IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Not wrong
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

...

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

I highlighted the relevant parts.

You can't claim self-defense if you initiated it UNLESS ... well, damn near anything that comes after the "unless" makes this law bullshit. You can start a fight, and if you're losing bad enough you can shoot the other guy.
--

Drew
New At this point in the post-trial necropsy..
does anyone care to estimate the odds of the 'Stand Your Ground' ""law"" being bumped to the USSC--soon?--a bit later??

(Whereby we may get to plumb the depths of where the Gang-of-Five really stand? on a variety of visceral issues/outrages
--and maybe many other aspects of this isolated | simultaneously sanctimonious and crass, quarrelsome quintet.)



Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

HAH!! . . . in. your. dreams.
New Do you really think they'd hear it?
I don't think so. The majority on this court doesn't understand that an injudicious placement of an ellipsis can obliterate meaning (as in "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Particularly when no heed is paid to stare decisis.

See, "Private Ownership of Firearms" is a new "right" this crowd of toddlers invented. And in so doing they said "States can regulate, but not deny [SIC] private firearm ownership rights." So, imnsho, this group of short-bus justices would decide that the "Stand Your Ground" law is a State matter.
New As they are 100.0% insulated from all inputs..
you are likely right--but there's always Chance--essentially all we can count on from this lot.
(When Sandra Day O'C retired, to take care of her very-ailing husband {laudatory, of course} ... and then he died very shortly thereafter:
I thought-out-loud: Let. no. good. deed. go. unPunished.)

We are the Punished. Until one or more of these suckers crashes his Mercedes.



Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
New staring meanly at us vs miller
doesn't do a thing for you. That would have been tossed on an appeal
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Miller doesn't hold anymore.
In our Brave New World, whether or not the firearm in question "has some reasonable relationship" to the regulation of a State militia is irrelevant. Hell, we may as well adopt the NRA's version of Amendment Two and start it off, as they do, with an ellipsis.
     I think that maybe Bugs was right... - (Another Scott) - (25)
         Re: I think that maybe Bugs was right... - (folkert)
         Maybe he could enlarge that alteration a tad, say 4 more? - (Ashton) - (23)
             Betty makes a similar point. - (Another Scott) - (22)
                 Hmmm... - (hnick) - (21)
                     Some situations are more equal than others.... - (Another Scott)
                     One significant difference - (drook) - (19)
                         I note Movements afoot.. - (Ashton) - (5)
                             like I said in the beginning, doesnt matter - (boxley) - (1)
                                 Yup. They didn't want to prosecute GZ at all... :-( -NT - (Another Scott)
                             The petition link(s). - (Another Scott)
                             MoveOn got DDOSed - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 don't they cheer when people they dont like get ddoss'd? -NT - (boxley)
                         Re: One significant difference - (pwhysall)
                         Wasn't a "stand your ground" defense. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                             Wow, that law *is* worse than I thought - (drook)
                             wrong, as noted in many places, brown was not discussed - (boxley) - (6)
                                 Not wrong - (drook) - (5)
                                     At this point in the post-trial necropsy.. - (Ashton) - (4)
                                         Do you really think they'd hear it? - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                             As they are 100.0% insulated from all inputs.. - (Ashton)
                                             staring meanly at us vs miller - (boxley) - (1)
                                                 Miller doesn't hold anymore. - (mmoffitt)
                         Re: One significant difference - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             Funny, but so very not-true - (drook) - (1)
                                 Thanks.. we can be sure that no Judge hands a printout - (Ashton)

dude...?
102 ms