. if Homer pulled out a gun and killed the other dad first, should Homer be able to use stand your ground? Stand your ground against stand your ground? Seems kinda stupid, no? Its almost like context is a thing, but again, we all know his gimmick. He'll stretch logic as far as he can to argue....And i guess i kind of just responded to him again in a roundabout way...I'll stop now. --- Dallas Cowboys: 1 - 1 <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:931885925] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>shockthemonkey posted... </cite> <quote>Oh shit UR randomly brought up his lie about Trayvon Martin in a topic about the Simpsons, thisll definitely end well </quote>Yea its funny that he is trying to compare the two situations to "get" me...its why i really don't respond to him seriously, anymore. I sort of regret having done it earlier on lol. The funny part is Trayvon didn't do anything to appear to be a threat except walk home. Meanwhile, Zimmerman was following him and hiding in bushes, appearing to be a threat...followed him to his dad's home where his little brother was and was hiding in bushes watching the house. So in this case, if you want to make the comparison, Trayvon is the dad of the family and Zimmerman was technically the Simpsons lmao. you don't get hide behind things and follow someone home then claim stand your ground when you kill that person for standing their ground against your perceived threat. if Homer pulled out a gun and killed the other dad first, should Homer be able to use stand your ground? Stand your ground against stand your ground? Seems kinda stupid, no? Its almost like context is a thing, but again, we all know his gimmick. He'll stretch logic as far as he can to argue....And i guess i kind of just responded to him again in a roundabout way...I'll stop now. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
divot1338 12/21/19 1:35:56 PM #18:	UnfairRepresent posted... Man you 180ed on this fierce He gave the defense always offered by a defendant. It will always be exactly the opposite viewpoint. Pay attention. --- Moustache twirling villian https://i.imgur.com/U3lt3H4.jpg- Kerbey <cite>divot1338 posted [p:931885942] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite> <quote>Man you 180ed on this fierce</quote>He gave the defense always offered by a defendant. It will always be exactly the opposite viewpoint. Pay attention. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 12/21/19 1:42:46 PM #19:	divot1338 posted... He gave the defense always offered by a defendant. It will always be exactly the opposite viewpoint. Pay attention. No I mean he argued the exact opposite logic in a different topic And cant defend it we were always at war with Eastasia I guess --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:931886143] in Question f... [t:78271690]...</cite> <quote>divot1338 posted...</cite> <quote> He gave the defense always offered by a defendant. It will always be exactly the opposite viewpoint. Pay attention. </quote> No I mean he argued the exact opposite logic in a different topic And cant defend it we were always at war with Eastasia I guess</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#20	Post #20 was unavailable or deleted.
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Question for armchair lawyers/cops. What would happen if the gun dad killed Bart (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Question for armchair lawyers/cops. What would happen if the gun dad killed Bart