Whopper of the Month

[egbert]

Whopper of the Month:

The "white guy in Louisana" didn't shoot the Japanese exchange student merely because the student went to the wrong house by mistake, he shot the student because the drunken, violent Japanese exchange student at the wrong house tried to break into the white guy's house repeatedly, and despite being told many times he would be shot if he didn't desist, and despite being presented with a frightened homeowner visibly armed with a handgun, the
drunken, violent Japanese student continued to advance on the homeowner in a manner which reasonably lead the homeowner to believe his life, or his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, which justified his firing his gun.
Lesson: Don't get drunk and wander about in the wee small hours of the morning in places unfamiliar to you, and don't try to violently break into any house anywhere, especially in the United States, because it'll likely get you justifiably shot dead.

Here's the Truth:

Well, the half-truth. Here's the truth from the New York Times:

"This is not an American or Oriental or any other known being casually walking up to the front door and saying, 'Hello, we're looking for the party,' " Mr. Unglesby said in his opening statement. "That's not what happened."

It was Yoshi Hattori's walk that made him, that dark night, frightening in the lawyer's telling. "Yoshi had an extremely unusual way of moving," Mr. Unglesby told the jury. "It's been described as aggressive. It's been described as kinetic. It's been described as antsy.

"It's been described as scary," Mr. Unglesby concluded. "He would come right up to you, as fast as he could."
...
She "screamed" for her husband to get his gun, Mr. Unglesby said. The boys had meanwhile walked to the sidewalk, 10 yards away. They heard the door at the end of the adjacent carport open. Mr. Peairs, in the prosecutor's telling, was not inside his house, but just outside the doorway of the carport. Yoshi Hattori began walking toward him, the district attorney said.

Mr. Haymaker heard Rodney Peairs shout "freeze." He saw that Mr. Peairs was holding a large gun. But the victim apparently did not see the gun, and he did not understand the word "freeze." 'Something Bad Wrong'

He was acting in a way no American would ever act, the defendant's lawyer said.

Mr. Peairs knew "there's something bad wrong," Mr. Unglesby told the jury today. " 'This person is not afraid of my gun. He's not respectful of my property. He has no fear whatever.' That's what Rodney Peairs knew." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/21/us/de ... d=2&src=pm

Acquittal in Doorstep Killing of Japanese Student
Published: May 24, 1993

A jury today found a local meat market manager not guilty in the fatal shooting of a Japanese exchange student, ending a case that exposed major differences between the attitudes of Japanese and Americans toward guns.
The focus of Mr. Unglesby's defense was that Mr. Peairs had acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner in shooting Mr. Hattori when the young man rushed toward him that night while trying to find the party. "We have two people colliding from completely different perspectives," Mr. Unglesby said, "one who sees an intruder who is a danger to his family, who sees a person with a grin or smile on his face coming to his house with absolutely no respect for his home, his gun, or his warning."
During those moments, the suburban household was in turmoil and terror, according to testimony. Without exchanging any words with his wife, Mr. Peairs responded to her frightened demand that he get his gun. He pulled a loaded .44-caliber Magnum revolver from his suitcase, went to the door of his carport, opened it, and fired at Mr. Hattori after the boy failed to heed his warning to "freeze."

Just then, Mrs. Peairs spotted Mr. Hattori coming around a corner. "He was coming real fast towards me," she testified. "I had never had somebody come at me like that before. I was terrified."

The young man spoke little English. Partly out of frustration, partly out of a desire to communicate instantly, testimony indicated, he often rushed up to people, waving his arms, which is what he did that night.

When Mrs. Peairs called her husband to get his gun, Mr. Peairs said he did not ask any questions. Rushing to a back room, he retrieved his revolver.

Running to the carport door, he spotted someone coming from behind one of his parked cars "real fast," he testified. He said he pointed the gun and yelled "freeze" to the two teen-agers, but he said Mr. Hattori kept coming. Mr. Peairs testified that he saw Mr. Hattori holding something in one of his outstretched arms -- a camera, it was later learned.

Mr. Hattori may not have noticed the gun because he had lost a contact lens earlier, his father said.

