Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
In Nebraska, if someone is threatening violence against you, you are justified in using force.
Its racist in the sense that since I'm white I'd get to go home on self-defense.
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"...
Thunderhawk wrote:The environment needs to be explained for the actions to be understood. Otherwise lethal force seems excessive to me.
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?
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.
Ibid. wrote:but he is still guilty of being a dumbass with a gun.
"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.
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.
Ibid. wrote:Does the threat of a unarmed person justify the use of deadly force in Nebraska.
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.
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.
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.
Rilzik wrote:You don't even seem to care about the law all your doing is backing up the black family.
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.
Rilzik wrote:But, he still brought loaded guns against a group of unarmed people
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.
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.
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.
Rilzik wrote:
It is realistic, but most people don't do it with 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.
Ibid. wrote:he do not have the right to confront unarmed people with deadly force if they are on your property, or near it.
Ibid. wrote:Only when threatened by deadly force or you are being attacked, robbed, or your house or car is being broken into.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rilzik wrote:If he was walking around on a sunday afternoon, with his gun that is fine.
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).
Rilzik wrote:You your self said it was three kids... hardly a mob.
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
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.
Ibid. wrote:I'll state it one more time before I'll just consider you a flat out racist.
Rilzik wrote:If you want to talk about the length of the prison sentence fine but the guy is guilty under the law.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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[…]