Reply #110

In the discussion thread: Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law? [View all]

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 08:40 AM

110. You are wrong on both counts.

In Florida, the grand jury has not yet had its say, so Zimmerman has not walked. He just hasn't been strung up on the nearest tree like you and Spike Lee want.

In Texas, the law permits the use of deadly force to stop a felony. The "Castle Law" had nothing to do with it except in your mind. They were breaking into a neighbor's house. All the 911 tapes, all the evidence collected by the police were presented to a Texas grand jury and they returned a a "no bill."

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

135 replies	Author	Time	Post
Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law? [View all]	jpak	Apr 2012	OP
Castle Doctrine is inside the home	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#1
Nope - includes cars in OK	jpak	Apr 2012	#2
It would apply if	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#3
It's their word against the black vicitims	jpak	Apr 2012	#5
that is not how it works	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#8
LOL	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#15
Zimmerman has nothing to do with the castle doctrine	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#26
But where would you find 12 people with	Riftaxe	Apr 2012	#14
Uhmmmmm	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#17
Uhmmmmmmm, no, it takes 12 to convict, not one.	rl6214	Apr 2012	#29
I think that's his point.	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#32
Exactly	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#36
And the pro-gun crowd just smiles, knowing that one of their own will likely not be convicted.	Hoyt	Apr 2012	#67
Uhmmmmmmmmm	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#125
one for a mistrial	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#54
Here is part of that law that has nothing to do with your CASTLE	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#119
In Florida the investigation of the Martin shooting is continuing...	spin	Apr 2012	#25
You are wrong on both counts.	one-eyed fat man	Apr 2012	#110
Yep and I wasn't even aware that my State had it!	teddy51	Apr 2012	#12
Did you read the whole thing? Like section D	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#118
no, just puts the	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#120
Is there evidence the tulsa shooters were attacked? nt	rrneck	Apr 2012	#4
there's a lot of evidence they were afeared of the black man.	provis99	Apr 2012	#6
The statute quoted in the Op	rrneck	Apr 2012	#9
Wrong.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#81
This is nonsensical flamebait, and an obvious attempt to disrupt the Gun Control & RKBA Group...	petronius	Apr 2012	#7
Your Sig Line	CokeMachine	Apr 2012	#10
And still absolutely NOTHING to dispute his claim.	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#18
I'll dispute his claim.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#23
Question	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#24
Who?	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#79
You referenced 'he said, he said'	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#124
Again, who?	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#127
That a Dead Man Can't Speak	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#130
There were other witnesses.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#134
Legitimate question of stupid GOP/NRA/ALEC vigilante laws	jpak	Apr 2012	#19
So now you've added ALEC to your shtick	rl6214	Apr 2012	#31
An Axis of Evil® ?	Glassunion	Apr 2012	#38
That's all the OP has	rl6214	Apr 2012	#30
Were they being attacked before the shootings?	ileus	Apr 2012	#11
Could jpak claim immunity under ignorance?	PavePusher	Apr 2012	#13
No foundation	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#16
Actually there are less restriction on the first amendment than the second.	Remmah2	Apr 2012	#39
Not True	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#52
Probably wouldn't be a good idea to yell "fire" in a gun store either.	Remmah2	Apr 2012	#53
Especially not with the people I see walking around in gun stores.	Hoyt	Apr 2012	#69
Why do you go to gun stores, Hoyt?	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#99
Not afraid of folks who can't leave home without a gun.	Hoyt	Apr 2012	#109
Ha BASS PRO, that explains everything.	Remmah2	Apr 2012	#111
Posting to those like Zimmerman who carry routinely will make one like that.	Hoyt	Apr 2012	#113
I didn't mean the people.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#112
Well then, was this an example of a Second Amendment Solution?	jpak	Apr 2012	#21
Some people should try a 5th amendment solution.	Remmah2	Apr 2012	#40
Nah	fightthegoodfightnow	Apr 2012	#129
No. Feelings have nothing to do with the section you cited?	aikoaiko	Apr 2012	#20
No.	GreenStormCloud	Apr 2012	#22
You can't be serious.	krispos42	Apr 2012	#27
Only you would think such a thing or ask such a question.	rl6214	Apr 2012	#28
"anti-gun zealots"? I haven't noticed too many, if any.	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#33
But there are a number here that have embraced the term and admit to being anti-gun zealots	rl6214	Apr 2012	#34
So, you carry to protect your family.	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#41
Does your family ever leave your sight?	rl6214	Apr 2012	#78
Yes	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#90
