|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 31, 2010 23:26:34 GMT
Given the idiot murdered someone and wandred around with a gun in his pocket he's not my idea of law abiding. No wonder america is screwed, with that sort of thinking. No kidding June........if people think they have to protect their frickin' lawn from a fox terrier peeing on it with a gun.......we are screwed!!! june's problem is that she labors under the delusion that mr clements would have been wrong had the boy been stealing something from him and he shot him. ludicrous
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Dec 31, 2010 23:56:24 GMT
The problem is that he was guarding his friggin' lawn with a gun........if it hadn't been this man......it would have just been another........this was just going to happen no matter what..........and if he thinks shooting someone for punching him in the face is a reasonable response......I doubt it will be the last..........
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 1, 2011 1:07:28 GMT
Or civilised, let's try elevate the USA out of the wild west for 2011! ;D No kidding June........if people think they have to protect their frickin' lawn from a fox terrier peeing on it with a gun.......we are screwed!!! june's problem is that she labors under the delusion that mr clements would have been wrong had the boy been stealing something from him and he shot him. ludicrous
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 1, 2011 1:08:42 GMT
Are you high? But God did not write your constitution - and therefore your original staement is bunkum - God does not give you the right to bear arms. Which is just what I said. no. since bearing arms is an inherent part of the right to life, and god gave me the right to life, the right to have a gun is included, just like the right to breathe
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2011 15:16:46 GMT
june's problem is that she labors under the delusion that mr clements would have been wrong had the boy been stealing something from him and he shot him. ludicrous I'm at a loss to see why protecting property from theft can justify a shooting and protecting it from (wilful) damage does not. What worries me most about this case is that had there been no witnesses, Clements might well have got away with a plea f self defence. He'd been hit, and might well have been given the benefit of the doubt. I wonder how many times that happens?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 1, 2011 17:22:43 GMT
There have been other cases of probation for murder or voluntary manslaughter.
A teenager beats an alledged pedophile abuser to death.
A woman kills an alledged abusive boyfriend.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 1, 2011 23:30:32 GMT
The problem is that he was guarding his friggin' lawn with a gun........if it hadn't been this man......it would have just been another........this was just going to happen no matter what..........and if he thinks shooting someone for punching him in the face is a reasonable response......I doubt it will be the last.......... the problem is that the dog was not doing any damage to the lawn. it merely pissed on it, and had it went the other way, the chap should have been thankful for the free fertilizer. as long as the lawn wasn't being damaged, he really didn't have a bitch coming from the gate. he did instigate the confrontation. however, the boy should have just flipped him off and kept walking. instead, he exacerbated the situation by arguing, then escalated it further by punching him. nonetheless, it was not reasonable to shoot him AFTER he threw the punch, if he was not in the process of throwing another one. if he was actually assaulting clement, of course shooting him was a reasonable response
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 1, 2011 23:32:38 GMT
Are you high? no. since bearing arms is an inherent part of the right to life, and god gave me the right to life, the right to have a gun is included, just like the right to breathe hardly, it's been 2192 days since i had a beer. nope, not high, just able to acknowledge reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 1, 2011 23:37:42 GMT
june's problem is that she labors under the delusion that mr clements would have been wrong had the boy been stealing something from him and he shot him. ludicrous I'm at a loss to see why protecting property from theft can justify a shooting and protecting it from (wilful) damage does not. What worries me most about this case is that had there been no witnesses, Clements might well have got away with a plea f self defence. He'd been hit, and might well have been given the benefit of the doubt. I wonder how many times that happens? his property was not being damaged, but even if it were, the shooting would not have been justified, particularly in illinois. in texas, he would have had a case for trespassing, but, that is not the case here. in texas, he could shoot a punk spray painting his property at night, but this was in the daytime. in the real world, shooting is ALWAYS justified to prevent a piece of shyt from removing your property.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2011 6:37:04 GMT
<<in texas, he would have had a case for trespassing, but, that is not the case here. >>
So does that mean that if I visit my SIL in Texas and accidentally stray onto private land, the owner can shoot me?
I think I might wait for her to visit Britain, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 2, 2011 20:32:08 GMT
<<in texas, he would have had a case for trespassing, but, that is not the case here. >> So does that mean that if I visit my SIL in Texas and accidentally stray onto private land, the owner can shoot me? I think I might wait for her to visit Britain, thanks. no, that's is NOT what it means. we're talking about criminal trespass, not wandering onto someone's property inadvertently
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 2, 2011 20:39:32 GMT
<<in texas, he would have had a case for trespassing, but, that is not the case here. >> So does that mean that if I visit my SIL in Texas and accidentally stray onto private land, the owner can shoot me? I think I might wait for her to visit Britain, thanks. no, that's is NOT what it means. we're talking about criminal trespass, not wandering onto someone's property inadvertently Does the gun toting madman have the brain cells to make the distinction? ;D I think not - don't do it Skylark - they will shoot you down!
