quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I was speaking to an older friend last weekend.

She was very adamant that she was very fearful of the state of the US. That the US was just so different.

Global destabilization is the number 1 threat to our economic well being and military inaction. In support of that statement see the March to WWII and Great Depression.

Now my friend is very afraid of these social changes. She is very afraid of demographic changes as lost political power.

Two days later I read of an older man who sees a young African American ringing m his door bell, and he becomes so subjectively fearful he shots that young African American in the head.

I say subjectively because the shooter has declared upon seeing the young person he was “Scared to Death.” That is a declaration of his subjective state of mind. A person using deadly force must not be correct, but must have an objective, reasonable fear that the user of deadly force justification defense was faced with a threat of serious physical injury or death. Unless the user is defending a third party. In that scenario the user must be correct in the use of deadly force.

The jury shall decide if this man had an objective fear. As we do not know all the facts, I will refrain from speculating.

I submit that one who is afraid of other groups need a better policy position than just fear.

Those left of me are using this shooting to attack castle doctrine laws. That doctrine is not at issue. Castle Doctrine simply states you have a right to self defense in our home. It does not say you get to kill people with unreasonable, non-objective, fear present.

African Americans as a class are no more scary than white citizens. The same holds true for Latin decent citizens, gay citizens, and other party citizens.

Would this older man have shot a white young person ringing his door bel? Would this older man have shot a person in their 40s ringing his door bell?

I admit, I thought about pulling a 1911 on a particularly persistent Jehovah Witness once. I did not. I was not afraid. Simply very annoyed.

By all means protect yourself. Be ready to protect ourself. The line has to be touched though.

Before someone ask, the older msn has said he did not give the young person any instruction to leave. He just shot him.

I wonder why this older person was so afraid at the sight of this young person who rang the doorbell?

This is why Robert K had Rule Number 11 of life being never stand in front of a door you knock on.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I was speaking to an older friend last weekend.

She was very adamant that she was very fearful of the state of the US. That the US was just so different.

Global destabilization is the number 1 threat to our economic well being and military inaction. In support of that statement see the March to WWII and Great Depression.

Now my friend is very afraid of these social changes. She is very afraid of demographic changes as lost political power.

Two days later I read of an older man who sees a young African American ringing m his door bell, and he becomes so subjectively fearful he shots that young African American in the head.

I say subjectively because the shooter has declared upon seeing the young person he was “Scared to Death.” That is a declaration of his subjective state of mind. A person using deadly force must not be correct, but must have an objective, reasonable fear that the user of deadly force justification defense was faced with a threat of serious physical injury or death. Unless the user is defending a third party. In that scenario the user must be correct in the use of deadly force.

The jury shall decide if this man had an objective fear. As we do not know all the facts, I will refrain from speculating.

I submit that one who is afraid of other groups need a better policy position than just fear.

Those left of me are using this shooting to attack castle doctrine laws. That doctrine is not at issue. Castle Doctrine simply states you have a right to self defense in our home. It does not say you get to kill people with unreasonable, non-objective, fear present.

African Americans as a class are no more scary than white citizens. The same holds true for Latin decent citizens, gay citizens, and other party citizens.

Would this older man have shot a white young person ringing his door bel? Would this older man have shot a person in their 40s ringing his door bell?

I admit, I thought about pulling a 1911 on a particularly persistent Jehovah Witness once. I did not. I was not afraid. Simply very annoyed.

By all means protect yourself. Be ready to protect ourself. The line has to be touched though.

Before someone ask, the older msn has said he did not give the young person any instruction to leave. He just shot him.

I wonder why this older person was so afraid at the sight of this young person who rang the doorbell?

This is why Robert K had Rule Number 11 of life being never stand in front of a door you knock on.

How about this one too??

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
The "why" is what needs to be addressed. Why in the world are we so adversarial and fearful?

As a knee jerk reaction to these recent headlines I decided to not carry a firearm while traveling away from home the next couple weeks. I thought to myself, " do I think I'll need it? Have I ever before? Can I easily avoid danger or hazards?"
No, no and yes, so the pistol stayed home. I want no part of these trigger happy current events.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Can we agree a young black person ringing the door bell is not a I need a gun now situation?