Neither have I but you never know.	rl6214	Apr 2012	#115
"you never know" - So true.	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#116
Well I'm glad we agree on "you never know" but	rl6214	Apr 2012	#132
I do believe in being prepared. Very much so.	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#135
How about naming one or two who embrace the name.	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#42
easy	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#43
oh fer fuck's sake	iverglas	Apr 2012	#45
I belive I missed that one	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#50
really	iverglas	Apr 2012	#55
zealot is different than bigot	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#56
I'm not a zealot.	ellisonz	Apr 2012	#46
how does he ST define "pro gun zealot"?	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#49
What ellisonz said.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#47
you stay on the list	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#48
I'm also a "closet gunner". Go figure.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#59
I only know about you guys	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#60
So now you're claiming you've never met a single gun nut... Riiiiight...	DanTex	Apr 2012	#62
define gun nut	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#65
You don't like labels? Labels like "anti-gun zealot"?	DanTex	Apr 2012	#68
if you must.	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#74
One more time...	DanTex	Apr 2012	#75
the technology does not exist	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#77
Sorry, you aren't a credible source either.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#82
So one of your sources is a pro-gun blogger with a clear NRA bias, we can toss him out.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#76
not really	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#80
Yes, really.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#84
I never said she was lying	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#85
You claimed what she said was "demonstrably false".	DanTex	Apr 2012	#89
Yeah, about that report	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#92
Why do I always end up having to do your research for you?	DanTex	Apr 2012	#87
the aricle does not say that	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#91
What part of "the materials technology does exist" don't you understand?	DanTex	Apr 2012	#93
what part of	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#94
You do understand the difference between	DanTex	Apr 2012	#95
Yes I do	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#96
Again, the study literally said "the materials technology exists".	DanTex	Apr 2012	#97
what facts are those?	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#100
Evidence please.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#101
I have not found any evidence that	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#103
LOL. "I have to go with my version"	DanTex	Apr 2012	#104
no, she said Glock made the claim	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#106
Can't prove a negative.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#117
A load.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#98
Well, at least you recognize that she didn't actually say anything that was incorrect.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#102
I don't think anyone said it was the wrong thing to do	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#105
"The overwhelming vote is a no brainer."	Simo 1939_1940	Apr 2012	#123
I see you like to play the same games.	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#114
Here's my take.	DanTex	Apr 2012	#121
Your take ...	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#126
Whether you admit it or not...	DanTex	Apr 2012	#128
Admit what?	Straw Man	Apr 2012	#131
Spot-on. And why (in this instance) Rachel is even sleazier than a liar.	Simo 1939_1940	Apr 2012	#122
"Does any of this sound familiar? "	rl6214	Apr 2012	#83
Iverglas wants to ban private ownership of handguns. That is not "gun-friendly". nt	hack89	Apr 2012	#133
Proud to be included in the group. Like others, I'm against public toting. I also would like	Hoyt	Apr 2012	#70
why do you need to buy so many	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#71
Maybe collectors who don't carry. Don't see many like that around here though.	Hoyt	Apr 2012	#72
meth cooks are still	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#73
Yeah but, your side is losing and losing badly	rl6214	Apr 2012	#86
I'm anti and a pro, depending on how I feel from day to day.	ileus	Apr 2012	#51
And there I was thinking you just left out the "sarcasm" thingy	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#64
I'll whine	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#57
I wouldn't describe you as a zealot	Starboard Tack	Apr 2012	#63
thanks but	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#66
out of the nine I listed	gejohnston	Apr 2012	#61
Proud to make your list. N/T	GreenStormCloud	Apr 2012	#107
Blatant, mornic flamebait.	Callisto32	Apr 2012	#35
aka SSDD nt	Remmah2	Apr 2012	#44
Yes, absolutely, they can claim immunity	JustABozoOnThisBus	Apr 2012	#37
Sure.	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Apr 2012	#58
jpak, you have put a lot of energy into posting ridiculous crap in this forum	slackmaster	Apr 2012	#88
I suppose. They could also claim innocence under an insanity plea...	OneTenthofOnePercent	Apr 2012	#108

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.