"I wanted him to stop," Mr. Peairs testified. "He didn't. He kept coming. The next thing I remember, I was scared to death. This person was not going to stop. This person was going to do harm to me." With the young man less than five feet away, he fired one shot into his chest.

"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peairs said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth digs himself in deeper!

Seth claims the drunken Japanese exchange student

Where, in this laughable "rebuttal" is there a shred of evidence that Japanese student was drunk?

[egbert]

Whopper of the Month:

The "white guy in Louisana" didn't shoot the Japanese exchange student merely because the student went to the wrong house by mistake, he shot the student because the drunken, violent Japanese exchange student at the wrong house tried to break into the white guy's house repeatedly, and despite being told many times he would be shot if he didn't desist, and despite being presented with a frightened homeowner visibly armed with a handgun, the
drunken, violent Japanese student continued to advance on the homeowner in a manner which reasonably lead the homeowner to believe his life, or his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, which justified his firing his gun.
Lesson: Don't get drunk and wander about in the wee small hours of the morning in places unfamiliar to you, and don't try to violently break into any house anywhere, especially in the United States, because it'll likely get you justifiably shot dead.

Here's the Truth:

Well, the half-truth. Here's the truth from the New York Times:

"This is not an American or Oriental or any other known being casually walking up to the front door and saying, 'Hello, we're looking for the party,' " Mr. Unglesby said in his opening statement. "That's not what happened."

It was Yoshi Hattori's walk that made him, that dark night, frightening in the lawyer's telling. "Yoshi had an extremely unusual way of moving," Mr. Unglesby told the jury. "It's been described as aggressive. It's been described as kinetic. It's been described as antsy.

"It's been described as scary," Mr. Unglesby concluded. "He would come right up to you, as fast as he could."
...
She "screamed" for her husband to get his gun, Mr. Unglesby said. The boys had meanwhile walked to the sidewalk, 10 yards away. They heard the door at the end of the adjacent carport open. Mr. Peairs, in the prosecutor's telling, was not inside his house, but just outside the doorway of the carport. Yoshi Hattori began walking toward him, the district attorney said.

Mr. Haymaker heard Rodney Peairs shout "freeze." He saw that Mr. Peairs was holding a large gun. But the victim apparently did not see the gun, and he did not understand the word "freeze." 'Something Bad Wrong'

He was acting in a way no American would ever act, the defendant's lawyer said.

Mr. Peairs knew "there's something bad wrong," Mr. Unglesby told the jury today. " 'This person is not afraid of my gun. He's not respectful of my property. He has no fear whatever.' That's what Rodney Peairs knew." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/21/us/de ... d=2&src=pm

Acquittal in Doorstep Killing of Japanese Student
Published: May 24, 1993

A jury today found a local meat market manager not guilty in the fatal shooting of a Japanese exchange student, ending a case that exposed major differences between the attitudes of Japanese and Americans toward guns.
The focus of Mr. Unglesby's defense was that Mr. Peairs had acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner in shooting Mr. Hattori when the young man rushed toward him that night while trying to find the party. "We have two people colliding from completely different perspectives," Mr. Unglesby said, "one who sees an intruder who is a danger to his family, who sees a person with a grin or smile on his face coming to his house with absolutely no respect for his home, his gun, or his warning."
During those moments, the suburban household was in turmoil and terror, according to testimony. Without exchanging any words with his wife, Mr. Peairs responded to her frightened demand that he get his gun. He pulled a loaded .44-caliber Magnum revolver from his suitcase, went to the door of his carport, opened it, and fired at Mr. Hattori after the boy failed to heed his warning to "freeze."

Just then, Mrs. Peairs spotted Mr. Hattori coming around a corner. "He was coming real fast towards me," she testified. "I had never had somebody come at me like that before. I was terrified."

The young man spoke little English. Partly out of frustration, partly out of a desire to communicate instantly, testimony indicated, he often rushed up to people, waving his arms, which is what he did that night.

When Mrs. Peairs called her husband to get his gun, Mr. Peairs said he did not ask any questions. Rushing to a back room, he retrieved his revolver.

Running to the carport door, he spotted someone coming from behind one of his parked cars "real fast," he testified. He said he pointed the gun and yelled "freeze" to the two teen-agers, but he said Mr. Hattori kept coming. Mr. Peairs testified that he saw Mr. Hattori holding something in one of his outstretched arms -- a camera, it was later learned.

Mr. Hattori may not have noticed the gun because he had lost a contact lens earlier, his father said.

"I wanted him to stop," Mr. Peairs testified. "He didn't. He kept coming. The next thing I remember, I was scared to death. This person was not going to stop. This person was going to do harm to me." With the young man less than five feet away, he fired one shot into his chest.

"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peairs said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth digs his hole even deeper -

Seth claimed

the violent Japanese exchange student

Where is there ANY evidence in Seth's laughable "rebuttal" that the Japanese student acted
"violent"?

Is Seth expressing his opinion of your gullibility?

[egbert]

Whopper of the Month:

The "white guy in Louisana" didn't shoot the Japanese exchange student merely because the student went to the wrong house by mistake, he shot the student because the drunken, violent Japanese exchange student at the wrong house tried to break into the white guy's house repeatedly, and despite being told many times he would be shot if he didn't desist, and despite being presented with a frightened homeowner visibly armed with a handgun, the
drunken, violent Japanese student continued to advance on the homeowner in a manner which reasonably lead the homeowner to believe his life, or his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, which justified his firing his gun.
Lesson: Don't get drunk and wander about in the wee small hours of the morning in places unfamiliar to you, and don't try to violently break into any house anywhere, especially in the United States, because it'll likely get you justifiably shot dead.

Here's the Truth:

Well, the half-truth. Here's the truth from the New York Times:

"This is not an American or Oriental or any other known being casually walking up to the front door and saying, 'Hello, we're looking for the party,' " Mr. Unglesby said in his opening statement. "That's not what happened."

It was Yoshi Hattori's walk that made him, that dark night, frightening in the lawyer's telling. "Yoshi had an extremely unusual way of moving," Mr. Unglesby told the jury. "It's been described as aggressive. It's been described as kinetic. It's been described as antsy.

"It's been described as scary," Mr. Unglesby concluded. "He would come right up to you, as fast as he could."
...
She "screamed" for her husband to get his gun, Mr. Unglesby said. The boys had meanwhile walked to the sidewalk, 10 yards away. They heard the door at the end of the adjacent carport open. Mr. Peairs, in the prosecutor's telling, was not inside his house, but just outside the doorway of the carport. Yoshi Hattori began walking toward him, the district attorney said.

Mr. Haymaker heard Rodney Peairs shout "freeze." He saw that Mr. Peairs was holding a large gun. But the victim apparently did not see the gun, and he did not understand the word "freeze." 'Something Bad Wrong'

He was acting in a way no American would ever act, the defendant's lawyer said.

Mr. Peairs knew "there's something bad wrong," Mr. Unglesby told the jury today. " 'This person is not afraid of my gun. He's not respectful of my property. He has no fear whatever.' That's what Rodney Peairs knew." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/21/us/de ... d=2&src=pm

Acquittal in Doorstep Killing of Japanese Student
Published: May 24, 1993

A jury today found a local meat market manager not guilty in the fatal shooting of a Japanese exchange student, ending a case that exposed major differences between the attitudes of Japanese and Americans toward guns.
The focus of Mr. Unglesby's defense was that Mr. Peairs had acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner in shooting Mr. Hattori when the young man rushed toward him that night while trying to find the party. "We have two people colliding from completely different perspectives," Mr. Unglesby said, "one who sees an intruder who is a danger to his family, who sees a person with a grin or smile on his face coming to his house with absolutely no respect for his home, his gun, or his warning."
During those moments, the suburban household was in turmoil and terror, according to testimony. Without exchanging any words with his wife, Mr. Peairs responded to her frightened demand that he get his gun. He pulled a loaded .44-caliber Magnum revolver from his suitcase, went to the door of his carport, opened it, and fired at Mr. Hattori after the boy failed to heed his warning to "freeze."

Just then, Mrs. Peairs spotted Mr. Hattori coming around a corner. "He was coming real fast towards me," she testified. "I had never had somebody come at me like that before. I was terrified."