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Jan 2, 2011 21:13:03 GMT
I've read this argument with growing amazement. In English law, the act of self defence and retaliation has to be proportionate to the initial offence, and in this case it was clearly not. Pulling a handgun and shooting dead an unarmed person is NOT proportionate. It is insane to argue to the contrary. Does ANYONE want to live in a society where a man can pull a gun and shoot dead another unarmed man over such a trivial matter as an argument over a dog pissing on a lawn? Even IF punches were thrown!
And how a court can decide as this one did is really difficult to imagine. Whatever it was, it was NOT justice!
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 2, 2011 21:24:53 GMT
That's my feelings on this also Ben.......I think it was insanity!
1st of all.....some dog pooped on his yard.......so he was guarding it with a gun!!! (already insanity) 2nd.....this guy was just walking by when his dog peed........and this guy went off on him......and pulled a gun..........so the guy punched him......to me.....that guy felt threatened.......true he should have walked away himself............ 3rd.....no way is a punch equal to shooting and killing a guy.......and I think it is a load of crap to say his military training is an excuse for any of it..........he was a mental case running loose......and he still is.........
The citizens of that county need to take a hard look at that judge the next time they vote.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 9:09:12 GMT
I've read this argument with growing amazement. In English law, the act of self defence and retaliation has to be proportionate to the initial offence, and in this case it was clearly not. That is almost certainly the case in the US too, but self defence is a complete defence, and he would have walked away without a conviction. The guilty verdict means the family of the dead man will have no problems claiming compensation. That is probably what is meant when the article (see link in #7) quotes the dead man's mother as saying he has "lost everything". The strange verdict may reflect the fact that he will have to sell up, prize lawn an' all, and end up in a trailer park . Serves him right too.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 3, 2011 11:46:35 GMT
I've read this argument with growing amazement. In English law, the act of self defence and retaliation has to be proportionate to the initial offence, and in this case it was clearly not. Pulling a handgun and shooting dead an unarmed person is NOT proportionate. It is insane to argue to the contrary. Does ANYONE want to live in a society where a man can pull a gun and shoot dead another unarmed man over such a trivial matter as an argument over a dog pissing on a lawn? Even IF punches were thrown! And how a court can decide as this one did is really difficult to imagine. Whatever it was, it was NOT justice! you are quite correct, in this case. clements had no right to shoot the boy, as i have said more than once. the fact remains however, that, had the boy not punched him, it is not likely that he would have shot him the more apropos question is, who the hell would want to live in a society that put upstanding citizens such as tony martin in prison for performing a public service, yet releases the wanton torture murderers of an infant after just eight years? certainly not rational folks
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 3, 2011 11:51:48 GMT
I've read this argument with growing amazement. In English law, the act of self defence and retaliation has to be proportionate to the initial offence, and in this case it was clearly not. That is almost certainly the case in the US too, but self defence is a complete defence, and he would have walked away without a conviction. The guilty verdict means the family of the dead man will have no problems claiming compensation. That is probably what is meant when the article (see link in #7) quotes the dead man's mother as saying he has "lost everything". The strange verdict may reflect the fact that he will have to sell up, prize lawn an' all, and end up in a trailer park . Serves him right too. you are probably correct there. an unlawful death civil award would be quite likely, if they sue. he was convicted of second degree murder, which is a felony, which means that he can no longer own a gun either. had the jury believed his self defence claim, he would have been acquitted.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 3, 2011 16:43:47 GMT
True.....hopefully he won't be able to get his hands on a gun.......unfortunately he will probably just get someone else to get him one. Paranoid idiot will just find another thing he believes he has to guard.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2011 16:56:33 GMT
the more apropos question is, who the hell would want to live in a society that put upstanding citizens such as tony martin in prison for performing a public service, yet releases the wanton torture murderers of an infant after just eight years? certainly not rational folks Tony Martin didn't have a licence for his gun. He shot after the burglars when they were fleeing from his house empty handed. Do you still think he was an "upstanding citizen"?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 3, 2011 18:23:48 GMT
the more apropos question is, who the hell would want to live in a society that put upstanding citizens such as tony martin in prison for performing a public service, yet releases the wanton torture murderers of an infant after just eight years? certainly not rational folks Tony Martin didn't have a licence for his gun. He shot after the burglars when they were fleeing from his house empty handed. Do you still think he was an "upstanding citizen"? It's not quite that simplistic, Skylark., Tony Martin had been repeatedly targeted by burglars and he got a gun to protect himself. His place was broken into in the dark. I don't know how familiar you are with guns but I'm a reasonable shot and Mike (a country boy) is an excellent one. When you're seeing figures in the dark and you grab a gun and shoot you don't know what's going on. It's quite difficult to hit a moving target with a shotgun in the dark so the idea that it was cold-blooded murder is just silly. We have quite a few members here who do know how to use guns and will confirm what I said. Besides which, even Jack Straw has now said that the original conviction was unsafe and that householders DO have the right in law to use deadly force to protect their property.
|
|