The Aftermath: Friendly Fire Isn’t

Legal & Second Amendment
61

Putting them in jail? Yes.

If, the law, establishes penalties for crimes, those penalties should be followed, with some flexibility due to each case’s specific information.
If we seek the death penalty for all crimes including speeding infractions, we tend to be worse than the USSR, or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killing field.

Oh, and I am in no way in or even near any Ivory Tower.

I prefer the rule of law. I may want more severe punishment for some crimes, and perhaps less severe for others…

I support the Death Penalty in principle, but not in real world usage. Far too many innocent people have been executed… and far too many innocent have been held in prison for decades, only to be found innocent and released.

We have laws, punishments, and regardless of personal emotional reactions, we should follow those. Emotional reactions are one reason we have laws and consequences. So that those in the throes of emotional distress do not run out and throw a rope over a tree branch and hang whoever they happen to find, and accuse.

62

What is ‘rightfully’ theirs?

A totally different issue. You are now attempting to switch and divert, from crime and punishment, law and order, to tyranny and despotism, an unconstitutional action (which has happened in the past and may again), and under that, there is an oath many have taken, to defend the Constitution.

So, I will not distort the topic, by following a new scenario.

If you violate the law, regardless of rape or assault, do you think torture and brutality, beatings by the family members are a good thing?

63

Welcome to our community, @Benjamin48!
Yeah, I’m not a lawyer either. My understanding is you are not allowed to shoot an attacker that is retreating and not aiming a gun at you. You’re not really supposed to chase them at all, although local laws undoubtedly vary widely on that. However, he owned the strip and you are absolutely allowed to notify your neighbors, and after being robbed, he’d be a fool to go out unarmed. Bg was still around, raised his weapon, and then was explaining to St. Peter how to spell his name. The ‘bg raised his weapon’ part combined with the ‘land owner warning his neighbors/renters’ part pretty much ties it up leaving the DA with no real case.

1 Like
64

I just believe that an eye for an eye is correct. How can you say you are for the death penalty yet “not in the real world” that makes no sense. I grew up in a very political surrounding. My sister and I ran around the governor’s office like it was a playground. For 2 terms. Then my mom was off to house of reps. I personally saw politicians get away with so much illegal stuff it was sickening. Yet I saw my friends jailed for same crimes. As for the laws of this country, I think people have lost all hope of those. Consider people like Pelosi and Schiff who do TOTALLY as they wish with zero consequence. Good for some NOT all. Yeah ok!

65

Yes understood. Not the spin I’m looking for. Beer guy has firearm in hand. Bad guy sees beer guy with weapon. Raises weapon. Gets his due. So can a bad da file on beer guy. My guess is not much of a case just for this issue

1 Like
66

Let me state I 100% support our troops and God knows our police. But almost anyone above them? Nope. It’s a shame.

67

Yes, the DA could have charged him. Whether the beer guy would prevail is a question for the jury at that point.

2 Likes
68

Depending on the law of the state, BG may or may not be breaking the law. In Kentucky, unless you are displaying the weapon in a threatening manner, it is not a crime.

3 Likes
69

Nothing is guaranteed in life. You neither shoot to kill nor shoot to lame. You shoot to neutralize the threat and stop when there is no longer a threat.

4 Likes
70

I understand the feelings for an eye for an eye, but the Code of Hammurabi would be considered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment.

3 Likes
71

MikeBKYUSCCA Attorney Network Attorney

9h

That goes directly against the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves the rights not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If any government is going to act with respect to firearms, it should be limited to the states.

MY REPLY… sorry, had to copy paste, was not able to get it to quote…
I totally agree with both your points. I guess my point (it was LATE) when I replied last night, is that even if States interject their concerns, ANY law or statute they consider still must pass muster with the dictates of the Constitution, which clearly and in no uncertain terms guarantees us our firearms rights. It is a contract between the people and government that the government is put on notice of specific unalienable rights and it is the duty of the government, fed or state to protect these rights. That is their entire purpose.

If States and Feds followed the court cases on this it seems to me the laws would be relatively standard across the nation. I have posted elsewhere court cases that support this, be very curious to hear your explanation of how we have been losing these rights by the death of a thousand cuts. Not trying to be confrontive, just curious a Lawyers opinion. It frustrates me to no end. Just a few cases:

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws….” ~ John Adams

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” [Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174,176 (1803)]

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” [Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.” [sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

“Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise: Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” [Watson vs. City of Memphis, 373 US 526, 535 (1963)]

“The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” [Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516 (1884)]

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” [16 Am. Jur. 2d, Section 177; later 2d, Section 256]

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

3 Likes
72

Thanks

73

Good point. I guess a lot more people are just frustrated with how things are handled now. At least 90% of the ones having this conversation. I know I am. I just feel a change would be good.

74

The store owner had no right to pursue the robber. He should have called the police. I find it hard to believe he wasn’t charged. The question I would have is did he have the right to defend the pizza store clerk?

75

You have evidence that he did not? Even if he did not, he was known to care about his renters, and I would, too. I would also likely have seen that my friends were safe, as he did. There is nothing to implicate that he “went after” the robber. Even the story stated the robber pointed his firearm at the store owner - clear self-defense, proven by the DA not prosecuting him. Please post your evidence to the contrary.

1 Like
76

Maybe he did call the police. However being that all the DEFUND the police bullcrap was in play and mayors of these blue states said. STAND DOWN. The police probably decided to finish their diner or cup of coffee to respond. THANK YOU DEMOCRATS . But in most cases now. In a few short hrs when the criminal is released. I hope he doesn’t hurt someone else. Cuz it might just be coffee break again. And I really hope it’s not a Democrat. NOT!!!

1 Like
77

Simple. I support the death penalty, in principle, but not in the real world… meaning, how it is used, the way the courts and people are. People can be corrupt, especially some prosecutors and judges, and even law enforcement. Some prosecutors want a victory in court, no matter what, perhaps to pad their win column for elections, perhaps for future political aspirations, and some judges are as bad, especially those that are elected.

The principle of the death penalty, as punishment, not a deterrent as it seems to not really deter anything, is justified depending on the crime, but how it is applied, the way it is administered, is not always just or proper.
As I said in the previous post, innocent people have been sentenced to death and executed. In part due to errors, or a rush to judgement, and use of far too much circumstantial evidence, and in some cases due to corruption… when a prosecutor fails… or REFUSES to present or turn over exculpatory evidence, they may send an innocent man to prison (and that is bad taking someone’s freedom for years… but you can release them…) or to death row… and if they are executed while innocent, the state just committed murder and the prosecutors rarely ever see any consequences.

Yes, politicians are in many cases corrupt, but it is not just politicians. They should face consequences for their actions as all should.
I think you may have veered off the path again. I never said people should not face consequences, I stated there should not be torture and brutality and beatings, to assuage the hurt of those who are victims or families of victims.
Justice is justice, and that means by the rule of law. Punishment that fits the crime, and as prescribed by law. Prison for 10 years is justice if that is what the punishment is determined to be.

Personal physical beatings of those convicted of a crime is not justice, nor just, though it might ‘feel’ good at the time. Punishment by the law, based on the rule of law. If you want more severe punishment, seek to have that incorporated into the law.

As far as Pelosi and Schiff are concerned, I think treason would be a fitting charge for them.

78

Welcome to the community.

Yes, he had the right to check on his neighbors. He had the right to defend his neighbor, and the law in the state even provides for the defense of others.

Did he call the police? Perhaps, I do not know, do you know he did not? If you had a robbery, and the criminal is leaving, or going to threaten a neighbor, do you hide or seek to be a witness and see which way he went or if he got into a car, and if he goes to another store, he might threaten that store clerk… once he raised his gun, he was a threat.

1 Like
79

And

When an act injurious to freedom has once been done and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submission ~ Samuel Adams

1 Like
80

Full Disclosure: 1) I am not a lawyer but I have studied Criminal Law. 2) Self Defense law varies from State to State.
First, while pursuit of an armed assailant is not advisable, it is not criminal.
2) Self Defense, in many jurisdictions, can be broadly defined as defense of yourself, or another, at risk of death or severe bodily harm.
3) The shooter’s actions can easily fall into the category of defense of another.
4) Yes, the subsequent injury to the pizza store owner could be prosecutable under Civil Law, but not Criminal Law. However, depending on the jurisdiction, the beer store owners actions could easily be defended under the Good Samaritan argument.

1 Like