To the point, this man shot a hole in his wall, in his own home, because his daughters bf was beating her, punched a hole in his wall, and then did not leave when the man confronted him with a gun. He then gets reported to the police by this kid and is no in jail for 20 years. Jail is fro criminals, not a man justifiably guarding his property and family. Our justice system is an absolute joke sometimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/9/second-amendment-injustice/

Did he have a shitty lawyer?

"Warning shots" and "shooting to disable" are never a good idea. The problem is, it creates reasonable doubt.

You can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable fear for a life (yours or another's). Simply pulling the trigger is considered "use of deadly force." So, if you purposely aim and discharge the firearm with intent to simply scare or disable, the prosecutors will argue that you were not truly afraid (at least not to the point of fearing for a life). Thus, the use of force was not justified.

If the threat is such that you fear for a life, shoot to kill. If you have no such fear, don't pull the trigger.

Altor;894947 wrote:"Warning shots" and "shooting to disable" are never a good idea. The problem is, it creates reasonable doubt.

You can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable fear for a life (yours or another's). Simply pulling the trigger is considered "use of deadly force." So, if you purposely aim and discharge the firearm with intent to simply scare or disable, the prosecutors will argue that you were not truly afraid (at least not to the point of fearing for a life). Thus, the use of force was not justified.

If the threat is such that you fear for a life, shoot to kill. If you have no such fear, don't pull the trigger.

Excellent point. If he would have put a round between the eyes he likely would be sitting in his recliner enjoying a cold one right now. Not allowing judicial discretion is a crock though.

Altor;894947 wrote:"Warning shots" and "shooting to disable" are never a good idea. The problem is, it creates reasonable doubt.

You can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable fear for a life (yours or another's). Simply pulling the trigger is considered "use of deadly force." So, if you purposely aim and discharge the firearm with intent to simply scare or disable, the prosecutors will argue that you were not truly afraid (at least not to the point of fearing for a life). Thus, the use of force was not justified.

If the threat is such that you fear for a life, shoot to kill. If you have no such fear, don't pull the trigger.

Sure but that's not the point of the article. The point is that even taking that into account and accepting that the prosecutor can prove that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon based on that standard, a reasonable magistrate evaluating the facts of the case could nevertheless have crafted a less punitive sentence were he not bound by the rules passed by disinterested legislators who want to show they're "tough on crime."

BoatShoes;894997 wrote:Sure but that's not the point of the article. The point is that even taking that into account and accepting that the prosecutor can prove that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon based on that standard, a reasonable magistrate evaluating the facts of the case could nevertheless have crafted a less punitive sentence were he not bound by the rules passed by disinterested legislators who want to show they're "tough on crime."

I took that as the point Altor was making. Because of the ridiculous politically based legislation tying the hands of an impartial judge the dude would have been better off putting a round between his eyes.

majorspark;895012 wrote:I took that as the point Altor was making. Because of the ridiculous politically based legislation tying the hands of an impartial judge the dude would have been better off putting a round between his eyes.

Ahh, touche' I should have read his post again.

"Progressives" advocating peeing on Republicans now - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/speaker-at-progressive-rally-suggests-urinating-on-republicans-as-an-alternative-to-pouring-beer-on-them/

Yo...Obama...what's your take on this? Is pouring beer and peeing on the enemy "coming together to solve problems"? Is this the kind of speech that inspires Americans you spoke so highly of in Arizona?