ferguson,mo riots, looting and arson

[Zantetsuken]

Here is another definition that might help:

Racism - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Considering how many completely different people fall under that label 'blacks' it is a) idiotic and b) racist to make any kind of blanket statement about them. Pretty easy to figure that one out too.

About the argument itself, I'm pretty sure all so-called races are about equally vulnerable to being shot in the head.

Yes, and that's exactly what I said in my argument about the case in Ferguson. That guy would have died regardless of his skin color or the cop's skin color because of his actions. The reason it's such a big deal is because of what I stated before. People are using this case, incorrectly, as an example of injustice toward blacks and how unfairly they are treated.

Also, I give 0 ****s about being "politically correct", or about avoiding being labelled as a racist. But if you take an honest look at American history, blacks (and Native Americans for that matter) have been treated the worst and subjected to the most violence. So if making that statement makes me a racist, oh well I guess. And that, I would argue, is the heartbeat behind the protests and violence in Ferguson and around the nation currently. They are crying out against the continued injustice and prejudice toward blacks. Sure, there are laws in place today to protect their rights and everyone else's, but prejudice actions and racist attitudes still run rampant, and statistics are heavily against them, and that is what they are speaking/acting out against. Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree with their use of violence to make their point, or the fact that they are using this incident as a catalyst because nothing unjust happened.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not talking from my own personal perspective on the issue of how different races and ethnic groups are treated or how they should be treated. I'm speaking from a statistical, anthropological and historical standpoint of society that says blacks have had it the worst in America for centuries. My personal belief is that those stats and historical facts do not make them inferior to any other group of people. I personally don't distinguish the worth of one person from another based on their skin color, but society does and has for centuries, and that is the reason for these protests. Just because I speak from a different perspective than my own does not mean I accept or agree with that perspective. It's a skill called critical thinking.

[Tovarishch]

I'm guessing you meant to quote someone else, but if you actually misread my post that severely, you should avoid accusing others of ignorance. We'll start with a quick definition of the word "vulnerable"...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vulnerable?s=t

If I would have said "Blacks COMMIT the most violence", which I guess is what you read, then by all means label me an ignorant racist. But I was arguing that blacks are SUBJECTED to, or PRONE to, or EXPOSED to, or LEAST PROTECTED AGAINST violence. So I fixed your post. Words: know the difference.

Syntax - get it right.

If you recall correctly, I wasn't the only one that caught wind of your blatant racism.

[Thunder TA]

So, the use of deadly force is dependent on the time of day?
Would it always be necessary to use deadly force in the event that someone does attempt to burn your house down?
But prior to that, Is the use of deadly force the first thing that enters your mind in an event like this?

Basically, from what I've gathered thus far - the people have a licence to kill under the law so long as they can prove that there is an imminent threat, or the perceived threat, to their property, and as long as it is at night; the same conditions can be extended to their person.

During the day yes,As a home owner or whatever i can see if your holding a weapon or not and breaking in.If your crawling thru a window and no weapon ,while you are violating my rights and breaking in you are not at this moment posing a threat to my life.If you are doing this at night and i can not see what you have in your hands i can make a case that you could have a weapon and because it is dark i have the right to protect myself ,family and home from that threat in such a way.

Arson is considered more than robbery and falls under protection of property.

This is why the law is very complex and so many fail out of the academies.

To put it alittle simpler.

Use of Deadly Force Law & Legal Definition

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.

The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force. Laws vary by state, so local law should be consulted for the applicable requirements in your area.

The following is an example of a state statute governing the use of deadly force to defend one's premises:

"A person in lawful possession or control of premises, as defined in Section 13A-3-20, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon such premises.
A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (a) of this section only:

In defense of a person, as provided in Section 13A-3-23; or
When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson in the first or second degree by the trespasser."



As for Texas Penal code:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut....CGkpS0X5.dpuf

[TommyB]

Also, I give 0 ****s about being "politically correct", or about avoiding being labelled as a racist.

I probably shouldn't but I have to ask: Why would anyone who is not a racist be OK with being labelled a racist?

In somewhat related news, recently in my hometown an adult guy was sitting in a photo booth, making snapshots of himself waving around a fake gun that could not be recognized as such. Police was called and he refused to surrender the gun multiple times. They disarmed him and he is now being charged with violation of weapons law. No one was harmed. So no, appearing to be a threat and not cooperating with police officers doesn't automatically have to equal auto-death. Maybe that's just a U.S. thing.

[Thunder TA]

Unless he was pointing it at officers or the public in a threatening manner he wouldnt have been here either.Big difference in appearing to be and proving you are a threat. Probably tased tho.

[Attero]

I do not care about what time of day it is, if they are in my home or attempting to come into my home through any other entry other than a door, without my permission/or announcing who they are, I will be shooting to kill. If anyone is attempting to rob me I am shooting to kill (Maybe the leg) depending on the situation. Maybe it is barbaric but I don't think it is. So far no one has robbed me or broke into my house, alas no one has been shot!

[Tovarishch]

I do not care about what time of day it is, if they are in my home or attempting to come into my home through any other entry other than a door, without my permission/or announcing who they are, I will be shooting to kill. If anyone is attempting to rob me I am shooting to kill (Maybe the leg) depending on the situation. Maybe it is barbaric but I don't think it is. So far no one has robbed me or broke into my house, alas no one has been shot!

^^ case in point.
Considering the majority of people who could care less for the law and/or do not understand the finer points, why make deadly force lawful to citizens - it creates far more problems than it would actually solve.
Only in the case where taking their life to save yours (again, this in itself requires thorough examination (post), but for argument's sake we'll assume that the scenario I am talking about is indeed life threatening) would it be acceptable. Again I ask, is it the prerogative to seek an excuse to shoot someone in order to protect yourself or your property?

Is it justifiable to equate killing with something that can be far more easily replaced? I don't think so. More often than not this would be the case.

[Zantetsuken]

I probably shouldn't but I have to ask: Why would anyone who is not a racist be OK with being labelled a racist?

Because this is the internet. I am secure enough in my identity so that when I am mislabeled by a group of people who have never met me, I don't lose sleep over it. Anyone who has met me or interacted with me for 5 minutes knows I am the furthest thing from a racist, which is nobody in this thread.

@Tovarishch: I recall two people misinterpreting a thread post made by someone they have never met and cannot possibly know enough about to make such an accusation. Multiple people can come to the same wrong conclusion.

EDIT: This is me when I went to Africa two summers ago to finish building a school for orphans that will be able to attend for free. The next year the team went over, I sent 500 textbooks with them to donate to the school, enough for every student to own their own textbook.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

That's why I give 0 ****s about avoiding being labeled as a racist on the internet. I know who I am, you don't.