Stand Your Ground law

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I really don't care about any of this, except the firebrands who are making things worse (I'm looking at you, entire federal level). But my minor quibble is that killing someone is not a crime or a charge. It is part of certain crimes, but not always one. I'm going to decline further information just to see who makes more assumptions about me (that I may later decide to show to be wrong).

[bhu]

For killing someone to not be a crime you generally have to prove ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion.  The first two are easy, but jeopardy is kind of subjective, and preclusion can be a real pain to prove in court.  If you can avoid having to go through that process it's in one's best interests to do so.

[RobbyPants]

I'm going to decline further information just to see who makes more assumptions about me (that I may later decide to show to be wrong).

Let me get this straight: the goal of your post is to only post part of your stance in hoping that you can bait people into strawmanning your (unstated) position, and that you may or may not then set the record straight?

You couldn't have just typed all of your position out and then hit submit after the fact? I guess at least you're being honest that you're sitting on a trap card.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm going to decline further information just to see who makes more assumptions about me (that I may later decide to show to be wrong).

Let me get this straight: the goal of your post is to only post part of your stance in hoping that you can bait people into strawmanning your (unstated) position, and that you may or may not then set the record straight?

You couldn't have just typed all of your position out and then hit submit after the fact? I guess at least you're being honest that you're sitting on a trap card.

He's pretty delusional about how much of a damn we give about his opinions, though.  "Oh, you want to know my full views?  Post and find out!"  Yeah...pass.  Wish I had that option for everyone. 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I confess I haven't been reading any of the previous five pages. See below for why that's relevant.

I'm going to decline further information just to see who makes more assumptions about me (that I may later decide to show to be wrong).

Let me get this straight: the goal of your post is to only post part of your stance in hoping that you can bait people into strawmanning your (unstated) position, and that you may or may not then set the record straight?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! It depends which way's funnier for what I'll do.

You couldn't have just typed all of your position out and then hit submit after the fact? I guess at least you're being honest that you're sitting on a trap card.

Of course I'm honest. I always will be. And yes I could have. But trolls abound. And the only way to best a troll is to troll them -- followed by returning to your normal, non-troll self after the smack-down post comes.

He's pretty delusional about how much of a damn we give about his opinions, though.

SotS, I expected better ... Wait a tic. 'We' who? Who's in and out of this we category? Should I have been keeping tabs on what kind of answer I expect for this? Because I forgot to do that. Delusional enough sounding for you? Touche my good sir. That is some high quality nonsense right there. You got me. I bow to your trolling powers.

Edit: I see you've taken a stance (though I didn't read thoroughly to tell exactly what). I'm sorry I didn't take one so you could hop in for or against whatever I say. But, but but but I thought you didn't care about my opinion. Rofl

[veekie]

Cut out the non-constructive, uninformative baiting. It has nothing to do at all with the legal and moral issues at play that are the topic of the thread.