Poll of the Day > So black people get shot for jogging in the streets now?

(+) Yeah! (+)

They still need lynching, going baby militia on a jogger is insane shit and there's no neat way to stop people like this going around like it's the Toyota war in the states.

This is why people want to take your guns.
---

Mead posted...

Its almost like things like that should be left to actual officials

Well yeah, I agree.


---

deoxxys posted...

Well yeah, I agree.

Pretty much.

If two random fucks in beat up Chevy(or F150 cause they got a raise at the coal mine) want to pull up on me with weapons and try to arrest me, who knows how I would react.

Truth is... the first thing that runs through my mind is the worst. You want me to assume their intentions are good and just. And just give up my freedom, even if for a moment. Lol.

Man, is there no end to their hypocrisy?

---

HornedLion posted...

who knows how I would react.

You'd break down with fear.

Where have you been the last century or so tc? They were getting shot simply for existing....

---

Mead posted...

theres no reason or excuse in this country to round up armed civilians in order to go after a burglar, and if youre gonna suggest that the victim committed a crime maybe provide a source

https://newsone.com/3933484/citizens-arrest-law-defend-white-man-accused-of-killing-ahmaud-arbery/

In another document, Mr. Barnhill said that video exists of Mr. Arbery burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation. In the letter to the cops, he lists a separate video of the shooting recorded by a third pursuer. Mr. Barnhill said this video, which has not been released to the public yet, shows Mr. Arbery attacking Travis McMichael after he and his father pulled up to him in their truck. Barnhill said the clip shows Arbery trying to take the shotgun from Travis McMichaels hands and this action, Barnhill argued, warranted self-defense under Georgia law. Travis McMichael, Barnhill said, was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.

But I don't disagree that they shouldn't be rounding up a posse to catch a criminal, whether the guy is or isn't one. That's fucking stupid. But unfortunately, citizens arrests are still a thing and this guy probably thought because he's a former cop that he was smart enough to do it and now a guy is dead.

RCtheWSBC posted... Neither of which are death sentences that should lead to a manhunt. You really are playing the role of the defense.

I didn't say they were worthy of death sentences. I'm explaining the facts that seem to get lost in the narrative. There's a problem in this country where we refuse to look at the facts before we make judgements. It happens every day and I'm tired of it. Every high profile case over the past 10 years has fallen under this, "Let's make snap judgements now and ignore the facts later" and it's maddening.

Every single situation in society deals with a totality of circumstances that are flat out ignored in service of a cause. I find it atrocious that a man was killed because a couple of assholes couldn't keep their dick in their pants, but on the other hand, if their homes and their neighbors homes are being burglarized/robbed regularly and up until that point the police had done nothing to assuage the problem, is it really that surprising that they might be convinced to act themselves?

There are allegedly other videos of the incident that haven't been released yet. I'll be curious to see if/when those are released if any additional information comes to light.

---

Smarkil posted...

if their homes and their neighbors homes are being burglarized/robbed regularly and up until that point the police had done nothing to assuage the problem, is it really that surprising that they might be convinced to act themselves

yeah i agree man civilians should just take the law into their own hands. not a slippery slope whatsoever

---

adjl posted...

Here's hoping that slap on the wrist is with a chainsaw.

Was thinking the same thing...

Smarkil posted...

I'm not defending these guys

You say that, but it sure sounds like you are...

Smarkil posted...

Then at one point he actively moves to engage with the one dude on the ground.

Probably because the guy was shooting at him, and he was trying to stop him...

Smarkil posted...

But the fact that the guy appears to grab for the old mans gun when he gets shot means hes very likely going to get off on self defense regardless of the circumstances.

And if that happens, then the person who made that decision is an idiot and shouldn't be in charge of anything. That's like saying that someone robbing a house gets attacked by the owner and shoots them, but then the burglar gets off on self-defense...
---

Smarkil posted...

I'm explaining the facts that seem to get lost in the narrative.

none of those facts really change the situation

at all

---

LinkPizza posted...

And if that happens, then the person who made that decision is an idiot and shouldn't be in charge of anything. That's like saying that someone robbing a house gets attacked by the owner and shoots them, but then the burglar gets off on self-defense...

They do, but they still get aggravated burglary.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They do, but they still get aggravated burglary.

I think thats pretty dumb, tbh. They should just get murder...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I think thats pretty dumb, tbh. They should just get murder...

They're acting in self-defense and the rules apply to everybody the same regardless of their morals. In the UK you have a duty of care to all people on your property, so if a burglar breaks in and trips on a cable you left out negligently, you are responsible for their injury despite the attempted burglary.
---

You shouldnt be able to claim self defense when you are the one that brought a weapon of deadly force and the one that initiates a violent conflict

Go ahead and find me some cases of black dudes not getting charged when shooting unarmed white people minding their own business in self defense

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They're acting in self-defense and the rules apply to everybody the same regardless of their morals. In the UK you have a duty of care to all people on your property, so if a burglar breaks in and trips on a cable you left out negligently, you are responsible for their injury despite the attempted burglary.

I still dont agree. They should be charged with murder... o also think they shouldnt get charge with that persons injury. Those are dumb rules that should be gone...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I still dont agree. They should be charged with murder... o also think they shouldnt get charge with that persons injury. Those are dumb rules that should be gone...

ANNNNDDD... they have just been arrested.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-arrest.html

---

Mead posted...

none of those facts really change the situation

at all

The facts absolutely do change the situation. A man being shot for jogging is an extremely different situation than a man being shot after burglarizing a home. These men allege they were performing a citizens arrest. Whether or not you agree with the law, that's a legal action. But its up to the courts to decide whether or not they were justified in their actions that resulted in the death of the victim.

Citizens Arrests in the state of Georgia

Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a mis-demeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen's arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene. Citizen's arrest most often happens in cases like shoplifting, when the store's manager detains the suspected offender.

When making a citizen's arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies.

If what they did can be proven to be self defense, then they are technically legally justified.

LinkPizza posted...

You say that, but it sure sounds like you are...

Because nobody on this website understands you can argue a point without necessarily agreeing with it. Read some Aristotle my dudes.

---

Smarkil posted...

Because nobody on this website understands you can argue a point without necessarily agreeing with it. Read some Aristotle my dudes.

Still sounds like you were defending them in that post is all I'm saying...
---

Smarkil posted...

The facts absolutely do change the situation. A man being shot for jogging is an extremely different situation than a man being shot after burglarizing a home.

Sounds like the police should've found some stolen items on the body when they investigated the scene, then. Yet I've not seen any mention of them finding anything suspect on the victim. Hmm....

Citizens Arrests in the state of Georgia

Without a warrant, you may arrest anyone who commits a mis-demeanor or a felony in your presence or with your immediate knowledge. A citizen's arrest occurs when a citizen prevents a suspect from leaving a scene. Citizen's arrest most often happens in cases like shoplifting, when the store's manager detains the suspected offender.

When making a citizen's arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies.

They used guns to make the citizen's arrest. That's using deadly force!
Unless you think "using a gun" only counts if you try to fire it. In which case, I guess you think any time a bank robber has ever held up people at gun point for a robbery but they comply so he never discharges it, that he wasn't "using" the gun.

Mead posted...

You shouldnt be able to claim self defense when you are the one that brought a weapon of deadly force and the one that initiates a violent conflict

There was no violence until he grabbed, he initiated the violence.

They both could claim percieved threat.

Mead posted...

Go ahead and find me some cases of black dudes not getting charged when shooting unarmed white people minding their own business in self defense

Find me cases of white people grabbing guns pointed at them by black people.

LinkPizza posted...

I still dont agree. They should be charged with murder... I also think they shouldnt get charge with that persons injury. Those are dumb rules that should be gone...

They're there to disincentivise booby trapping your house to brutalise trespassers and allow legitimate self-defense to work in most legitimate cases.

streamofthesky posted...

They used guns to make the citizen's arrest. That's using deadly force!
Unless you think "using a gun" only counts if you try to fire it.

It does. Intimidation with a deadly weapon is not deadly force, you are not using its force.

streamofthesky posted...

In which case, I guess you think any time a bank robber has ever held up people at gun point for a robbery but they comply so he never discharges it, that he wasn't "using" the gun.

He isn't using deadly force to rob the bank, but he may be threatening to use deadly force. Primarily they are intimidating with a deadly weapon.
---

The facts do matter, I didnt get all the facts in the beginning. I thought these guys were horrible murdering racists gunning down black men they didnt like in their neighborhood. Though it turns out, circumstances were a lot different and while they still should go to jail, at least their motives were not hate-based.

---

Smarkil posted...

The facts absolutely do change the situation. A man being shot for jogging is an extremely different situation than a man being shot after burglarizing a home

Everyone understands that. But no one knows if the victim committed a crime or not. Because he got murdered when he tried to stop someone from attacking him.

Are you really willing to believe that these guys saw a tape of a man committing a crime and were able to see him in such detail that they later recognized him on the side of the road with such confidence that they took it upon themselves to arrest him, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME refusing to consider that maybe these two Georgia boys heard there was a burglar in their town and decided the first black guy they saw running down the road was just too suspicious to wait for police to arrive and handle the situation.

