To: Oliviaforever
Good, The shooter had no reasonable grounds for shooting
4 posted on
02/13/2015 8:42:09 AM PST by
muir_redwoods
("He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." G.K .C)
To: muir_redwoods
From a legal perspective, you're right. "Stand your ground" applies to cases where your life is at risk. You can't shoot a person for trespassing or theft (unless it's a nighttime break-in and you can't tell if the intruder is armed, and even then you'll probably lose the civil case).
Having said that, sometimes two wrongs make a right. The kid was obviously a thief and an all-around scumbag, and even though there was no legal right to shoot him, the world is obviously a better place without him.
To: muir_redwoods
Still believe the media’s narrative, eh?
10 posted on
02/13/2015 8:46:41 AM PST by
Olog-hai
To: muir_redwoods
If the crime comes on your property, for whatever reason, no way should you have to go to prison.
He should pay for his bad judgment some other way.
(Cops lure criminals all the time.)
48 posted on
02/13/2015 9:03:40 AM PST by
donna
(Gov. Mike Huckabee beat the Clinton machine in Arkansas. He can do it again.)
To: muir_redwoods
Good, The shooter had no reasonable grounds for shooting i agree... this is not like the other Stand Your Ground cases... not at all surprised he was convicted/found guilty...
72 posted on
02/13/2015 9:20:33 AM PST by
latina4dubya
(wheni have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
To: muir_redwoods
You are absolutely correct.
164 posted on
02/13/2015 11:07:54 AM PST by
Comment Not Approved
(When bureaucrats outlaw hunting, outlaws will hunt bureaucrats.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson