Racial Injustice in America: The Case of John White (Graphic - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Wolfman
#13441976
Once again,

In Nebraska, if someone is threatening violence against you, you are justified in using force.
User avatar
By Dagoth Ur
#13441980
Its racist in the sense that since I'm white I'd get to go home on self-defense. But then I like in one of those 'make my day' states.
By Rilzik
#13442028
In Nebraska, if someone is threatening violence against you, you are justified in using force.


The case is not in Nebraska, nor is the subject of this thread, nor are you the subject of the thread. I generally agree with you, if someone makes any attempt to enter my house, I say blow him away. I'd have to look this up but the use of force and use of deadly force isn't the same thing. Does the threat of a unarmed person justify the use of deadly force in Nebraska.


Its racist in the sense that since I'm white I'd get to go home on self-defense.


If that is or is not the case, that doesn't mean people are allowed to blow people away and misuse guns. It's still killing, and there is still a jail sentence associated with it... in New York. So wait, are liberal gun laws now racist, or are the courts for enforcing gun laws. Because if a case is justified when it's white on white crime, and not when it is black on white... wait who is racist here.

This is exactly where 'Stand your ground' states have it right.
Last edited by Rilzik on 10 Jul 2010 04:21, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Dagoth Ur
#13442033
No we don't. The original Texas legislation allowed you to follow someone at least a block and execute them. That is not right by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not gonna say there aren't problems with the way hate crimes are defined (its almost impossible to get such a thing put against a black person who attacks a white) but that what this guy did was defend himself and his house. If some black teenagers came up to my house calling me all kinds of racist shit and generally threatening to invade my house I would attack them with whatever I had. The issue is that this man, if he'd been white, would have been given at worst a slap on the wrist rather than four years in prison.
By Rilzik
#13442044
I'm still unclear on if this guy was even technically defending his home. From one post here said they were 81 feet from the home. The White family had two loaded guns against a group of unarmed people.

They should have retreated to the home and called the cops. If the sentence is too long then the only way to discuss this is with precedent. Are their other cases in New York or else where that suggest that 4 years is too long?
By Zyx
#13442048
Nattering Nabob wrote:He wasn't stopping a home invasion...the shooting took place 81 feet from the front door and according to White he fired the gun accidentally...2-4 years for this is hardly an "extreme injustice"...


What do you believe that they were there for?

They came outside his house demanding his son and they projected their bodies that they could get his son by force.

Thunderhawk wrote:The environment needs to be explained for the actions to be understood. Otherwise lethal force seems excessive to me.


[youtube]Cfu_8yCGysA[/youtube]

Listen to John White's story.

It's undeniable that these teens came to his house in order to mistreat his son.

Remember that John White has nearly the only Black household, his is a history of racial abuses and the boy undeniable reached for his gun.

Neither the White boys nor John White deny that the shot boy tried to disarm John White.

It was right to take a gun out and it's more right to fire at someone who doesn't flee from a gun.

Rilzik wrote:I'm not familiar with this case, but the kids were unarmed in his driveway, yelling threats right? I didn't read anything that suggested that the kids made a attempt to enter the home. Is that correct?


What does it matter if the kids are unarmed?

Can a fifty-six-year-old fight three White teenagers?

Who cares if the children were unarmed?

They came there to harm his son.

Did they go in his house? No. Why would he let them in his house?

Try to understand the situation. He wouldn't let the kids in his house.

Ibid. wrote:Mr. White and his son shouldn't have been out on the lawn arguing with a group of angry people with loaded guns.


So go outside unarmed?

As it were, one person tried to disarm him after he turned his back. Thereupon the kid received a fatal firing wound.

Ibid. wrote:but he is still guilty of being a dumbass with a gun.


So you confront the men without your house unarmed. Only a fool would leave the gun in the house and confront three more able people.

Moreoever, the Supreme Court just ruled in favour of gun possession and self-defense.

The current decision rules in his favour. He should not be serving any jail time.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260

Do you understand? His appeal was rejected because with the new Supreme Court decision, he would be perfectly in the clear.

So to say, what he did was always constitutional, but now it's not debatebly so. So rather than releasing the man, the court is imprisoning him for nothing.

Rilzik wrote:Right but that's not the law. The argument here is that the law or courts are racist. That's not the case in this instance from what I understand.


Look at what the Supreme Court just decided.

