Not "disingenous" at all.
Quote from the link: "In U.S. law, killing in self-defense is not a crime; however for most women, neither the laws of self-defense nor evidence of battering work for women in actual trials. Hence 75-80% of women who killed in self-defense are convicted or convinced to plead guilty, and are sentenced to long terms."
gets off stabbing people in the back.
Thank you
Also groundhogs can get him off too, then he kills them by stabbing them in the back
in Leon’s post (I hope), the very post he was “hyperbolizing.” But I’ll give him a pass on the theory that there is no such thing as bad criticism of the NRA.
And that’s no hyperbole
...The problem is not recognizing hyperbole; your problem is that you don't recognize BSC.
Even with your limited knowledge of the law, you should know that you don't execute anyone without a trial and proof (that's what ISIS does). But a man with a gun can decide who lives and who dies. Leon sure sounds like he can be trusted with a gun, doesn't he?
Really Papa, so lets just support child trafficking and the enslavement of kids for sex. Good idea. They're just 'misunderstood' right? I can tell you right now I wouldnt shoot anyone unless I knew they were doing something wrong. Trafficking kids is wrong, period but apparently thats ok by your standards. Lets give them a fair trial so they can possibly walk on a technicality and continue selling kids to pedophiles for sex. No, take them out back and shoot them. ISIS is another group that needs to be wiped clean. What they do is evil. Beheading children and women. But hey fair trial for them too right? Hell no! Death. There are some things that as a human being you cannot condone. Trafficking kids, killing kids, women, selling young girls for sex are some of those things. And if you want to give those monsters a fair shot, then you sir are a fool and I pity you.
Even with your limited knowledge of the law, you should know that you don't execute anyone without a trial and proof (that's what ISIS does). But a man with a gun can decide who lives and who dies. Leon sure sounds like he can be trusted with a gun, doesn't he?
.. he just gloated over the possiblity....
...the jokes in a sitcom. Likewise, righties obviously need a smiley face to be able to tell when a post is tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken seriously. Lack of a sense of humor must be a genetic defect in righties. They are the most uptight, anal-retentive stick-up-their-asses people I've ever met. That's why they're called "conservatives."
You're one guy from whom I expected much better, John.
And no emoticon so you know I must be serious.
You make yourself such a big target! And, you do seem to take yourself very seriously at times. How can one resist poking at you, which as you may know is my forte.
...this thread. How do you feel about your fellow righty's willingness to abrogate the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution? Do righties want to repeal the Sixth Amendment? Righties have been remarkably reluctant to address Leon's POV.
Second Amendment über alles!
-- Modified on 3/20/2015 9:02:27 PM
There are lefties that want to kill others without the benefit of a trial, so this does not fall on ideological lines as cleanly as you would like (what a surprise). The impulse to kill is human. The link is to a far left group that advocates women being allowed to kill their abusive men without legal consequences, yep, the abused woman as the judge, jury and executioner. Personally, I am against vigilante justice and I like the Constitution just as it is.
FWIW, I get the impression from reading some of Leon's other posts on other boards that despite his posts about shooting someone that he is making a point about the horrendous nature of abuse crimes. It is easy to be a big man on a fuck board and post yeah I'm going to shoot an abuser in the face. It is quite another thing to actually contemplate such an act, although history is full of PARENTS (of all political stripes) who killed abusers of their children and got off based on self defense.
And BigP, your assertion that Leon's thinking is equivalent to ISIS is, imo, simply absurd.
It's said that in Texas it's sometimes easier to hang a horse thief than a murderer. That's because there aren't really any horses that needed steal'in.
...great admirer of the way Judge Roy Bean meted out justice.
You might especially appreciate the case of Paddy O'Rourke being acquitted after killing a "Chinaman".
In fact it's disingenuous. There is nothing in the article which supports your contention that it "advocates women being allowed to kill their abusive men without legal consequences." The article deals mostly with trial procedure and post-conviction treatment of women; i.e., clemency, parole and sentencing guidelines. The Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project works to free women prisoners who were convicted of murder but who acted in self-defense against abusers.
The women all have gone through the judicial system. Where do you see this article advocating "women being allowed to kill their abusive men without legal consequences?"
