Actually bring something to the table? It makes you a more welcomed guest.

This is uncalled for and patently false.

"Nothing he says ever makes a bit of sense.

He has swallowed a few too many manloads."

You can disagree with someone and not be disagreeable. There's a lesson there.

(01-16-2014 06:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Actually bring something to the table? It makes you a more welcomed guest.

This is uncalled for and patently false.

"Nothing he says ever makes a bit of sense.

He has swallowed a few too many manloads."

You can disagree with someone and not be disagreeable. There's a lesson there.

Don't play that victim card BS with me you hypocritical liar.

All I said was the issue was beyond you and then you got mad you went strait into your name calling routine. Now that I've hit back you want to cry like a little Bytch.

You are the twinkle toed little trolling c- bucket who has spent the last few months calling me "dungeon master" or whatever stupid insult you can dream up every time you see me posting.

Now that I start giving you a taste of your own jizz you suddenly you can't handle it and want others to feel sorry for you. If you can't take some pushback then you need to STFU and stop addressing me with insults so much

Or- Feel free to continue insulting me every time I post. I'm not insulted by it and never will be. It just tells me how under your thin little house boy skin I really am.

You are a coward, a liar and a troll.

Hey

Good morning to you too. Didn't mean to get under your skin. Life's too short to have that much pent up anger. Think through that response. Would someone that you describe spend their time posting on a message board that has a 90% conservative slant? Think things through there dungeon master.

Now back to the intent of the thread. Jugnaut you posted the law. It seems it describes the scenario to a tee. The guy is even saying the deceased threw a punch at him. If he didn't throw a punch I believe you are correct but if he did, would the 71 year old have been within the law to use deadly force?

(01-16-2014 08:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey

Good morning to you too. Didn't mean to get under your skin. Life's too short to have that much pent up anger. Think through that response. Would someone that you describe spend their time posting on a message board that has a 90% conservative slant? Think things through there dungeon master.

I see the spin doctor is *in* this morning.

We're done here. I said what needed to be said. All that's left is your PR spin and lies.

Everyone here knows your game, even your aliases.

Why do people like to troll?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(01-16-2014 08:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Now back to the intent of the thread. Jugnaut you posted the law. It seems it describes the scenario to a tee. The guy is even saying the deceased threw a punch at him. If he didn't throw a punch I believe you are correct but if he did, would the 71 year old have been within the law to use deadly force?

Check the boxes

Reasonable Belief - imminent death - yourself or others
Reasonable Belief - great bodily harm - yourself or others
During the commission of a forcible felony

Thrown popcorn - No
Missed punch - No
Bangign head on sidewalk- Yes


This for the 10,000th time.
You would make a terrible juror.

So if someone misses a punch you don't have the right to use deadly force. I don't interpret it that way.

(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"


So when someone misses a punch that doesn't mean the second and third punch would miss.


The reasonably believes part here is our gray area.

(01-16-2014 09:01 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So if someone misses a punch you don't have the right to use deadly force. I don't interpret it that way.

So you are interpreting a missed punch as right to use deadly force? And it might depending on circumstances, especially if it is like a knockout game blow. IMO. But not the case here.

The right to self protection is god given.

By Mach's admission, bullies across the nation should be getting shot left and right.

Or the bully might instigate and then a person retaliates and ends up dead with no other witness besides the perp. It is what it is. Some definite areas of concern if you ask me.

But that's not the case here so why even bring it up.

Call it what it is.. Grouchy old man had an itchy trigger finger.

(01-16-2014 11:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Or the bully might instigate and then a person retaliates and ends up dead with no other witness besides the perp. It is what it is. Some definite areas of concern if you ask me.

You've made it pretty clear you want to be able to beat people up without repercussions.

"If I'm laying the smack down on someone, I don't want to have to worry about getting shot by some yahoo with a concealed weapon." Mach