The young man spoke little English. Partly out of frustration, partly out of a desire to communicate instantly, testimony indicated, he often rushed up to people, waving his arms, which is what he did that night.

When Mrs. Peairs called her husband to get his gun, Mr. Peairs said he did not ask any questions. Rushing to a back room, he retrieved his revolver.

Running to the carport door, he spotted someone coming from behind one of his parked cars "real fast," he testified. He said he pointed the gun and yelled "freeze" to the two teen-agers, but he said Mr. Hattori kept coming. Mr. Peairs testified that he saw Mr. Hattori holding something in one of his outstretched arms -- a camera, it was later learned.

Mr. Hattori may not have noticed the gun because he had lost a contact lens earlier, his father said.

"I wanted him to stop," Mr. Peairs testified. "He didn't. He kept coming. The next thing I remember, I was scared to death. This person was not going to stop. This person was going to do harm to me." With the young man less than five feet away, he fired one shot into his chest.

"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peairs said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth keeps shoveling that hole he dug for himself.

Where's the evidence in Seth's laughable "rebuttal" that refutes his claim

tried to break into the white guy's house repeatedly

Is Seth counting on your gullibility and lack of reading comprehension?

[egbert]

Whopper of the Month:

The "white guy in Louisana" didn't shoot the Japanese exchange student merely because the student went to the wrong house by mistake, he shot the student because the drunken, violent Japanese exchange student at the wrong house tried to break into the white guy's house repeatedly, and despite being told many times he would be shot if he didn't desist, and despite being presented with a frightened homeowner visibly armed with a handgun, the
drunken, violent Japanese student continued to advance on the homeowner in a manner which reasonably lead the homeowner to believe his life, or his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, which justified his firing his gun.
Lesson: Don't get drunk and wander about in the wee small hours of the morning in places unfamiliar to you, and don't try to violently break into any house anywhere, especially in the United States, because it'll likely get you justifiably shot dead.

Here's the Truth:

Well, the half-truth. Here's the truth from the New York Times:

"This is not an American or Oriental or any other known being casually walking up to the front door and saying, 'Hello, we're looking for the party,' " Mr. Unglesby said in his opening statement. "That's not what happened."

It was Yoshi Hattori's walk that made him, that dark night, frightening in the lawyer's telling. "Yoshi had an extremely unusual way of moving," Mr. Unglesby told the jury. "It's been described as aggressive. It's been described as kinetic. It's been described as antsy.

"It's been described as scary," Mr. Unglesby concluded. "He would come right up to you, as fast as he could."
...
She "screamed" for her husband to get his gun, Mr. Unglesby said. The boys had meanwhile walked to the sidewalk, 10 yards away. They heard the door at the end of the adjacent carport open. Mr. Peairs, in the prosecutor's telling, was not inside his house, but just outside the doorway of the carport. Yoshi Hattori began walking toward him, the district attorney said.

Mr. Haymaker heard Rodney Peairs shout "freeze." He saw that Mr. Peairs was holding a large gun. But the victim apparently did not see the gun, and he did not understand the word "freeze." 'Something Bad Wrong'

He was acting in a way no American would ever act, the defendant's lawyer said.

Mr. Peairs knew "there's something bad wrong," Mr. Unglesby told the jury today. " 'This person is not afraid of my gun. He's not respectful of my property. He has no fear whatever.' That's what Rodney Peairs knew." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/21/us/de ... d=2&src=pm

Acquittal in Doorstep Killing of Japanese Student
Published: May 24, 1993

A jury today found a local meat market manager not guilty in the fatal shooting of a Japanese exchange student, ending a case that exposed major differences between the attitudes of Japanese and Americans toward guns.
The focus of Mr. Unglesby's defense was that Mr. Peairs had acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner in shooting Mr. Hattori when the young man rushed toward him that night while trying to find the party. "We have two people colliding from completely different perspectives," Mr. Unglesby said, "one who sees an intruder who is a danger to his family, who sees a person with a grin or smile on his face coming to his house with absolutely no respect for his home, his gun, or his warning."
During those moments, the suburban household was in turmoil and terror, according to testimony. Without exchanging any words with his wife, Mr. Peairs responded to her frightened demand that he get his gun. He pulled a loaded .44-caliber Magnum revolver from his suitcase, went to the door of his carport, opened it, and fired at Mr. Hattori after the boy failed to heed his warning to "freeze."