Leon's proposal is killing as a visceral reaction to someone he alone THINKS has committed a heinous crime. While defense of others is legal, you can't kill someone without proof just because you hate what you think he is doing.
Parents defending their children vs. Leon defending strangers - apples and oranges.
But I do applaud you for being the only person who has the guts to actually address what Leon said.
Finally, spousal abuse isn't a right/left issue. I would bet there are far more Republican women battered by their constipated, controlling, conservative husbands who rule their home like the Bible tells them they should. I don't think the mission statement of The Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project says they are limiting themselves to battered lefty women but you are welcome to try and find it.
-- Modified on 3/21/2015 2:00:41 AM
Not "disingenous" at all.
Quote from the link: "In U.S. law, killing in self-defense is not a crime; however for most women, neither the laws of self-defense nor evidence of battering work for women in actual trials. Hence 75-80% of women who killed in self-defense are convicted or convinced to plead guilty, and are sentenced to long terms."
"Women are disadvantaged in court because prosecutors, judges, juries and defense attorneys all bring a shocking amount of ignorance about domestic violence to the courtroom. Prosecutors fail to consider issues of abuse when charging women; they fail to consider the abandonment of battered women by law enforcement and courts and take no responsibility for this failure; they ignore women’s lack of criminal history; they refuse to define self-defense in any way other than from male experience; and they trot out myths and stereotypes in order to “win” convictions." end quote.
This quote which is by the author of the piece and is not a statement of the Michigan Women's Clemency Project. You conflate the two. My original comment on this issue stands. The plain language of this quote certainly speaks for itself. The goal is no legal consequences for an abused woman. It's called self defense and they want prosecutors to pass on charging in the first place. I didn't say I disagreed with the premise and I never said that this only applies to “lefty women” I said the organization affiliated with the site, solidarity-us.org, was left, and yes, it is.
I agree with your statement "Finally, spousal abuse isn't a right/left issue" but then you go on (as you nearly always do) to display your hatred of conservatives by your tired bash the righties rant. Spousal abuse knows no ideological, social or economic boundaries, period!
A lot of people will have a “visceral reaction” to an event such as abuse, obviously Leon does. I don't agree with Leon, but I understand his reaction and unlike you BigP, I draw no ideological conclusions from it. A visceral reaction does not mean it becomes actual murderous action because we have the ability to overcome a visceral reaction with rational thought, something we do everyday in some form or another. Even you BigP can overcome your visceral reaction to righties ...LOL
Have a good day, I'm done with this “conversation” today.
The women all have gone through the judicial system. Where do you see this article advocating "women being allowed to kill their abusive men without legal consequences?"
Leon's proposal is killing as a visceral reaction to someone he alone THINKS has committed a heinous crime. While defense of others is legal, you can't kill someone without proof just because you hate what you think he is doing.
Parents defending their children vs. Leon defending strangers - apples and oranges.
But I do applaud you for being the only person who has the guts to actually address what Leon said.
Finally, spousal abuse isn't a right/left issue. I would bet there are far more Republican women battered by their constipated, controlling, conservative husbands who rule their home like the Bible tells them they should. I don't think the mission statement of The Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project says they are limiting themselves to battered lefty women but you are welcome to try and find it.
-- Modified on 3/21/2015 2:00:41 AM
Yea, hyperbole. I get it now.
Once you realized the real hyperbole going on here. LOL
namely, trafficking children and people. If you wouldnt do the same thing to some dirt bag trafficking kids then you're no better then they are. And that goes for anyone. Courts, jail, no. Boom. Done. Nuff said.
...judge, no jury, just an executioner. When does your flight to Syria leave?
Stab them in the back.
You're Welcome
For God and Country
Rather than wait for justice? Or how about someone who is guilty, of say raping and murdering children but gets off a technicality? What if it was your neighbors child? Your child?
The truth is at some point most of us wish we could take care of things ourselves. Everyone has a breaking point, where the wrongs committed against you outweigh the value you place on societal norms. It's easy to say that you would never consider it; but deep down if you are truly honest at some point you would.
But let's be honest that really truly wasn't what your post was about.