What's racist is that his appeal was rejected despite every lawyer and every court being well aware that his case is legitimately excused in the just released Supreme Court ruling.

Ibid. wrote:Does the threat of a unarmed person justify the use of deadly force in Nebraska.


So he should duke it out with three teens?

What are you encouraging?

Of course you take a gun out in a knife fight--especially if you don't have a knife.

Where are you getting this fair fight shit from?

Ibid. wrote:From one post here said they were 81 feet from the home. The White family had two loaded guns against a group of unarmed people.


The kid who was shot, was shot after trying to disarm John White.

Meaning that the kid was in melee.

John White was bold to turn his back on the kid. But not wrong. He should have shot the kid from eighty-one feet.
By Rilzik
#13442077
Right someone tried to take the gun from him, but he shouldn't have been out there with a gun. No he shouldn't have gone out unarmed.

He should have stayed in his house with his gun, called the cops and shot anyone that entered or tried to enter his home... which as it happens is what the law demands. The significance of the fact that the kids out side were unarmed means a lot. You don't even seem to care about the law all your doing is backing up the black family. So a bunch of 17 year olds were yelling and pounding their fist together, that doesn't justify bring out guns and starting a argument when they could have been perfectly safe inside their home while calling the police.

I'm all for discussing if a 4 year sentence was right, but Mr. White is at fault here according to the law.


Where am I getting from ... the law... it's the law. I didn't make it up and I'm agree that if people assult your home you should be able to shoot them... thats not the case here. People 81 feet from your house is not the same thing. Even in the video you posted doesn't suggest that these kids approached the house.

Remember that John White has nearly the only Black household, his is a history of racial abuses and the boy undeniable reached for his gun.


This has no consequence here.

Look the kid went for the gun, trying to take it or not, that's assault and Mr. White would have been right to shoot. But, he still brought loaded guns against a group of unarmed people and like I said it was his mistake to do so, as he and his family should have stayed in the house and called the police. Because he decided to confronted people not attempting to actually attack the house he had a a duty to retreat from what I understand of New York gun law. I'm not making up these terms... duty to retreat is a law term in regards to gun control and self defense. That's it, it's the law and he broke it. 4 years might be to much but the guy is going to jail. Look up other similar case to find a precedent and compare it with that. Don't come on here showing lynch mobs and claiming that this is the same thing. Stating things like he was the only black person in the neighborhood and he suffered racial discrimination in the past doesn't justify killing. Nor does Emmett Till. You are using these thing to evoke a emotional response and not even addressing the actual problem in this case which seems to be the term of the sentence.
By Zyx
#13442089
Rilzik wrote:He should have stayed in his house with his gun, called the cops and shot anyone that entered or tried to enter his home.


He chose to confront them.

It's pretty realistic to confront people.

He didn't want trouble and he wasn't aiming to shoot the children.

If he had holed himself in the house, waiting for a kid to touch his doorknob so to shoot him, he'd have had a different mentality.

The ideal solution was to talk the aggressive children away from farming his family.

You're not judging this man as a good man trying to protect his family.

For some reason, this Black man is wrong to go outside and talk aggressive kids away.

Rilzik wrote:You don't even seem to care about the law all your doing is backing up the black family.


This whole thread is about the Law, actually.

Why would you accuse me of not caring about the law.

I'm informing you that the laws changed. The Supreme Court just affected every gun law in America. If he had the opportunity for an appeal, his case would be weighed on by the Supreme Court in his favor. So the appeals court rejected his petition. That's the racism.

The reality is that his appeal was rejected because he would have won a Supreme Court case.

Rilzik wrote:Look the kid went for the gun, trying to take it or not, that's assault and Mr. White would have been right to shoot.


Yes, and that's what every American should say.

Rilzik wrote:But, he still brought loaded guns against a group of unarmed people


Which is now protected by the Second Amendment.

Do you understand what's being written now?

The Supreme Court just said a week ago that this was alright.
By Rilzik
#13442104
He chose to confront them.

It's pretty realistic to confront people.

He didn't want trouble and he wasn't aiming to shoot the children.

If he had holed himself in the house, waiting for a kid to touch his doorknob so to shoot him, he'd have had a different mentality.

The ideal solution was to talk the aggressive children away from farming his family.

You're not judging this man as a good man trying to protect his family.

For some reason, this Black man is wrong to go outside and talk aggressive kids away.