The people that defend this kind of backwards ass logic of going out with a weapon and starting fights and then committing murder when youre losing the fight but facing no penalty for taking an unnecessary life, are exactly the kind of folks that need to have their guns taken away.

---

Go ahead and find me some cases of black dudes not getting charged when shooting unarmed white people minding their own business in self defense

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/unarmed-white-man-killed-by-black-cop-heres-how-the-media-reacted

In before, "lol that source!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

Wapo did a nice smearing of the victim in this article as well as placing "unarmed" in quotations

There are several others I saw but I'm not gonna waste my time since they arent CNN and you lot will cry about the source

OhhhJa posted...

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/unarmed-white-man-killed-by-black-cop-heres-how-the-media-reacted

In before, "lol that source!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/06/an-unarmed-white-teen-was-shot-dead-by-police-his-family-asks-where-is-the-outrage/

Wapo did a nice smearing of the victim in this article as well as placing "unarmed" in quotations

There are several others I saw but I'm not gonna waste my time since they arent CNN and you lot will cry about the source

Oh, so you dug up like what.... one or two instances of police brutality against a white kid. Comparing the police brutality of white folks and black folks isn't even a fair contest. One is much different than the other.

---

Kounse11or posted...

One is much different than the other.

The violent crime rate is different too, it's as though there's correlation.
---

https://apnews.com/96990a5023927df289c934d2decd90b8

some justice at least

---

even if the guy was somehow a burglar, chasing someone down and shooting them is not their place at all.

why are there ALWAYS morons that take the side of the people that are clearly in the wrong? It blows my mind.

---

Uh, anybody can be shot while jogging. It happens a lot more than you'd think. However, unless it involves a black person being killed by white men, it's not going to make national press. And whenever the national press is involved, you can pretty expect heavily slanted -- and often false -- narratives, both because they want to hype things up for a profit motive but also because the journalists, networks, etc, all have socio-political agendas

---

streamofthesky posted...

Sounds like the police should've found some stolen items on the body when they investigated the scene, then. Yet I've not seen any mention of them finding anything suspect on the victim. Hmm....

He may just not have found anything worth stealing or he ditched it when he was being harassed.

streamofthesky posted...

They used guns to make the citizen's arrest. That's using deadly force!
Unless you think "using a gun" only counts if you try to fire it. In which case, I guess you think any time a bank robber has ever held up people at gun point for a robbery but they comply so he never discharges it, that he wasn't "using" the gun.

Literally not how it works but okay. When someone robs a place with a gun its a different charge than 'deadly force'. That's why its called armed robbery vs. robbery. You can call it an armed citizens arrest if it makes you feel better.

---

Mead posted...

Are you really willing to believe that these guys saw a tape of a man committing a crime and were able to see him in such detail that they later recognized him on the side of the road with such confidence that they took it upon themselves to arrest him, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME refusing to consider that maybe these two Georgia boys heard there was a burglar in their town and decided the first black guy they saw running down the road was just too suspicious to wait for police to arrive and handle the situation.

No, I don't believe that's what happened. From the articles I read, it sounded as though they witnessed him prowling around the neighborhood and knew him from past experiences. But I have no idea if that's true or not. None of us do. That's what the court system is for.

---

Zeus posted...

Uh, anybody can be shot while jogging. It happens a lot more than you'd think. However, unless it involves a black person being killed by white men, it's not going to make national press. And whenever the national press is involved, you can pretty expect heavily slanted -- and often false -- narratives, both because they want to hype things up for a profit motive but also because the journalists, networks, etc, all have socio-political agendas

This post contains literally zero actual content

---

I_Always_Die posted...

why are there ALWAYS morons that take the side of the people that are clearly in the wrong? It blows my mind.

because racism

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

This post contains literally zero actual content

Naw it was pretty spot on. White guy shoots black guy is great clickbait. CNN wouldn't be nearly as excited if the races were reversed. Case in point actual stories where big press was dead silent

This is why guns should be banned.

Honestly, if the gun laws enable a 0.000009 per cent chance of a guy getting shot (in a racially motivated way) for going jogging, then just ban guns.

---

SpaceBear_ posted...

This is why guns should be banned.

Honestly, if the gun laws enable a 0.000009 per cent chance of a guy getting shot (in a racially motivated way) for going jogging, then just ban guns.

Considering how the 2nd amendment exists to disable a 0.000009% chance of the government going full NK, I don't see that getting much traction.
---

Blightzkrieg posted...