Assuming that is factually accurate as depicted.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Can we agree a young black person ringing the door bell is not a I need a gun now situation?

Assuming that is factually accurate as depicted.

I don't believe anyone has disagreed with that assertion. In fact, I believe that in none of the cases mentioned was the use of a gun appropriate. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
We agree Scott King on the disease.

Leeper, I do not see a response from Dr. Easter who the question was directed to.

Thank you for your response.

To be fair, I believe his statement implies he agrees.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Because he responded with a fortune about needing a gun. When the fact pattern shows a gun was not necessary.

Also he is notorious for mot answering questions.

Would you have shot a young African American citizen ringing your door bell?

Are you that afraid?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Having a gun and shooting someone are two entirely different things.

Certainly, no one should shoot through a door at someone who simply rang their doorbell.

It is not unreasonable for someone to open the door to a stranger with a gun.

quote:

remember.

Never, NEVER, in a million years would I shoot anyone unless I was being in danger.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you live in a neighborhood that is dangerous and a stranger rings your doorbell…answering the door with a gun in hand may be appropriate.

For me…I would probably stick it in my back waistline. But that is just me.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If you live in a neighborhood that is dangerous and a stranger rings your doorbell…answering the door with a gun in hand may be appropriate.

For me…I would probably stick it in my back waistline. But that is just me.

Again, I ring the doorbell. You answer the door pointing a gun at me. You just commented the crime. You just threatened my life with serious physical injury or death. If possible, I have justification to respond in kind.

I may be wrong…feel free to correct me. But, I don’t believe that ^^^ is the correct interpretation of how it works in TX…as long as the man stays inside his house and does not shoot.

I will take the home owner at his subjective statement at face value. He responded in fear.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Castle Doctrine does not give you the right
to use force. It does not give you the right to be the initial aggressor.

You do not have a right to point guns nor shoot trespassers or folks who ring the door bell.

That was not my argument.

quote:

Lhyem500 said:
I ring the doorbell. You answer the door pointing a gun at me. You just commented the crime. You just threatened my life with serious physical injury or death.

My point was that a person in his home can answer the door with a gun if he wants and it is not considered aggression as he is “in” his home and the doorbell ringer was the intruder. Now, what he does after that must match the circumstances.

I denounced shooting through the door.

I said “I” would conceal.

Castle Doctrine laws destroyed case law requiring retreat when retreat could be done safely. It is an extension of Stand Your Ground to the home. All Stand Your Ground does is say when faced with the threat of substantial risk of physical injury or death, one need not retreat. One may stand their ground when they have a legal right to be there. The threat must always be present to draw your gun.

CR Butler has provided a very reasonable approach.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I also recall Lane has a very significant history why he might believe as he does.

I think he showed an X-ray relating to it.

I took his statement as he would take a weapon with him to the door, not that he would brandish it or point it at someone before determining the threat.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
What I find incredible is many things I read in the media happening in The US and the UK.

People get into a fight for the silliest of reasons.

In England, neighbors go to war because of tree between their houses!!??

We have a house in Sweden, and a tree, on our neighbors plot, was obscuring a great view.

We asked them if we could chop it down.

They said go ahead!

No problems at all.

What people sometimes think is very hard for me to imagine!

quote:

Originally posted by Kanec:
The idiot at the door in this OP seems to be LHeym for simple reason of few cases of people’s stupidity, he condemns everyone especially the so called “‘white “
Of course he is a lawyer and as such he shows his inability to think as normal citizen
In his view, one case warrants another law to,restrict citizen freedom

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams1:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Can we agree a young black person ringing the door bell is not a I need a gun now situation?

Assuming that is factually accurate as depicted.

I don't believe anyone has disagreed with that assertion. In fact, I believe that in none of the cases mentioned was the use of a gun appropriate. Regards, Bill

My thought was, is this something new ? it seems there were a rash of incidents like this during the last week or so. Are Americans really becoming that afraid that they increasingly shoot first and ask questions later ?

Grizz