Ronald Reagan - "Welcome to the Republican Party"

Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

---

My husband was a MAC Tools distributor for eight years.  When he turned his truck into a shop site some mechanics who owed him would run and hide, tell the others "tell him I'm off sick today."  Didn't appreciate his extending them credit.  It drove him nuts.  But I digress.  On the tool truck the mechanics could climb in and 'shop' like in a store.  Most, of course were honest, but now and then one would try to steal a ratchet or something.  He kept a gun handy during those stops.  I didn't agree, because what's the cost of a ratchet compared with his life, or the cost of defending himself in the event he shot somebody?

 

Careless incident:  A lady had her baby and her purse in the basket of her grocery cart.  Baby played with the purse which was unzipped.  Baby caused the gun to fire, killing momma right then and there.

 

Careless incident #2:  My husband again, different scene.  BFF had a very old, very small gun (it was cute) which she asked him to get appraised for her.  He put it in his jeans pocket, intending to take it somewhere after work.  Changed into work clothes at the shop, hung jeans up on a peg in the owner's shop.  I forget how it happened but his jeans fell from the peg, hit the floor, gun in the pocket fired a hole in the jeans and into the wall opposite the owner's desk, an almost lethal trajectory.  Just lucky nobody was in the way.  Did he know it had a bullet in the 'chamber'?  I don't remember.

 

I never had the desire to own or operate a gun.

 

Candy

---

Originally posted by: Nines

---

@ Kevin..

Nobody has the right to gun down anybody due to any kind of facial expression aimed at them, obviously.  Simultaneously, US citizens won't be colonizing Mars anytime soon. You're fully aware of both these facts, too. You stretched / embellished to bolster your argument , didn't ya? "C'mon, man!!"

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

But it's been well established, in hundreds of court cases across the land, that a person can lawfully dispense lethal force if they feel legitimately threatened, and the benefit of the doubt always goes to the shooter. Sort of like the tie always goes to the runner. Add that to the presumption of innocence when someone is defending themselves against a manslaughter charge, and you can see why almost every such prosecution founders on the rocks.

 

Obviously, I was deploying hyperbole. But not that much! I've read about acquittals that were really, really dubious, wherein the "defender" made an instant and questionable decision that the big baddie in whom they put six holes was a genuine threat. And a LOT of the defenses offered were not much less flimsy than "He frowned at me"; and they all worked!

 

I hope we don't take guns to Mars, but inevitably, someone will. I don't know how they'd function in 40% of Earth's gravity. Probably longer range. And more lethal, considering that everyone will be wearing an oxygen tank. Clint Eastwood's grandson will star in a blockbuster film as the sheriff who brings order to the lawless Mars Alpha colony.

 

Wait a minute, wasn't that already done by Sean Connery as a lawman assigned to police a mining settlement on Io, one of the moons of Jupiter? A retelling of "High Noon," called "Outland," I think? Good movie.

---

Originally posted by: Nines

---

Show me a referenced court case..just one ..that shows that a person was exonerated for shooting and killing another individual who simply frowned at the alleged shooter. That's legally and ethically absurd as facial expressions are entirely subjective, ambiguous, and certainly don't constitute an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm required for legal self-defense.

 

But you admitted use of hyperbole in this instance..reasonable enough. 

 

Any movie regarding Mars ( or any other planet / interstellar location/ Wyoming for that matter) should star Sela Ward, Sigourney Weaver, and Diane Lane to battle the good and / or evil forces as a team ( referred to as the Black Hole Crones). I'd buy a ticket.. with my wife's blessing. WTH, I'm old. *shrugs*

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin in 2012 and was acquitted.

---

Originally posted by: David Miller

---

 The reality of why he was shot -  The "Ground and Pound" Altercation: Zimmerman's defense presented physical evidence—including injuries to the back of his head and nose—and witness testimony indicating that Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the ground and was actively assaulting him. Forensic pathology also supported the claim that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman when the fatal shot was fired The New York Times +3 Self-Defense Justification: Under Florida’s justifiable use of force statute, an individual is legally permitted to use deadly force if they have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The jury agreed that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

I used hyperbole to suggest that the pretexts used to justify defensive killings (in court) are often pretty goddamn flimsy. So many of those cases I've read about, the reason given seemed to me to be far lower in intensity than it would take for me, personally, to shoot someone. I'd have to consider myself in immediate risk of substantial bodily harm. The claims I've read about seem quite dubious in that respect.

 

I've already referenced one case where the "defensive" shooter drove his pickup truck up to a teenager and accosted him for the crime of Existing While Black. I'm sure that that teenager gave him a rude response. That was used by the vigilante, successfully, as a pretext for gunning the boy down. I can research details if you're interested.

 

I'm sure that interstellar law will allow people to open carry laser guns at all times, even in Trump Church.

---