Perhaps you're not as naive as your statement here suggests but until you give me reason to believe otherwise I'll assume you are indeed that naive. 30 years ago young men like this were routinely armed with dangerous weapons when going to a fight, I can't imagine it has gotten any better. But be my guest, live your life as if the bad guys are all unarmed.
As for the threatened with weapons strawman, you built it you tear it down.
Being an unwanted person on another's property is called "trespassing" and in New York that's not the same thing as creating an imminent life threat to another person, last time I checked. Trespassers are dealt with by calling the police, who will be delighted to come out to a black man's house and remove drunken white punks from his property before a racial incident is created.
Well, that would be a wonderful argument if I was arguing that Mr White could shoot trespassers on sight. Since I'm not arguing that, I have no idea why you wrote it unless you are enamored with your the breadth of your New York Statutes knowledge. It is not unlawful for a New York resident to carry a gun on his own property if so licensed. You are are not stating New York Law correctly. A jury can well decide that a a reasonable person was justified in using deadly force in a case like this which is why it was such a close call for the jury. They could also decide that the shooting was unintentional. They could not put this guy in jail for 5-15 for an unregistered gun. See Bernard Goetz.
Of course not. While the drunk punks are merely outside shouting at him he can call the police and have them carted away, and he can enjoy Christmas dinner with his family.
Or not, there is no statute making it a crime not to call in a complaint to the police.
If they give him reason to believe that they are intent on arson, then at that point he is legitimately in fear of his life and would be applauded by all, including myself, to defend himself and his family with lethal force.
I'm sure Mr. White and his family will be suitably comforted by your magnanimous gesture.
No, that point is irrelevant to the issue.
No, it wasn't irrelevant, the prosecutor used it to paint Mr White as a gun nut. It is very relevant and a shame that you don't understand that.
Actually, it's not what I call them, it's what they, in fact, were.
So we were all kids in the Army and Marine Corps? Who knew?
You seem fixated on the 'racial' aspect of the white kids' threats. Do you feel that because they were racial in nature that this serves to justify Mr. White's actions?
Now you're dissembling, I mentioned race exactly once to describe the threats launched at the White's. It would seem to be especially relevant since the gun that Mr White carried was given to him by his grandfather who, as it happens, was burned out in the Jim Crow south many years ago. Let's try keeping it real here pal.
No actually it's not. I have met numerous 20-somethings whom I would have no problem in referring to as "kids" because they are completely lacking in adult maturity, as is the case with this bunch. It takes far more than the number of years you've been alive to graduate into true adulthood. If you act like a kid, you should expect to be referred to as one.
I really could care less who you have or haven't met. They are not "kids" in the eyes of the law. They can be exceptionally dangerous under certain circumstances and should be treated as such.
The law is not written based upon who can stand up to whom in a bare-knuckle fight.
Wrong again, the laws are written so that those unable to defend themselves in a "bare knuckle fight" may use additional force if justified.
Of course it is.
And yet once again that is how the prosecutor helped convince the jury to convict.
Of course it's nonsense.. Mr. White was apparently dumb enough to think that he could "reason" with a bunch of drunk punk kids, and that it was somehow okay for him to wave a gun inches from the face of one of the louder ones....so close that he tried to slap it away.
If the kid tried to slap a gun out of the hand of a homeowner while the homeowner was on his property and the gun went off because of that, the jury should have found Mr White not guilty of the manslaughter charge. If Mr White waited a bit before re-targeting and then shooting the young man, then the jury was probably correct in their verdict. But they would have to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt.
Agreed, but since he chose to live in Long Island, he needs to accept the fact that the laws in Long Island are quite different than those in Texas, a concept that many posters to this thread appear to be unaware of.
BTW, how many years do you think Bernie Goetz should have spent in jail? 5-15?
The gun was already slapped away. White brought it back quickly, to prevent being jumped, and probably used a firmer grip and preloaded the trigger too much. That's not recklessness as the 2nd degree manslaughter law requires. It would only be recklessness, if White had any skills, which he obviously didn't. Before white went outside he told his wife to call 911, so White figured the cops were on their way. The wife never called, probably because she was stuck watching the show and figured it would go away w/o trouble.