[Zyx]

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.

You mean that he had the right to bring the gun, but not to point it, right?

At least now I know to only draw for the kill. But it is very strange, that if I have a gun on my person, I should still allow myself to be beat up. It's rather stupid, for then the whole "Stop a man from raping you" doesn't add up.

Rilzik, the concern over jail is that men are oftentimes raped even in jail. It's quite horrible to send a family man into a jail separating him from home and work, to be raped by real criminals.

This man 'broke a law' in pointing a gun, but 'legally guilty and morally innocent' should overturn the former.

Should I get ten years imprisonment for shooting a rapist with an unlicensed gun? Absolutely not!

Sometimes people do good--the law should not penalize them.

As to the 'right to retreat,' have you taken into account that his testimony is that he had been walking away when the boy swatted the gun from him?

I have not followed this trial so closely to know whether he had pointed the gun earlier, whether the boy ran up on him as his back was turned, or whatever, but I find that if he had walked away, but the boy swatted his gun while his back was turned, something should be considered.

But I don't know.

--

Sometimes, Rilzik, if a verdict is disagreeable, it should be taken to the Supreme Court. This verdict was such.

Ironic Anecdote, since we are having a conversation:

When I asked my brother had he heard of John White, he ironically asked if it were that White man who killed four Black thugs who were on videotape harassing him in an empty subway. He mentioned his mixed feelings, but honored the man regardless knowing such dignified expressions were right. I do not know of the case, but it really is reasonable to pull a gun out on violent thugs--it's nearly the whole argument for the gun rights crowd (guns as the great equalizer).

It's regrettable, I guess, that this man has to face four years.

Especially if they were only outside demanding for his son and yelling stuff.

Personally, I think that demanding someone's son is pretty extreme, but whatever.

[Swinging Man]

Personally, I think that demanding someone's son is pretty extreme, but whatever.

Sure, that's why you stay inside the house and call the police instead of taking someone's life away.

It's regrettable, I guess, that this man has to face four years.

He took someone's life away when he didn't have too. I would say that he is lucky he isn't going to be in jail for life.

[Rilzik]

You mean that he had the right to bring the gun, but not to point it, right?

Well actually not in his case. He was carrying a unregistered gun. But yes you are not allowed to "use it" by pointing it at someone considering that means threatening with deadly force.

At least now I know to only draw for the kill. But it is very strange, that if I have a gun on my person, I should still allow myself to be beat up. It's rather stupid, for then the whole "Stop a man from raping you" doesn't add up.

It is strange but the law. I don't know about rape cases, but personally I think a women should be able to shoot someone to prevent it. Regardless she would have to prove that the intent was rape. Just because a man says or seems like a rapist doesn't give a women justification for shooting someone. You still have to prove the circumstance in court. So yes under every law in the USA unless you can prove deadly intent then if you had a gun you could not use it. If there is a struggle over the gun then that complicates things obviously. In a fist fight under only limited circumstances does the use or threat of deadly force become justifiable.

This man 'broke a law' in pointing a gun, but 'legally guilty and morally innocent' should overturn the former.

No, morals do not over turn law. Morals very from person to person. This is the reason we vote for elected officials to make law. The people in New York decided on their laws and the people who live in or travel through New York must abide by the law there. Regardless of their own morals. If you are a resident then you have the right to vote to change the laws. You could make the case that the morals of the jury could have an effect but that is why we have elected judges, and they held up New York law as far as I can see and did not have a racial bias as your first post suggests.

Should I get ten years imprisonment for shooting a rapist with an unlicensed gun? Absolutely not!

Well under the law you should if that rapist isn't actively committing a rape crime. I agree with it. Vigilantism justice is not right despite how right it feels. If someone is in the act of raping you then personally I say shoot them. To be honest I don't know what the laws are on shooting someone who is committing rape, alas that is not the case we are discussing. Good question though I'd personally like to know if it is justifiable. I would imagine it is, and I'd tell all of my daughter it is, regardless of the law. Any way rape is not what we are discussing although I see your point. I'm far from a lawyer and can not honestly answer it.

Sometimes people do good--the law should not penalize them.

Good or bad has little weight in law. The law has much weight. Our personal opinions have little meaning here. For you to imply that this was a racial bias, is my main concern because I think that is untrue. What someone in Texas thinks of New York gun laws has no meaning like your moral beliefs have no meaning. We have a rule of law, that means you have a absolute duty to follow them or vote to change them.

As to the 'right to retreat,' have you taken into account that his testimony is that he had been walking away when the boy swatted the gun from him?

It isn't right to retreat. It is a legal duty to retreat, in other word unless you retreat you are guilty. Yes I know he was walking or turning away while the teenager made a move. Unfortunately, that is not the part that makes him guilty. He approached the confrontation which the teenagers started with guns. That is what made him guilty. Even with the right to bear arms you are not allowed to bring them into a confrontation, when you have a reasonable path of retreat. Which he did, his home. If he had a holstered gun the whole time he might have another story.

I have not followed this trial so closely to know whether he had pointed the gun earlier, whether the boy ran up on him as his back was turned, or whatever, but I find that if he had walked away, but the boy swatted his gun while his back was turned, something should be considered.

Right. Maybe you shouldn't suggest racism when you have not followed a case. Racist things where said yes, but stuff like this (your OP) is highly offensive to conservatives like myself that get called racist all the time. Even when we would side with or defend black people or a black person. I am sympathetic to Mr. White, although he is guilty. I don't know what sentence he should get, 4 years for a guy that seems to have a decent family defending himself like I would myself? I don't know. Like you I didn't know this case very well, but from what I know it didn't seems like a racist injustice and clearly so. Gun owners despite generally conservative beliefs or if they are black or white have to know and respect their states gun laws. Period.

Ironic Anecdote, since we are having a conversation:

When I asked my brother had he heard of John White, he ironically asked if it were that White man who killed four Black thugs who were on videotape harassing him in an empty subway. He mentioned his mixed feelings, but honored the man regardless knowing such dignified expressions were right. I do not know of the case, but it really is reasonable to pull a gun out on violent thugs--it's nearly the whole argument for the gun rights crowd (guns as the great equalizer).

It's regrettable, I guess, that this man has to face four years.

Of course it is unfortunate. I never or would never suggest that there isn't or hasn't been racism with the cops or courts. Double standards in the media presentation either way you think of that standard. I personally believe that most people in the courts or police are not racist, even if enough are that may give that impression. I'm not familiar with the case your brother talked about but I don't like when people make the racial suggestion that you did in the OP and had to say something for justice, even if that justice is morally wrong or right. Which Mr. White is guilty on even the most aggressive sort of laws here in the US. He fucked up in the worse kind of way, a persons life. Our society doesn't forgive that mistake lightly and 4 years for someones life is pretty easy.

[The Sabbaticus]

This whole lynch mob spiel comes across as something whispered into their ears by their legal defense team.

On the whole I would be supportive of White, but this nonsense about lynch mobs, right.

[Maas]

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"...

81 feet? That is like at the end of the street instead of in front of the house. How is that such a threat that you need to kill. You could and should have called the cops.

[Zyx]

I see Rilzik. It's strange, but my little brother constantly explains to me that I ought to purchase a gun. It's good that I read what you wrote, for had I ever fell for my little brother's obsession, I'd be in prison, uninformed on the 'rules of engagement.'

As to the racism, it's not incredibly evident. I do not know what to say. But just like a hate crime is different from assault, this situation is highly racial.

Maybe you're saying, "The court did not look at this" though it's impossible not to in America, but even to not would be "Racist."

In this regard, why should one overlook it? Racial denigration should be responded to. It's not just words, but a historical appeal you understand. This country is a racist country. To make amends, one doesn't ignore the problem but faces up to it.

[Rilzik]

I see Rilzik. It's strange, but my little brother constantly explains to me that I ought to purchase a gun. It's good that I read what you wrote, for had I ever fell for my little brother's obsession, I'd be in prison, uninformed on the 'rules of engagement.'

As to the racism, it's not incredibly evident. I do not know what to say. But just like a hate crime is different from assault, this situation is highly racial.

Maybe you're saying, "The court did not look at this" though it's impossible not to in America, but even to not would be "Racist."

In this regard, why should one overlook it? Racial denigration should be responded to. It's not just words, but a historical appeal you understand. This country is a racist country. To make amends, one doesn't ignore the problem but faces up to it.

Your right the racist verbal assault shouldn't be overlooked or swept under the rug. Unfair prison sentencing shouldn't be overlooked. To the first the kid is dead and you can't reprimand him for it. In any case even racial verbal assault tends to be a minor offense when a life hangs or hung in the balance. What I meant to say is that this is not a case of a lynch mob, institutional racism, or a white vs black thing. It had a racial compoant but that was not a deciding factor or even a relavent factor in the sentence. To have a discussion about racism in the context of a man (or friends of that man using his online identity) threatening rape of another mans girlfriend is bogus. More on this in a bit.

As to the second, unjust prison sentencing, it surely does happen and I won't deny that. The judge and jury in this case don't seem to be outside the norms of other cases that involve manslaughter. The institutions weren't racist in this case as far as I know. Unless proven other wise, to me it seems at least like a fair sentence and it discredits black organizations when they are unbending in their support of the black person in the case.

Now did you want to discuss the fear of white people showing up at your door threatening death? The historical context of that? Do you actually fear that? Do you or your friends threaten to rape women? I have a friend that was sleeping with a married women and I said to him verbatim "Are you trying to get your self killed?". This is the outcome when kids go overboard and we depend on parents and adults to handle the situation. Bringing a gun to that situation is not the right move. Mr. White was not living in a neighborhood that needed guns to protect themselves although that is his right to an extent. His shotgun wielded by his son was a hunting gun and the gun he had was a inheritance, he took in the situation in and overreacted. When you overreact with guns you goto jail, white or black. Do you think racism is really at fault in creating this situation? Wait to make up your mind until the next part below.

Ok another hypothetical. Say you a black man, I am guessing, had a group of black teenagers outside your house yelling vulgar things and threatening your sons life and by extension your family. Your family, the one thing you hold more dear then life itself. Would you have acted differently then if it was a group of white teenagers yelling racial things or black kids yelling bad thing and death threats. No, parenting instincts kick in and you grab a gun! At least that is how I feel about it. Would it really have made much of a difference if the teenagers were white? Did Mr. White ever bring up lynch mobs and more exactly a fear of them that could influence his decision making? No he stated he feared for his and his family which is understandable but the lynch mods that you talk about in the op are a far cry from what happened here as I understand it. Did he fear for his family? Most defiantly. Didn't he overstep the bounds of the law? Yes.

Myself being a white man that grew up in a white neighborhood, would I have gotten away with this? I think that is what you should have asked. If Mr. White was white and the teenagers black. I'd like to say that the outcome would be the same, and in this circumstance I would think so. Do you disagree?

[Zyx]

Unless proven other wise, to me it seems at least like a fair sentence and it discredits black organizations when they are unbending in their support of the black person in the case.

You know this to be untrue, Rilzik.

One can only say that it's a fair sentence insomuch as one conceives that there can be justice atop injustices--that a law unreasonably stopping a reasonable person doing reasonable actions is reasonable.

But your largest untruth comes from your second point. What sort of credit could a Black organization have if it were not unbendingly supportive of a reasonable, upstanding Black person?

Come Rilzik, let's speak honest with one another.

Do you actually fear that?

Honestly, I fear both Black and White gangs. Maybe you'd only fear the former?

[youtube]I1_r7fCMZMk[/youtube]

It's a real threat.

When I was selecting schools, I inquired of the racist nature of the certain states I was applying too. Some teachers, White, warned me of attending Southern schools.

It'd be a foolish minority that doesn't fear certain traditionally White-supremacist neighborhoods.

Do you or your friends threaten to rape women?

This is irrelevant. Naturally, I would not, and it's unclear whether this boy had. Nevertheless, if he had, it's a different culture than my own. You'd be surprised at the things that others do that I wouldn't: bungee jumping, sky diving, suicide . . ..

No, parenting instincts kick in and you grab a gun!

Look, good sir. You can not write this as a reasonable thing yet commend the mans imprisonment. It's either you agree that he should not be imprisoned or you disagree with his actions. You should never espouse a law that, assuming you find yourself a moral and reasonable person, would put you into prison.

Did Mr. White ever bring up lynch mobs and more exactly a fear of them that could influence his decision making?

He actually did. In court.

I'd like to say that the outcome would be the same, and in this circumstance I would think so. Do you disagree?

This is a no-brainer, of course the outcome would be different. I'm rather surprised that you'd think otherwise.

You acknowledge that there are racial disparities in prison sentences and you know that there is racism in the court system.

What makes you think that if a White person protected his family from Black hooligans he'd receive the same punishment?

How can you acknowledge that the judicial system is not blind to race, yet claim that the justice system will be race-blind?

I can acknowledge that you were a bit off put by my racial argumentation from the beginning, which was more a statement on how John White was denied appeal then on his particular case. And I admit that I didn't tell the full story. It'd turn out that appearing at John White's appeals court was Alton Maddox himself (who stood behind John White.) It also turns out that a Black judge who had opposed Alton Maddox was one of the deciding figures against John White's appeal. As it were, the appeals court had four judges. I forget the racial make-up but it may have been two Whites, one Asian and one Black. Given that Alton Maddox is a Black attorney representing Black issues, it's evident that the Black judge who voted against John White was against Black people (in a nutshell). Moreover, that there were four people on the appeals court and that the appeals court changed the story as they did shows how the verdict was predetermined and John White was denied an appeal more or less for being Black--maybe his being supported by Black institutions had to do with it, but maybe not, it's more or less that he's Black. I did not write this earlier, for whatever reason, but now you see why I wrote of 'racism.' On that point, there's no excuse that you'd think that racism couldn't have happened in the sentencing.

I was actually thinking of what his flaw was and it seems that it was that 'he should have called the police.' But I can't say that I can agree with imprisoning people on what they should have done--in other words, on not taking the best alternative. What John White did wasn't the best thing, but in all reality it wasn't wrong. I can see how bringing a gun out in a fair fight is wrong, but I can't see how bringing a gun out in an unfair fight is wrong. As you said, if a woman's being raped, while she shouldn't kill the guy, she really shouldn't just get raped and ignore that she has a gun.