+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Stand Your Ground Law (/Thread-Stand-Your-Ground-Law)
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 10:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If we're working with the premise that people acting insane in public are likely to be armed, then shouldn't I have a reasonable fear that they are just as likely to attack the mother and child?
I feel like most men will put the safety of their partner and children before their own.
But she was in a handicapped spot so let's use more charged language to describe her than the murderer with the history of endangering children and threatening people whenever he gets upset with their safe driving.
Likely to be armed, or could be armed? 2 different things.
Are you maintaining that a physical assault is an equal and appropriate response to a verbal assault? And that the victim had no other options, did not escalate the situation and was totally blameless like GMdino is saying?
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Nately120 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 11:22 AM)Beaker Wrote: Likely to be armed, or could be armed? 2 different things.
Are you maintaining that a physical assault is an equal and appropriate response to a verbal assault? And that the victim had no other options, did not escalate the situation and was totally blameless like GMdino is saying?
Hell if I know. I will say that I tend not to go around screaming at women and children because I assumed doing that would lead to me getting a fist in the face; something that would be cheered by the general populace. That's the thing that gets me...have things changed? Regardless of what the woman and kids are doing or if I'm in the "right" for screaming at them, I always kept to myself because getting beat down by a heroic husband/boyfriend seemed to be what I'd deserve in the eyes of society.
Now if I scream at a woman and kids I can expect a man to stand there and watch because I might be armed? Ehh, maybe. Right or wrong, there have been times in my life where people initiated contact and put their hands on me, so I guess in hindsight I could have blown them all away. The things we learn.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - BmorePat87 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 11:22 AM)Beaker Wrote: Likely to be armed, or could be armed? 2 different things.
Are you maintaining that a physical assault is an equal and appropriate response to a verbal assault? And that the victim had no other options, did not escalate the situation and was totally blameless like GMdino is saying?
Likely or could, whatever premise you're suggesting we need to work with doesn't change what I am saying about the man being fearful of the family's safety. I'm not suggesting they're innocent when they shove someone or can't be cited for assault, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to fear for the safety of your wife/girlfriend and child when you see that situation happen.
I also do not think shooting someone for shoving you after you verbally assaulted their family is a reasonable response.
I also think reserving the harshest language for the woman in this scenario is disgusting.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Vlad - 08-09-2018
(07-25-2018, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Victim blaming. "Totally the shooters fault! But..." Always the "but".
Then why even have a discussion?
You are implying absolute victim blaming., or at least of contradicting himself.
Whether right or wrong, justified or unjustified, there are these things called "circumstances" which leads up to a tragic event. Try not to let the mention of circumstances offend you for they do not imply blame being placed solely on the victim.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I also do not think shooting someone for shoving you after you verbally assaulted their family is a reasonable response.
That has already been established.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - GMDino - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Likely or could, whatever premise you're suggesting we need to work with doesn't change what I am saying about the man being fearful of the family's safety. I'm not suggesting they're innocent when they shove someone or can't be cited for assault, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to fear for the safety of your wife/girlfriend and child when you see that situation happen.
I also do not think shooting someone for shoving you after you verbally assaulted their family is a reasonable response.
I also think reserving the harshest language for the woman in this scenario is disgusting.
See the victim was not "blameless" because he was defending himself/his gf when he should have walked away and not escalated the situation...but the shooter is "blameless" because he was defending himself.
Makes total sense.
In Florida.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hell if I know. I will say that I tend not to go around screaming at women and children because I assumed doing that would lead to me getting a fist in the face; something that would be cheered by the general populace. That's the thing that gets me...have things changed? Regardless of what the woman and kids are doing or if I'm in the "right" for screaming at them, I always kept to myself because getting beat down by a heroic husband/boyfriend seemed to be what I'd deserve in the eyes of society.
Now if I scream at a woman and kids I can expect a man to stand there and watch because I might be armed? Ehh, maybe. Right or wrong, there have been times in my life where people initiated contact and put their hands on me, so I guess in hindsight I could have blown them all away. The things we learn.
So was the guy who got shot totally blameless?
And was running out and shoving a guy to the ground the smart first move?
To me, calling the guy who got shot a blameless victim perpetuates the idea that emotional and physical responses are a perfectly fine way to respond. Society is turning into the Jerry Springer show. People need to start THINKING before they act.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Nately120 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:54 PM)Beaker Wrote: So was the guy who got shot totally blameless?
And was running out and shoving a guy to the ground the smart first move?
To me, calling the guy who got shot a blameless victim perpetuates the idea that emotional and physical responses are a perfectly fine way to respond. Society is turning into the Jerry Springer show. People need to start THINKING before they act.
Was he blameless? Well, I'd say no, but that's just me. I think our society expects men to defend the women and children, and I wouldn't go around bragging that I was a great guy because I watched some guy yell and my wife and kids while I stood there and did nothing. Yep, I'm smart because he might have shot me if I punched him.
That is what is interesting to me. Before this event if I screamed at some woman and her kids and her husband or boyfriend or brother or some other male ran out and cold cocked me I would have thought "Geez, I shouldn't have opened my mouth" but now I guess I can say "Gee, I'd better shoot him!" It goes again what I assumed society asked of men, but I guess we have evolved, or some such.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: See the victim was not "blameless" because he was defending himself/his gf when he should have walked away and not escalated the situation...but the shooter is "blameless" because he was defending himself.
