MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Sunday, December 21, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 36.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:19 pm

fisticuffs wrote:I don;t know anything about TampaBay.com but seeing as how this article goes against my ideological preconceptions I'm going to say they are a left wing rag that's not to be trusted. I do however reserve the right to use them as basis for any argument in which their reporting supports mine.

You forgot to disparage the poster as being so stupid (and racist!) he actually believes all those obvious lies.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:25 am

Also George Soros funds it.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11825
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Jul 24, 2013 1:11 pm

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:08 pm

fisticuffs wrote:More responsible gun ownership:
http://www.wbir.com/news/article/281603 ... r-driveway


You say that as if she isn't being charged with any crimes, yet there are 7 felonies being levied against her. Are you aware of anybody who is actually defending what she did? And what other law(s) would you like to see enacted that you beleive will prevent this type of situation from happening again? Please be specific...thanks.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:15 pm

penquin wrote:
fisticuffs wrote:More responsible gun ownership:
http://www.wbir.com/news/article/281603 ... r-driveway


You say that as if she isn't being charged with any crimes, yet there are 7 felonies being levied against her. Are you aware of anybody who is actually defending what she did? And what other law(s) would you like to see enacted that you beleive will prevent this type of situation from happening again? Please be specific...thanks.


I dunno the castle doctrine laws in WI make this kind of fuzzy. they were on her property, she felt threatened. That's been enough to free killers before.

But my post was more the culture. We are doing everything we can to teach people to shoot first. Don't worry about the consequences we gotcha covered. We are removing the doubt. See the guy in Spooner. He thought there was a threat, he killed a kid. Turns out there was no threat. To me there should be consequences to your actions. If you act on a perceived threat, and there was none. You committed manslaughter. But in WI it's not whether the threat was there or not in reality but whether you "felt" the threat. That's an insanely low bar when we are talking life and death.

So sure, Shoot first. But if you were wrong you should do some time. Maybe put a little thought into it before pulling the trigger.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:20 pm

fisticuffs wrote:To me there should be consequences to your actions.


In the situation you referenced there will be consequences. (At least, it looks like there will be...seven felony charges ain't nuttin' to sneeze at). So what else do you want done?

And please, can you point me to anyone who is calling this "responsible" gun use?
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:41 pm

Of course not. But why not ask this woman? I bet she thought she was totally justified. And in East Tennessee, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find people who'd agree with her.

And that's the trouble -- the culture.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11825
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:17 pm

fisticuffs wrote:But in WI it's not whether the threat was there or not in reality but whether you "felt" the threat. That's an insanely low bar when we are talking life and death.


Not surprisingly you got it wrong again. Try reading the law and get back to us.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:42 am

Dangerousman wrote:
fisticuffs wrote:But in WI it's not whether the threat was there or not in reality but whether you "felt" the threat. That's an insanely low bar when we are talking life and death.


Not surprisingly you got it wrong again. Try reading the law and get back to us.


The guy in Spooner was under no real threat, shot and killed a 20 y.o. and walked.

Here's your bill.
In general, a person who uses force in self-defense or in the defense of another
person may not be convicted of a crime stemming from that use of force. This law
applies only when: 1) the amount of force used is reasonable; and 2) the person uses
that force to prevent or stop what he or she reasonably believes is an unlawful
interference with himself or herself or another person, such as the crime of battery.
Current law specifies that a person may use force that is intended or likely to cause
the death of or great bodily harm to another individual only if the person reasonably
believes that using such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or great
bodily harm to himself or herself or another person.


You don't have to be threatened. You just need to "believe" there is a threat.

Not only that, you don't even have to explain that you thought there was a threat. By the sheer fact that you fired the court has to presume you thought there was a threat. It's asinine. This lady firing at the car in her driveway would be presumed to be using self defense simply because she fired shots. The court would have to prove otherwise. It's a ridiculously low bar for murder if you ask me. We will have to see how the story I posted plays out in court. Charged is not convicted.
Last edited by fisticuffs on Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:46 am

Yeah. I'll second it -- we've got simultaneous posts here so I won't repeat the whole story. What about the guy in Spooner who was never charged? He shot a kid who was going into the Marines in a few days. That's way too low of a bar, way too liberal a definition of the need for self-defense. If people used that definition during the fireworks show at Warner Park, we'd have dead people after every Fourth.

The definition "if I shot, it was because I felt threatened" is not only asinine and way too low, but just plain circular. The bar is set at zero, in other words. There's no need to prove anything at all. You just make the statement and there you are.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11825
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:12 am

Yep, as long as you pick your vic... err, "attacker" carefully, you'll be all right.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3192
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:50 am

fisticuffs wrote:You don't have to be threatened. You just need to "believe" there is a threat.

So, if I was at Culvers, and three dudes come in openly carrying guns, and I feel threatened......

then I would be justified in force-feeding them butter-burgers until they croak from a heart attack?
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:52 am

DCB wrote:
fisticuffs wrote:You don't have to be threatened. You just need to "believe" there is a threat.

So, if I was at Culvers, and three dudes come in openly carrying guns, and I feel threatened......

then I would be justified in force-feeding them butter-burgers until they croak from a heart attack?


In Florida, yes. In WI I believe you have to be on your own property. Also I'm not sure you can force feed them to death. I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to shoot them.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:01 am

However, if you try to force one of them to eat a butter-burger, he gets to shoot you.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11825
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Rich Schultz » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:10 am

snoqueen wrote:Of course not. But why not ask this woman? I bet she thought she was totally justified. And in East Tennessee, I wouldn't be surprised if you could find people who'd agree with her.

And that's the trouble -- the culture.


snoqueen wrote:Most smart people, when told to hand over their wallet, just hand it over.


I see what you mean.
Rich Schultz
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar