AlpineK Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Hmm. Even when you have the gun if somebody charges you it's pretty likely that you may be scared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Hmm. Even when you have the gun if somebody charges you it's pretty likely that you may be scared. Â Right, and you would think you would STOP charging if someone is pointing a gun at you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Well I would stop if my opponent had a gun and I didn't, but there are a lot of crazy people out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 You know, the ignore user option is lovely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Well I would stop if my opponent had a gun and I didn't, but there are a lot of crazy people out there. Â Arch being one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 You know, the ignore user option is lovely. Â Hi my name is archenemy.....I love to spray and sling shit to everyone....my only problem is I love to dish it out, but I cant take it. Im too sensitive. How do I overcome this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I'm not going to try and diagnose your issues with Arch. I have met her in real life and she is pretty cool. Â I have ignored users in the past, but in general I don't do that, possibly because I'm a moderator and I have to keep up on what all you freaks are doing (in case I have to ban you ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Good thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 I'm not going to try and diagnose your issues with Arch.  I don’t have issues with Arch…..just having some fun. Hell…I don’t have issues with anyone on this site. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 DeC's story is a perfect illustration of when it is fully justified to shoot and kill someone. Even if the past violence was not known, it is clear that Paul was a threat to both the father and the son. When someone runs at you after you have fired a warning shot (to get them to stop pummeling your family member), you pretty much got to defend yourself by whatever means you have. DeC's story was quite clear-cut, mainly because there was a witness other than the shooter and the fact that someone was actually being beaten. Â So why is it that judges sometimes allow testimony regarding the character of a victim in some cases and not in others? I think that juries should be given ALL available information with which to base their decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 There was a case here, locally, about fifteen years ago, similar in some respects to this case, in which a family member of mine sat on the jury. The shooting took place on top of a mesa where three different ranchers' properties adjoined and where a kind of communal corral was maintained for all to use. This location was also, where the prairie road ended - the ranchers would herd their cattle to this corral where they'd be loaded for transport.   Shootout at the Not OK Corral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 There was a case here, locally, about fifteen years ago, similar in some respects to this case, in which a family member of mine sat on the jury. The shooting took place on top of a mesa where three different ranchers' properties adjoined and where a kind of communal corral was maintained for all to use. This location was also, where the prairie road ended - the ranchers would herd their cattle to this corral where they'd be loaded for transport.   Shootout at the Not OK Corral. It's a good story. It would make a good TV movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high_on_rock Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 The reason the evidence would be let in in the second story is because the shooter knew the past of the shootee. In Cat's story the shooter did not know of the history, so it was irrelevant in his decision as to whether to shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 It was irrelevant in the decision making of the shooter, but it is not irrelevant in deciding what the victim's actions were or what his motives were. Â There was only the shooter's account of what happened. As a juror, I would want to know what the person was like. If you could not find a single person who had ever seen him lose his temper explosively as he was said to do, then I'd be more inclined to believe he did not provoke the shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 The reason the evidence would be let in in the second story is because the shooter knew the past of the shootee. In Cat's story the shooter did not know of the history, so it was irrelevant in his decision as to whether to shoot. Â it seems to me that the history of the shootee should be inadmissable regardless of past relationships with the shooter, since there is no way to know if that history was relevant to the case at hand. Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 Let the F'ing jury decide what is relevant and what is not. It's why we have juries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Let the F'ing jury decide what is relevant and what is not. It's why we have juries. Â Â I'm not trained as a lawyer, but I think the judge makes decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, and for good reason often times. Juries then make decisions based on the evidence heard (that's why we have juries!). Â btw, based on what i know about this case (which isn't a lot), i don't think he should have been convicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 (edited) Let the F'ing jury decide what is relevant and what is not. It's why we have juries. Â Â I'm not trained as a lawyer, but I think the judge makes decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, and for good reason often times. Juries then make decisions based on the evidence heard (that's why we have juries!). Â btw, based on what i know about this case (which isn't a lot), i don't think he should have been convicted. Â Exactly. Often juries' information is filtered by the judge in ways that defy common-sense. Edited March 20, 2007 by KaskadskyjKozak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 This is the new speculation thread for the month. How exciting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 STFU n00b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 This is the new speculation thread for the month. How exciting! It's raining outside, otherwise I'd be out climbing. Now get back to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 STFU n00b. Â You cant make me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 STFU n00b. Â You cant make me. Â STFU, KBoner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Better watch out…..I might have to defend myself with a gun.   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Better watch out…..I might have to defend myself with a gun.  your idiocy has no defense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.