Just then, Mrs. Peairs spotted Mr. Hattori coming around a corner. "He was coming real fast towards me," she testified. "I had never had somebody come at me like that before. I was terrified."

The young man spoke little English. Partly out of frustration, partly out of a desire to communicate instantly, testimony indicated, he often rushed up to people, waving his arms, which is what he did that night.

When Mrs. Peairs called her husband to get his gun, Mr. Peairs said he did not ask any questions. Rushing to a back room, he retrieved his revolver.

Running to the carport door, he spotted someone coming from behind one of his parked cars "real fast," he testified. He said he pointed the gun and yelled "freeze" to the two teen-agers, but he said Mr. Hattori kept coming. Mr. Peairs testified that he saw Mr. Hattori holding something in one of his outstretched arms -- a camera, it was later learned.

Mr. Hattori may not have noticed the gun because he had lost a contact lens earlier, his father said.

"I wanted him to stop," Mr. Peairs testified. "He didn't. He kept coming. The next thing I remember, I was scared to death. This person was not going to stop. This person was going to do harm to me." With the young man less than five feet away, he fired one shot into his chest.

"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peairs said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth's pants on fire! Seth claimed:


told many times he would be shot if he didn't desist,

So, where in Seth's hilarious attempt at a rebuttal, of ANY evidence for the above claim?

Are you as gullible as Seth thinks you are?

[egbert]

Whopper of the Month:

The "white guy in Louisana" didn't shoot the Japanese exchange student merely because the student went to the wrong house by mistake, he shot the student because the drunken, violent Japanese exchange student at the wrong house tried to break into the white guy's house repeatedly, and despite being told many times he would be shot if he didn't desist, and despite being presented with a frightened homeowner visibly armed with a handgun, the
drunken, violent Japanese student continued to advance on the homeowner in a manner which reasonably lead the homeowner to believe his life, or his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, which justified his firing his gun.
Lesson: Don't get drunk and wander about in the wee small hours of the morning in places unfamiliar to you, and don't try to violently break into any house anywhere, especially in the United States, because it'll likely get you justifiably shot dead.

Here's the Truth:

Well, the half-truth. Here's the truth from the New York Times:

"This is not an American or Oriental or any other known being casually walking up to the front door and saying, 'Hello, we're looking for the party,' " Mr. Unglesby said in his opening statement. "That's not what happened."

It was Yoshi Hattori's walk that made him, that dark night, frightening in the lawyer's telling. "Yoshi had an extremely unusual way of moving," Mr. Unglesby told the jury. "It's been described as aggressive. It's been described as kinetic. It's been described as antsy.

"It's been described as scary," Mr. Unglesby concluded. "He would come right up to you, as fast as he could."
...
She "screamed" for her husband to get his gun, Mr. Unglesby said. The boys had meanwhile walked to the sidewalk, 10 yards away. They heard the door at the end of the adjacent carport open. Mr. Peairs, in the prosecutor's telling, was not inside his house, but just outside the doorway of the carport. Yoshi Hattori began walking toward him, the district attorney said.

Mr. Haymaker heard Rodney Peairs shout "freeze." He saw that Mr. Peairs was holding a large gun. But the victim apparently did not see the gun, and he did not understand the word "freeze." 'Something Bad Wrong'

He was acting in a way no American would ever act, the defendant's lawyer said.

Mr. Peairs knew "there's something bad wrong," Mr. Unglesby told the jury today. " 'This person is not afraid of my gun. He's not respectful of my property. He has no fear whatever.' That's what Rodney Peairs knew." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/21/us/de ... d=2&src=pm

Acquittal in Doorstep Killing of Japanese Student
Published: May 24, 1993

A jury today found a local meat market manager not guilty in the fatal shooting of a Japanese exchange student, ending a case that exposed major differences between the attitudes of Japanese and Americans toward guns.
The focus of Mr. Unglesby's defense was that Mr. Peairs had acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner in shooting Mr. Hattori when the young man rushed toward him that night while trying to find the party. "We have two people colliding from completely different perspectives," Mr. Unglesby said, "one who sees an intruder who is a danger to his family, who sees a person with a grin or smile on his face coming to his house with absolutely no respect for his home, his gun, or his warning."
During those moments, the suburban household was in turmoil and terror, according to testimony. Without exchanging any words with his wife, Mr. Peairs responded to her frightened demand that he get his gun. He pulled a loaded .44-caliber Magnum revolver from his suitcase, went to the door of his carport, opened it, and fired at Mr. Hattori after the boy failed to heed his warning to "freeze."

Just then, Mrs. Peairs spotted Mr. Hattori coming around a corner. "He was coming real fast towards me," she testified. "I had never had somebody come at me like that before. I was terrified."

The young man spoke little English. Partly out of frustration, partly out of a desire to communicate instantly, testimony indicated, he often rushed up to people, waving his arms, which is what he did that night.

When Mrs. Peairs called her husband to get his gun, Mr. Peairs said he did not ask any questions. Rushing to a back room, he retrieved his revolver.

Running to the carport door, he spotted someone coming from behind one of his parked cars "real fast," he testified. He said he pointed the gun and yelled "freeze" to the two teen-agers, but he said Mr. Hattori kept coming. Mr. Peairs testified that he saw Mr. Hattori holding something in one of his outstretched arms -- a camera, it was later learned.

Mr. Hattori may not have noticed the gun because he had lost a contact lens earlier, his father said.

"I wanted him to stop," Mr. Peairs testified. "He didn't. He kept coming. The next thing I remember, I was scared to death. This person was not going to stop. This person was going to do harm to me." With the young man less than five feet away, he fired one shot into his chest.

"I felt I had no choice," Mr. Peairs said. "I couldn't understand why this person wouldn't stop."

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth, frantically digging his hole with his pants on fire, laughably presents a "rebuttal" which, of course, contains no evidence whatsoever for his big fat lie that:

his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

[Thinking Aloud]

That's one way of posting the same thing five times, I suppose.

Please don't let this descend back into personal attacks though, eh?

[Seth]

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth, frantically digging his hole with his pants on fire, laughably presents a "rebuttal" which, of course, contains no evidence whatsoever for his big fat lie that:

his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Hey, Mr. Legal Beagle, try not eliding the most important part of the law in this situation, which is "He REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT..."

You see, the law allows one to act on appearances and a reasonable belief. It does not require that you let an assailant kill or injure someone before taking defensive action, including lethal force. It only requires that the person using using lethal force "reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" (Colorado)
Louisiana law may be slightly different in wording, but the jury evidently found his acts within the law, which means you're full of shit...yet again.

[Lozzer]

The word "freeze" sounds like "please" for Japanese people.
When Yoshi Hattori failed to respond to the command "freeze!" - a
word he didn't understand - Rodney Peairs pointed a .44-caliber Magnum
handgun at the student?s white John Travolta-style disco costume and
pulled the trigger.

I'm so ronery [BANG!!!]

[Lozzer]

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth, frantically digging his hole with his pants on fire, laughably presents a "rebuttal" which, of course, contains no evidence whatsoever for his big fat lie that:

his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Hey, Mr. Legal Beagle, try not eliding the most important part of the law in this situation, which is "He REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT..."

You see, the law allows one to act on appearances and a reasonable belief. It does not require that you let an assailant kill or injure someone before taking defensive action, including lethal force. It only requires that the person using using lethal force "reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" (Colorado)
Louisiana law may be slightly different in wording, but the jury evidently found his acts within the law, which means you're full of shit...yet again.

Just shut the fuck up already.

[Seth]

That's so fucking idiotic it could only happen in an uncivilised country. I guess he had a jury of his peers, paranoid assholes.

Let's see if you feel the same when someone breaks into your house and rapes your wife and children in front of you, as you sit duct-taped to a chair because you were rendered defenseless by deliberate action by your own government. Get back to me...if you survive and don't get your throat slit to eliminate you as a witness when they're done tormenting your family.

Me, I'll take the Castle Doctrine any time. It actually enhances civilized conduct because it puts uncivilized people on notice that uncivilized behavior will not be tolerated.

Now you are presenting a totally different scenario.

Not really. Armed self defense is armed self defense.

In Florida all the man had to do was to lock his door, not run out with his handgun.

Louisana?

He wasn't "outside," he was in his carport, which is part of his domicile. And he has a perfect right to "run out" onto HIS property with his handgun to confront a trespasser if he chooses to do so. I NEVER go out on my ranch to confront a trespasser WITHOUT a handgun, and sometimes a semi-automatic military-style rifle. That's a result of having shotguns pointed at me on my own property one too many times.

Anyone who is not a complete idiot, a drunken idiot, or a deranged criminal instantly surrenders when facing a homeowner on their own turf armed with a handgun. It's a logical presumption that anyone who continues to advance on you while you're pointing a handgun at them and ordering them to freeze has violent harm in mind. One is permitted to react based on appearance, and one is not required to ask the assailant about his ethnicity, place of abode, cultural habits or intentions before shooting him when he's five feet away and advancing on you with what appears, under the circumstances to be a weapon in his hand in an agitated manner. I'd have shot him too, most likely. But I would not have regretted doing so.

If someone breaks into my house and violates my family, he would be hunted down and shot. Or beaten to death with a machete preferably.

Goody. But you wife and kids have still been raped and murdered, and you may get to live the rest of your sorry life knowing that because you facilitated your government's disarmament of you, you're responsible for their torture and death, which you could have prevented if you'd been properly armed and trained and lived in a country that cares more for law abiding citizens than it does for the "rights" of criminals or abstract social policy goals.

The chances of violent intrusions in Canada are much less due to our gun laws restricting handgun ownership.

Horseshit.

Yes, criminals can still get a handgun. But not every fucking paranoid can, and that is the point.

Anybody that wants one, fucking paranoid or simple thug, can get one. That's because illegal guns are widely available and your laws only disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals. You're living in a fantasy delusion, my friend.

We don't have ordinary people shooting ordinary people because they thought the other person spoke funny or walked aggressively.

Neither do we. We do, however, have people shooting apparent violent and deranged assailants intruding into their homes and giving every appearance of intending to attack occupants.

I don't need a handgun.

No, you just THINK you don't need one. And you won't need one, until you do, and in that instant, nothing else will do, and if you don't have one you're likely to die.

I can off a person with a hammer if I need to.

Only if you have a hammer on hand when you need one. Do you carry a hammer with you everwhere you go? You can't predict, you see, when some violent criminal will attack. Or had that fact escaped you?

But I don't think that will ever be necessary.

I certainly hope you're right. I've carried a handgun ever day of my life for the last 25 years and have never had to shoot anyone with it, though I've had a couple of very close calls that served to justify the imposition of doing so. But if it does become necessary, I'll be able to respond. You won't, in large part because you most likely haven't trained to react properly and effectively to a sudden, unexpected violent attack. There's a maxim in emergency services: "In a crisis, you will revert to your training. If you don't train, in a crisis you will do nothing." This is absolutely 100 percent true, and I saw it on many, many occasions as a police officer, EMT and firefighter. People shoved suddenly into a critical situation just froze up and stood there like a deer in the headlights. That's what's going to happen to you, even if you have a hammer in your hand, if you don't train yourself what to do WITH the hammer when attacked.

My beef with the Florida decision is with the jury. I guess the main reason that happened is the amount of crime in the area and xenophobia. If a person looks different they are immediately labelled a threat, armed and dangerous.

It wasn't "how he looked," it was WHAT HE DID. I doubt his costume even impressed on the homeowner. It was his PHYSICAL ACTIONS, his aggressive moves, his tone of voice, his gestures, his continued rapid approach, to within five feet in the face of a man with a huge handgun shouting at him to freeze that gave the homeowner the legal justification to shoot. The jury did its job and applied the law correctly.

I suppose there it is largely true. I like the US, I just don't like all the people in it. I suppose you like even less of the population than I do. I happen to agree with a lot of your beliefs, but I like to see controls in place.

Do you know why this case is so notable and well covered by the press? Because it was an incredibly rare event. The number of shootings of people in self-defense under even vaguely similar circumstances are incredibly rare in the U.S. In the vast majority of cases where some drunken buffoon or complete idiot does something like that, when a handgun is aimed at them and they are told to freeze, they sober up instantly, freeze, and the situation is peacefully resolved and they go their way.