This post contains literally zero actual content

Literally zero actual content. @Zeus looking like hes too afraid to make his point more clearly cos hell be called out for being a racist or what? You know what you wanna say, say it with your chest homeboy.

At least they were arrested, but its taken three months? The people who are playing this thing down in this topic simply blow my mind. It happens all the time or they were legally allowed to make a citizens arrest, they were acting in self defence, if he grabbed the gun first he initiated the violence... lol do you hear yourselves?

my fucking goodness remind me never to move to the US.

---

Video going public is the only reason they were arrested

---

Zeus posted...

Uh, anybody can be shot while jogging. It happens a lot more than you'd think. However, unless it involves a black person being killed by white men, it's not going to make national press. And whenever the national press is involved, you can pretty expect heavily slanted -- and often false -- narratives, both because they want to hype things up for a profit motive but also because the journalists, networks, etc, all have socio-political agendas

Zeus will defend murderers, while vehemently being against the use of capital punishment on them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They're there to disincentivise booby trapping your house to brutalise trespassers and allow legitimate self-defense to work in most legitimate cases.

If they don't want to fall into a booby trap, then don't enter someone else's house without permission. As for people, if that don't want people booby trapping their house, then make it illegal to set-up booby traps. But don't make someone pay because a criminal is clumsy. Or can't see because they want to use the darkness to sneak around. So, it's a still a dumb law that should be gotten rid of. Or changed so it doesn't help criminals get away with crimes.
---

Mead posted...

Video going public is the only reason they were arrested

Yep

---

FatalAccident posted...

Literally zero actual content. @Zeus looking like hes too afraid to make his point more clearly cos hell be called out for being a racist or what? You know what you wanna say, say it with your chest homeboy.

At least they were arrested, but its taken three months? The people who are playing this thing down in this topic simply blow my mind. It happens all the time or they were legally allowed to make a citizens arrest, they were acting in self defence, if he grabbed the gun first he initiated the violence... lol do you hear yourselves?

my fucking goodness remind me never to move to the US.

No I think rational people are just saying the media always portrays these stories as "2 white supremacists waving swastika banners chase down black church goer while rebel yelling and chugging natties" when the reality is generally more complicated but doesnt make for great clickbait so they intentionally omit pertinent info

LinkPizza posted...

If they don't want to fall into a booby trap, then don't enter someone else's house without permission.

Well just fuck the postman if he steps on your lawn and if you invite someone over and they trigger your shotgun trap on your garden door, that's their problem.

LinkPizza posted...

then make it illegal to set-up booby traps. But don't make someone pay because a criminal is clumsy.

They do, but you can't be allowed to say you "accidentally" tensioned your vacuum lead at the top of the stairs to your basement when an invader is found dead down there. If you are responsible for making your environment reasonably safe then you can't BS diy traps.

LinkPizza posted...

can't see because they want to use the darkness to sneak around.

You aren't responsible for their negligence, but equally they aren't responsible for yours. If they trip on the stairs it's their fault, if you have faulty floorboards that cause a slip, you're at fault. When you can't intentionally cause excessive harm, there can't be loopholes to "accidentally" do it either.

LinkPizza posted...

changed so it doesn't help criminals get away with crimes.

That's why it's so loose. It's better to arrest someone for keeping their property in disrepair than to let people orchestrate a fatal accident freely.
---

I find it interesting that journalists these days will only give details of the race of the criminals if they are white. I've read so many articles where they purposefully leave out the race of the criminal if they were non-white. I'm not okay with anyone who takes away another person's life regardless of their skin color, just pointing out the bad practices of journalists omitting information.

wantmew posted...

I find it interesting that journalists these days will only give details of the race of the criminals if they are white. I've read so many articles where they purposefully leave out the race of the criminal if they were non-white. I'm not okay with anyone who takes away another person's life regardless of their skin color, just pointing out the bad practices of journalists omitting information.

i mean, at least a dozen young black men have been murdered in baltimore in the past week and gotten 0 national coverage. the city has 30% solve rate for murders so most of those perps are gonna get away with it. wheres the fucking outcry?

---

Noop_Noop posted...

i mean, at least a dozen young black men have been murdered in baltimore in the past week and gotten 0 national coverage. the city has 30% solve rate for murders so most of those perps are gonna get away with it. wheres the fucking outcry?

Gang wars cause gang deaths, hmu when a supposed innocent gets hit.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Well just fuck the postman if he steps on your lawn and if you invite someone over and they trigger your shotgun trap on your garden door, that's their problem.