It is realistic, but most people don't do it with a gun. The recent court rulings is the right to have a gun and not on the use of deadly force. The New York laws still apply. In New York even today, if you think your life is threatened, you still have a duty to retreat. Nothing has changed there. By confronting these kids he made the situation in which the use of deadly force would be judged. He did have the option to stay in his home armed because of the second amendment, you or he do not have the right to confront unarmed people with deadly force if they are on your property, or near it.

Which is now protected by the Second Amendment.

Do you understand what's being written now?

The Supreme Court just said a week ago that this was alright.


No it is not. You have the right to have a gun, but you don't have free use of guns. The use of guns is still very controlled. Which is where the laws concerning the use of deadly force. In New York you don't have the right to stand your ground with deadly force if threatened by force. Only when threatened by deadly force or you are being attacked, robbed, or your house or car is being broken into (with you in it). Therefore he did not have the right to confront people with deadly force because he was the one that escalated it to that level of force. Is that right? I don't know but it is the law in New York. These kids are guilty, and sorry but this guy is guilty as well.
Last edited by Rilzik on 10 Jul 2010 05:48, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By Nattering Nabob
#13442105
What do you believe that they were there for?

They came outside his house demanding his son and they projected their bodies that they could get his son by force.



They stayed outside his driveway where it meets the road and the man went out to meet them...this is not home invasion by anyone's definition...
By Zyx
#13442119
Rilzik wrote:
It is realistic, but most people don't do it with a gun.


He's fifty-six. Were he a martial artist, he'd rush out and probably give the children weapons to boot, but he's fifty-six. It'd be plain stupid to not use a gun.

Rilzik wrote:The New York laws still apply. In New York even today, if you think your life is threatened, you still have a duty to retreat.


When he turned his back, the child attacked him.

Is this or is this not right?

No one denies this.

He did retreat.

Do you understand?

He did nothing wrong.

Look into it. He confronted the children rather than your awkward suggestion of waiting by his door to kill them. He then retreated and after being attacked accidentally killed one of the boys.

Calling the Po-lice may seem like the only more proper thing to do, but for one, it's oftentimes not the best solution to these sort of problem and, two, what he did wasn't 'wrong.'

You're claiming that there's something wrong with going outside with a handgun is wrong, but waiting around the front door without a dialogue to shoot children is right.

If anything, the latter is a bit awkward and malicious.

Ibid. wrote:he do not have the right to confront unarmed people with deadly force if they are on your property, or near it.


You read the scenario after-the-fact.

If you go outside to confront a mob, you carry a gun, end of story.

You don't know that the mob is unarmed a priori.

Ibid. wrote:Only when threatened by deadly force or you are being attacked, robbed, or your house or car is being broken into.


He was being attacked and boys did appear at his house to break go into his house.

Your solution is 'let the kids into the house' but that's ass backwards.

You tell the children to back off. You tell them that their force is less than yours.

And should they dare to challenge that--then you're in danger and you should execute lethal force against them.

The largest shame here is that he accidentally shot the kid.

Nattering Nabob wrote:They stayed outside his driveway where it meets the road and the man went out to meet them...this is not home invasion by anyone's definition...


Surely you're able to put two and two together.

They weren't selling girl scout cookies. They were coming to inflict harm upon his family, whether or not they left the home.

You don't just drive up to someone's house, demanding to harm his son and turn away from a locked door.

You have to understand that times have changed.

John White wasn't going to let the children at or near his house.

When Emmett Till's Uncle let the Whites into the house, was it home invasion by your definition? :roll:
By Rilzik
#13442139
He's fifty-six. Were he a martial artist, he'd rush out and probably give the children weapons to boot, but he's fifty-six. It'd be plain stupid to not use a gun.


Your right. Use a gun, I'm all for guns... But if you buy a gun or inherit a gun, please read up on how to use it and more importantly when to use it. His son wasn't 56, and his son had a shot gun... funny how you never mentioned that.

When he turned his back, the child attacked him.

Is this or is this not right?

No one denies this.

He did retreat.

Do you understand?

He did nothing wrong.

Look into it. He confronted the children rather than your awkward suggestion of waiting by his door to kill them. He then retreated and after being attacked accidentally killed one of the boys.

Calling the Po-lice may seem like the only more proper thing to do, but for one, it's oftentimes not the best solution to these sort of problem and, two, what he did wasn't 'wrong.'

You're claiming that there's something wrong with going outside with a handgun is wrong, but waiting around the front door without a dialogue to shoot children is right.

If anything, the latter is a bit awkward and malicious.


Actually I agree with you. Unfortunately the gun laws in New York don't. I'm a supporter of 'stand your ground' gun laws but New York doesn't have those laws. If he was walking around on a sunday afternoon, with his gun that is fine. Because he escalated a conflict with deadly force, that puts him or any white guy on the wrong side of the law (In New York). As I already said the kids that began the conflict did assault him, and because they did he is not facing murder, just manslaughter. That's what happens in these cases and why gun rights people always get pissed off. Instead of making this a thread about the right to defend property, you began as a race relations thread... not my fault. If you had and I might be on your side at the moment.

I'm not going to explain the use of deadly force again. I admit I'm not a expert or lawyer, but as I understand it is as I have said before. If you really care about this then I suggest you look up a bit about gun rights and the use of deadly force. If this guy deserves a lesser sentence then I'll look into that and debate it and am open to it. I am not going to argue these things if you are going to support this guy without a laymen understanding of the law and even what the facts of your own post are.

You read the scenario after-the-fact.

If you go outside to confront a mob, you carry a gun, end of story.

You don't know that the mob is unarmed a priori.


You your self said it was three kids... hardly a mob. Yes it is unfortunate alas, we do not live in the wild west. As has been stated many times this is not a case of home invasion. I know you think it as such but before the law that is not the case.

There are other things that I didn't want to bring up but you insist. The fact that the kid tried to take the gun is in dispute, the kid said it was pointed at him and he slapped it away. This would make sense since he was shot right in the head, the cheek, or jaw to be precise. Mr. White said he called the police but his wife never heard him... yet she never independently thought now might be a good time to call the cops. Did the kids ever approach the house? The Whites, the family, have a weak case as it seems you are trying to argue their innocence.

I'll state it one more time before I'll just consider you a flat out racist. If you want to talk about the length of the prison sentence fine but the guy is guilty under the law. If you or others think the laws are unjust then I'd suggest a more conservative stance on your part.
Last edited by Rilzik on 10 Jul 2010 07:01, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nattering Nabob
#13442140
Surely you're able to put two and two together.

They weren't selling girl scout cookies. They were coming to inflict harm upon his family, whether or not they left the home.

You don't just drive up to someone's house, demanding to harm his son and turn away from a locked door.

You have to understand that times have changed.

John White wasn't going to let the children at or near his house.


And you have to understand that deadly force is not justified for harsh language...especially when you have to go out into the street street to inflict that deadly force...
By Zyx
#13442367
Rilzik wrote:Your right. Use a gun, I'm all for guns... But if you buy a gun or inherit a gun, please read up on how to use it and more importantly when to use it. His son wasn't 56, and his son had a shot gun... funny how you never mentioned that.


Why would I mention that?

You pretend as if any man should go outside his house unarmed after men positioned to harm him appear at his house.

He could have had ten men come out of his house and there could have been one man at his door.

You haven't established why he should not come outside with a gun.

Personally, I would not want to be punched in the face, regardless of if I had an army behind me.

You make it seem like people should just meet on the street and fight. As if guns were not for self-protection.

Rilzik wrote:If he was walking around on a sunday afternoon, with his gun that is fine.


Precisely. He went outside with his gun and the Supreme Court ruling says there's nothing wrong with that.

Rilzik wrote:Because he escalated a conflict with deadly force, that puts him or any white guy on the wrong side of the law (In New York).


I looked into your 'deadly force' claim. But with all due respect it's a bit absent-minded. If you agree that the man should have went outside, you agree that the man should have taken a gun with him, you agree that the man could not have known the level of force the children brought to his house, and you agree that the children were there to at least inflict harm on his son, how can you assert him as escalating the conflict to one with deadly force? It was deadly from the beginning, correct?

Put yourself in the position of the father. Three men are visible without your house demanding your son's throat for alleged rumors making a ruckus in the middle of the night. Is it wrong to tell the men to quiet down?

Rilzik wrote:You your self said it was three kids... hardly a mob.


Again, you take everything a priori. Three visible men. Before the father comes out to confirm the danger--it's three visible men.

You don't consider perspectives. When a group of people rob you on the street, you don't lash out because you suspect that the group is larger than it appears to be, for it oftentimes is.

Ibid. wrote:The fact that the kid tried to take the gun is in dispute, the kid said it was pointed at him and he slapped it away


The kid never said that. John White said that he turned his back on the kid and the kid boldly took his blindside.

Remember the case of Emmett Till--his murderers first lied and said they had not done it.

The testimony of some drunken racists who are avoiding criminal charges shouldn't override a fifty-six-year-old deacon only guarding his house.

Ibid. wrote:Mr. White said he called the police but his wife never heard him... yet she never independently thought now might be a good time to call the cops.


What is your point? You are just inundating the story.

Try to put a point behind it.

Are you saying that the White family is lying, so the father deserves to be in prison?

What are you trying to say.

The wife didn't call the cops, so what?

You agree with every bleeding thing that happened--why are you inconsiderately putting in smaller details?

Ibid. wrote:I'll state it one more time before I'll just consider you a flat out racist.


What's racist? Seeing a racial injustice and reporting on it? Again, I highlight wherein the injustice is, his appeals rejection, you're not addressing it.

Rilzik wrote:If you want to talk about the length of the prison sentence fine but the guy is guilty under the law.


Let it be repeated--the Supreme Court just opened the legislative doors for all gun laws to be revised.

With this new consideration, John White deserves an appeal.

It's a racial injustice that John White is rejected this appeal only after the Supreme Court's decision.

Nattering Nabob wrote:And you have to understand that deadly force is not justified for harsh language...especially when you have to go out into the street street to inflict that deadly force...


Nattering Nabob, you can take threats lightly. The rest of us don't.
By Rilzik
#13444727
Let it be repeated--the Supreme Court just opened the legislative doors for all gun laws to be revised.

With this new consideration, John White deserves an appeal.

It's a racial injustice that John White is rejected this appeal only after the Supreme Court's decision.


No the supreme court ruling refers to gun ownership laws. Like I said before the use of deadly force is a completely different set of laws which happens to be completely dependant on state law. In New York those laws are pretty liberal so if you disagree with them I suggest you consider agreeing with if not voting for conservatives. They are not the same and it is not racial discrimination that he was given a low sentence considering the laws of New York and the fact that he will likely serve a shorter sentence then he was given.

I looked into your 'deadly force' claim. But with all due respect it's a bit absent-minded. If you agree that the man should have went outside, you agree that the man should have taken a gun with him, you agree that the man could not have known the level of force the children brought to his house, and you agree that the children were there to at least inflict harm on his son, how can you assert him as escalating the conflict to one with deadly force? It was deadly from the beginning, correct?

Put yourself in the position of the father. Three men are visible without your house demanding your son's throat for alleged rumors making a ruckus in the middle of the night. Is it wrong to tell the men to quiet down?


Not you are looking over the most plainly and basic things I said. What I personally think he should have done is pointless, and decent gun owner knows, it doesn't matter what you think. You follow the law or go to jail or prison. No if I was a 56 year old and wanted to follow the law I would have stayed inside told my son who in this case had a shotgun to guard the wife and kids up stairs and to call the cops, while I stayed at the most defensible position in the house to protect them until the cops came.

You never know what people bring to a fight until they pull it out, which is exactly why New York law and the jury of this case demands that you should not leave your house and confront aggressive people. I'm sorry but under no circumstance would I as a gun owner think that I had a right to confront people unless they put hands on my house. There is one other circumstance which is when you honestly believe your life is threatened. Unfortunately, that doesn't include when you have the option to retreat to a relitively safe place, which in this case would be the house. Considering the kids never approached the actual house, in court, this is a very defining point regardless of what people think of property rights. What I said or meant to say was that I am sympathetic to Mr. White, had I been in his place I'd likely do the same thing and unless someone could bring me to reason, then I would have shot that kid on purpose. Regardless I would have done so in full acknowledgment that it was against the law. Also I'd use every resource, including Jesse Jackson to keep me with my kid and family. I don't blame Mr. White for anything, but under the law and even with the recent ruling I can not think of any way that would get him off the hook legally. As far as I see it any person in this situation is going to prison and as I have looked into it (non expert things) 4 years max isn't actually that bad.

Why would I mention that?

You pretend as if any man should go outside his house unarmed after men positioned to harm him appear at his house.

He could have had ten men come out of his house and there could have been one man at his door.

You haven't established why he should not come outside with a gun.

Personally, I would not want to be punched in the face, regardless of if I had an army behind me.