Makes total sense.
In Florida.
1. Nobody said he should have walked away.
2. Nobody said the shooter was blameless.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Was he blameless? Well, I'd say no, but that's just me.
That's me as well.
How about defending your wife's honor by coming outside and assessing the situation, figuring out what may diffuse the situation, and if none of that works, then punching the guy in the mouth?
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Vlad - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 12:54 PM)Beaker Wrote: So was the guy who got shot totally blameless?
And was running out and shoving a guy to the ground the smart first move?
To me, calling the guy who got shot a blameless victim perpetuates the idea that emotional and physical responses are a perfectly fine way to respond. Society is turning into the Jerry Springer show. People need to start THINKING before they act.
Exactly.
And what if the guy being shoved to the ground never retaliated? Who then is the victim?
Of course the guy being assaulted and shoved to the ground.
So aren't there 2 victims?
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - GMDino - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:00 PM)Beaker Wrote: 1. Nobody said he should have walked away.
2. Nobody said the shooter was blameless.
(08-09-2018, 01:03 PM)Beaker Wrote: That's me as well.
How about defending your wife's honor by coming outside and assessing the situation, figuring out what may diffuse the situation, and if none of that works, then punching the guy in the mouth?
Of course then he punches the guy in the mouth and gets shot....and we can go right back to saying he isn't "blameless"! Brilliant!
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Nately120 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:06 PM)Vlad Wrote: Exactly.
And what if the guy being shoved to the ground never retaliated? Who then is the victim?
Of course the guy being assaulted and shoved to the ground.
So aren't there 2 victims?
Ehh, where I come from if you are yelling at a man's wife and kids and he pushes you to the ground you don't run to play the victim card. Seriuosly, is this the card the right-wing is playing? I was yelling at a woman and kids and a man pushed me. Waaahhh, I'm a victim. That sounds like some real p*ssification talk, to me.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - bfine32 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:00 PM)Beaker Wrote: 1. Nobody said he should have walked away.
2. Nobody said the shooter was blameless.
In threads such as these what folks actually say has very little bearing. Folks have chosen a side and will do whatever is required to support their stance to include making false assumptions.
Give it a few days; there will be another incident where someone escalated a verbal altercation to a physical one and those saying it is justified this go around will assert it was not justified that time and those saying it is not justified in this scenario will say it is.
For instance if when timbledick was push, he hit his head on the curb, was found to be unarmed, and died; would anyone's opinion change? (Don't answer, just ask yourself)
IMO, the father was justified in pushing thimbledick. Now we have 2 questions:
Could the father and/or mother have done something different and everyone would be alive today?
Was thimbledick fearing for his personal safety after he was pushed to the ground?
One's a moral question and one's a legal question.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Nately120 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:03 PM)Beaker Wrote: That's me as well.
How about defending your wife's honor by coming outside and assessing the situation, figuring out what may diffuse the situation, and if none of that works, then punching the guy in the mouth?
Step 1 - try to diffuse situation
Step 2 - punch guy in mouth
Step 3- attempt to hold innards in as you await an ambulance
Honestly, I don't even try to diffuse situations. Attempting to argue your side may be seen as hostile enough to get the guy with the gun scurred enough to defend his life.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote:
Of course then he punches the guy in the mouth and gets shot....and we can go right back to saying he isn't "blameless"! Brilliant!
Is he blameless?
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Beaker - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Step 1 - try to diffuse situation
Step 2 - punch guy in mouth
Step 3- attempt to hold innards in as you await an ambulance
Honestly, I don't even try to diffuse situations. Attempting to argue your side may be seen as hostile enough to get the guy with the gun scurred enough to defend his life.
At least you realize there is responsibility on both sides.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Bengalzona - 08-09-2018
The whole problem here stems from the fact that the guy who was shot did not bring his own gun and shoot the guy with the gun who was assailing his wife first. Clearly, that would have made him the 'good guy' in the situation as he would have been "standing his ground".
But because he was not proactive in bringing his own firearm and did not accurately assess that bringing a fist to gun fight was insufficient, he is clearly the bad guy.
That's the law.
Just remember: you cannot stand your ground with a fist.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - Nately120 - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Beaker Wrote: At least you realize there is responsibility on both sides.
The issue is that there is a societal responsibility for a man to defend women and children from other men. Again, I don't care because I've always been the type to avoid altercations. But again, if I'm starting stuff with a woman and/or kids and some guy who is related to them pushes me, I'm not going to cry "victim" or reach for a firearm and declare this an obvious fight to the death, either.
But like I half joked, if someone is causing a ruckus I can just do nothing now and I'll be in the clear because he might be an armed maniac. All my life I've been a coward, but now it's clear sailing.
RE: Stand Your Ground Law - fredtoast - 08-09-2018
(08-09-2018, 01:34 PM)Beaker Wrote: Is he blameless?
Yes. He is 100% blameless. The man was acting aggressively toward his woman so he was 100% justified in pushing the guy way.
If the gyuy had not been close enough to the woman to pose a threat then he might have done something else, but in this case he was 100% justified and 1005 blameless.
What percentage of blame do you asses to the guy who pushed the aggressive man away from his girlfriend? What did he do wrong to justify being blamed for this shooting?