We don't need more controls, we need fewer drunken buffoons and idiots violating the homes of innocent homeowners.

[Seth]

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth, frantically digging his hole with his pants on fire, laughably presents a "rebuttal" which, of course, contains no evidence whatsoever for his big fat lie that:

his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Hey, Mr. Legal Beagle, try not eliding the most important part of the law in this situation, which is "He REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT..."

You see, the law allows one to act on appearances and a reasonable belief. It does not require that you let an assailant kill or injure someone before taking defensive action, including lethal force. It only requires that the person using using lethal force "reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" (Colorado)
Louisiana law may be slightly different in wording, but the jury evidently found his acts within the law, which means you're full of shit...yet again.

Just shut the fuck up already.

Er.... no.

[.Morticia.]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

[Seth]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

Hardly. The bleeding-heart liberal versions of the events simply ignore the very real fear the idiot kid induced in the homeowners. Further research will reveal that he had a HISTORY of being deliberately aggressive towards people in Japan. It was a bad habit that got him killed precisely because Japan bans guns and doesn't teach its children how to respond when they are facing one, much less, evidently teaching them how to be polite guests in foreign countries where the social mores and practices are different.

He probably didn't believe it was a real gun, because Airsoft guns are quite common in Japan, to the extent that pointing a gun at someone is an invitation to play. Which is a valid condemnation of the toy-gun market for realistic pellet-firing replica firearms that ORIGINATED in Japan as some sort of childish replacement for the sword and Bushido, which Japan has cut out of its culture.

Sheer cultural stupidity got the kid killed, that and cultural anti-gun ignorance.

Nobody but a REAL criminal or deranged nutcase bent on violence from the US would dare to continue to come at an armed citizen shouting for them to freeze and brandishing a firearm, and that was a very large part of the homeowner's decision to shoot, and the jury agreed with him, and so do I and so, I suspect, do most armed citizens and people who are even marginally well-informed about firearms safety.

[Lozzer]

The jury acquitted him, which means that it's your version of the incident that's a lie.

Seth, frantically digging his hole with his pants on fire, laughably presents a "rebuttal" which, of course, contains no evidence whatsoever for his big fat lie that:

his wife's life, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury

Hey, Mr. Legal Beagle, try not eliding the most important part of the law in this situation, which is "He REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT..."

You see, the law allows one to act on appearances and a reasonable belief. It does not require that you let an assailant kill or injure someone before taking defensive action, including lethal force. It only requires that the person using using lethal force "reasonably believe that your life, or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury" (Colorado)
Louisiana law may be slightly different in wording, but the jury evidently found his acts within the law, which means you're full of shit...yet again.

Just shut the fuck up already.

Er.... no.

NO ONE WILL EVER LOVE YOU

[.Morticia.]

admit it Seth

you are pwned

Hardly. The bleeding-heart liberal versions of the events simply ignore the very real fear the idiot kid induced in the homeowners. Further research will reveal that he had a HISTORY of being deliberately aggressive towards people in Japan. It was a bad habit that got him killed precisely because Japan bans guns and doesn't teach its children how to respond when they are facing one, much less, evidently teaching them how to be polite guests in foreign countries where the social mores and practices are different.

He probably didn't believe it was a real gun, because Airsoft guns are quite common in Japan, to the extent that pointing a gun at someone is an invitation to play. Which is a valid condemnation of the toy-gun market for realistic pellet-firing replica firearms that ORIGINATED in Japan as some sort of childish replacement for the sword and Bushido, which Japan has cut out of its culture.

Sheer cultural stupidity got the kid killed, that and cultural anti-gun ignorance.

Nobody but a REAL criminal or deranged nutcase bent on violence from the US would dare to continue to come at an armed citizen shouting for them to freeze and brandishing a firearm, and that was a very large part of the homeowner's decision to shoot, and the jury agreed with him, and so do I and so, I suspect, do most armed citizens and people who are even marginally well-informed about firearms safety.

paranoid schizophrenia is an illness