You make it seem like people should just meet on the street and fight. As if guns were not for self-protection.




Say if I walk out my door here at my very home... there are ten guys 250 each all muscles and they say they want to kill me. Under the law I can not claim deadly force, why because they don't have a club or gun or knife. Realistic? no. The law yes. The only way I could shoot one of them and get away with it is if I have or could prove some kind of physical intent to inflict a actual deadly wound. Say like my skull bashed against the curb or that they had a weapon, other wise a beating is just a beating.

I didn't make the rules. If those guys were at my door or in this case at the end of the driveway, I would be expected to defend my house unless confronted with a deadly weapon.

I can not express enough that the recent ruling as far as I understand it is only about the right to keep and bear arms. To own guns, Your state has the ultimate right in ruling on deadly force as can be witness in the fifty different laws in each of the fifty states. As a gun owner, and for every gun owner, YOU have the responsibility to know your gun laws. With guns it is the ultimate power and as such the ultimate responsibility. Society gives no excuses, if you mess up you go to jail. You can't handle it or lack in that responsibility then you are not a well regulated militia and don't deserve to have the gun. That's what this ruling said and I back it.

I'm happy too talk about guns but as I said before, I won't stand for reasonable cases like this taken in to a racial context, when from everything I can see now after looking into it the jury wasn't racist. The courts, while proven racism exists, in this case I don't see it and personally I don't stand for it when called out of context. I admit I haven't looked that hard but from what I see this guy got a light sentence and likely not to serve the whole thing considering he seems like a good decent guy.

I'll keep going but I would rather not. I can get quotes of actual New York law if you want but really it is only a google a way and not that hard to find as any responsible gun owner would know.
Last edited by Rilzik on 13 Jul 2010 10:37, edited 1 time in total.
By Rilzik
#13444744
Here is penal part 1 of the New york deadly force laws Title C: Defenses, Article 35.05

2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a
situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and
which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such
injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The
necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon
considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the
statute, either in its general application or with respect to its
application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever
evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision
is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law
whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established,
constitute a defense.

-----------------------

A few things to know. First, this is not in any shape or form changed by the recent supreme court ruling.

More importantly:

Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a
situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and
which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such
injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.


Ok, It was a emergency... to be avoided? go inside is what they said in court.

"situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor"

developed through no fault of the actor

This part is what I have been talking about all along... you do not have the right to confront people with deadly force... the law in every state. If confronted then you have a right in some states...In New york and most places if the confrontation is in any fault yours, and you bring deadly force the fault is yours. Even if it is brought to your ... I want to say door step which is true ... but in this case they were out in the road 81 feet from the house... Period... If you own a weapon of murdering humans ... Know how to F'ing use it! The actor here is Mr. White and his son (who had a Shotgun loaded) they approached the kids with a reasonable avenue of retreat.

The next sentence would likely clear Mr. White, but he brought the gun to the fist fight... for that alone he is guilty. He walked outside of his house and brought fault to the actor, with two loaded guns. Yes the Kids began as the actor by driving up, then Mr. White approached the kids with guns and under New York law, with or without the recent ruling he is still guilty. Without racial bias on my, the jury, or the courts is this guy getting it harshly or in any way that I can see a racially motivated sentence or lack of appeal. Mind you that His appeal mean he goes to jail ... last 3 1/2 years he has been a free man, after killing someone.

Almost forgot links here ya go:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyork.pdf

http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/pen ... 35.05.html
By Zyx
#13445517
Rilzik, something is unclear to me.

As I understand it, he can carry a gun on his person. When you say 'use of deadly force,' do you mean that he can not face the gun at the kid? I think that as long as he can carry the gun, he can face the gun at an aggressor, for the simple reason that if he didn't, the aggressor would then attain the gun, right?

Moreover, not knowing the weapons that his aggressors possess, it's better to have his weapons cocked and ready, rather than hidden as well, for only in the West are quickdraw shootouts won by the better side.
By Rilzik
#13448331
Ok so say someone has all the permits and such to carry a gun (which Mr. White didn't) and they are walking down the street with a gun in a unconcealed holster and someone starts yelling racial slurs and threatens to kill them from across the street. The gun carry does not have the right to point his gun at them as a deterrent. In order to use that gun at all, the offending party has to be wielding a deadly weapon with clear intent to use it. They can be yelling and making aggressive gestures all they want that does not provide either party a right to use a deadly weapon as a deterrent. Lets go further and say the offending party started crossing the street towards the innocent armed person. The innocent man become guilt as soon as he threatens or points his gun at the original offenders. He has a duty to retreat... meaning he MUST run away or try leaving the area in order to use deadly force. If in this instance that person stayed there on the side walk and pointed the gun at the so far only verbally abusive party (if they have a concealed weapon or not) it might be legal in some states with 'Stand your Ground' gun laws. New York is not one of these states. Even in 'Stand your Ground' states you must be able to prove that the other party had deadly force, which is just about any weapon. Even if your a 80 year old women!!

Mr. White was on his own property though! Doesn't that change things? Well no. In New York you don't have the right to even threaten someone with deadly force, even on your own property. Messed up isn't it.

The white teenager (forget his name) who got killed made a move to take or swat away the gun it would be justified in 'Stand your Ground' states to say he was at complete fault. Not only could it be theft (which your allowed to use deadly force to prevent almost anywhere), but it could be said that the teenager had intent to use the gun considering the language used earlier.

The fact that Mr. White approached the teenagers changes the dynamics of the confrontation even on his own property because of New York gun law. If there is any kind of confrontation even on your property or in your own house, the threat or use of deadly force is not your right. You have a right to have a gun on your person, but to bring it out during any kind of argument is not allowed. Even if you think there is a concealed weapon on the other person. Unless that person tries to use it and you can prove that in court can you use our even point a deadly weapon at them. So you asked if he had the right to point the gun at the threatening teenagers while on his own property. No he does not have that right. The line here is so thin. If one of those kids had a rock or small metal pole or billy club exposed and showed intent to use it... then he would have been justified. If they had a concealed gun with no proof of intent to use it Mr. White would still be guilt.

Duty to Retreat
In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.


I agree with you that he should have been allowed to have and threatened deadly force on his own property. Most states don't agree including the judge, jury, and stated laws of New York. In my opinion there is no difference between your property and your house, in most of the US that is not the case.


Moreover, not knowing the weapons that his aggressors possess, it's better to have his weapons cocked and ready, rather than hidden as well, for only in the West are quickdraw shootouts won by the better side.
--- YOU

This is in almost every state useless in the court room unless your a cop. There has to be very very clear like someone saying "I have a gun" and then reaching for something. Then actually not having a gun to justify threatening or using deadly force when the other party didn't actually have deadly force. Even then you'll likely get manslaughter. Not knowing if your enemy/aggressor has deadly force actually gives almost no weight whatsoever in a court room. Messed up right? Well it's the law.

In these cases manslaughter is generally the penalty. 4 years is not overly harsh for manslaughter and he will likely serve less. This is why conservatives hate current gun laws. In the cases of excessive use of force or accidental death in protection of property/house many times involving their family people go to jail. Under any circumstance besides the most conservative gun laws Mr. White is guilty. The white teenager is also guilty, but he is dead. Really this whole thread is more about liberal gun laws then it is about race and old lynch mobs.

As I understand it, he can carry a gun on his person. When you say 'use of deadly force,' do you mean that he can not face the gun at the kid? I think that as long as he can carry the gun, he can face the gun at an aggressor, for the simple reason that if he didn't, the aggressor would then attain the gun, right?

Moreover, not knowing the weapons that his aggressors possess, it's better to have his weapons cocked and ready, rather than hidden as well, for only in the West are quickdraw shootouts won by the better side.


Short and sweet answer: Wrong, he did not have the right to point the gun. He did not have the right to bring a gun. Not knowing if the teenagers had weapons does not justify anything under the law.
Last edited by Rilzik on 17 Jul 2010 03:30, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#13448334
He should have been more upstanding like Lott. Should've offered his daughters. :roll:

I've seen grown Black folk cry over white "hooliganism". Just because it's not as organized as the KKK, doesn't make these little fuckers any less of domestic terrorists. This man should be a hero.

Wasn't just some random old white guy on a bus being saluted as a folk hero for knocking down a young black guy? Yet this guy, facing real risk to his family and home, gets a sentence.
By Swinging Man
#13448338
I think those kids were bastards for what they were doing, but the guy should have called the police instead of killing someone. Especially if they were only outside demanding for his son and yelling stuff. Sad story, racism is horrible, and killing someone when you clearly didn't have to is pretty horrible too.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]