But that's also not going into your house, like I said. The postman is allowed on the lawn. The example I gave was going into someone's else. So, you example means nothing to me as the postman isn't going into your house uninvited. If he is, then that's a whole other problem.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They do, but you can't be allowed to say you "accidentally" tensioned your vacuum lead at the top of the stairs to your basement when an invader is found dead down there. If you are responsible for making your environment reasonably safe then you can't BS diy traps.

That sounds like making a booby trap, though. There's a difference between tensioning a vacuum at the top of basement stairs and tripping over a power cord of a vacuum in the hallway. So, like I said, make a law against making booby traps (like tensioning a vacuum at the top of the stairs), but don't give money to a clumsy thief who tripped over a cord because it was dark since they wanted to sneak around without being caught. And honestly, depending on the stairs and how everything is set-up, I wouldn't even pay out to the criminal who fell down the stairs because of a tensioned vacuum cleaner cord if it actually looks like it could be an accident the way it was set-up...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You aren't responsible for their negligence, but equally they aren't responsible for yours. If they trip on the stairs it's their fault, if you have faulty floorboards that cause a slip, you're at fault. When you can't intentionally cause excessive harm, there can't be loopholes to "accidentally" do it either.

If you have faulty floorboards, I still don't think you should be responsible. In most cases, when you would invite somebody in your house, you would tell them about the floorboards. If you don't, and a guest gets hurt, I think you should be at fault. If you told them, then it should be on them. Of course, if a criminal comes in and doesn't know because no one was able to tell them due to them sneaking in, it should be their fault. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a bad person and someone you shouldn't trust...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's why it's so loose. It's better to arrest someone for keeping their property in disrepair than to let people orchestrate a fatal accident freely.

No its not. And that;s a dumb opinion. Arrest the criminal breaking into a house. And don't give them the payout they're looking for. Decent human beings understand you shouldn't reward criminals who got hurt while performing a crime. If you sneak into someone's house and walk on a faulty floorboard, you should have to pay for you own medical bills, and anything damaged in the house that would require extra repairs. You shouldn't be rewarded.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Gang wars cause gang deaths, hmu when a supposed innocent gets hit.

if you think there are no innocent bystanders getting hit during gang conflicts youre about as ignorant as i assume homie.

witnesses in trials. kids just happening to stand on the wrong corner when the wrong guy walks by and they catch a stray bullet. some poor fucker who accidentally flashed a few bills when he went to buy a pack of smokes or a bag of chips. 0 coverage for any of them because they had the unfortunate luck of being killed by someone with the same color skin. murder is murder. its supposed to be wrong whoever the fuck is committing the act.

---

LinkPizza posted...

The postman is allowed on the lawn.

How does your lawn mine know the difference? And how do you intend to stop your traps catching the uninvited only? It's not reasonable to expect people to keep on top of this so laying traps is seen as negligent of the risks.

LinkPizza posted...

There's a difference between tensioning a vacuum at the top of basement stairs and tripping over a power cord of a vacuum in the hallway.

The difference is not present in evidence, only in the accused's mind. You could say it's just forgotten but how can we prove that? We can't so the law is set to put the burden on the potential trap maker.

LinkPizza posted...

if a criminal comes in and doesn't know because no one was able to tell them due to them sneaking in, it should be their fault.

Unless of course it's used to injure somebody excessively. Just as you can't break someone's arm in self-defense without justification, you can't paralyse a burglar because he's in your house. Any trap can be viewed as negligent as you aren't in control of the harm done and you are not in danger.

LinkPizza posted...

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a bad person and someone you shouldn't trust...

The government has to operate assuming people act in bad faith otherwise criminals would just deny wrongdoing and get away free. If you are simply willing to act as a good citizen, it won't effect you. If you refuse to even maintain your house, why shouldn't they challenge you? It's not normal to live in a death trap.

LinkPizza posted...

Arrest the criminal breaking into a house.

Suppose they're actually somebody you invited to your house and you baited them in to setting off your trap and killing them. Why should you be able to just shrug your shoulders and say he was a burglar? How is it acceptable to leave a provision for this type of killing to be made effectively legal? Laws don't only effect what they're aimed at.

LinkPizza posted...

Decent human beings understand you shouldn't reward criminals who got hurt while performing a crime. If you sneak into someone's house and walk on a faulty floorboard, you should have to pay for you own medical bills, and anything damaged in the house that would require extra repairs. You shouldn't be rewarded.

Decent countries don't charge for medical care and compensation for injury isn't a reward, it's to cover recovery, to return to 0 because your house is a health hazard. Don't want to be liable for injuries? Don't leave hazards unmarked.

Noop_Noop posted...

if you think there are no innocent bystanders getting hit during gang conflicts youre about as ignorant as i assume homie.

witnesses in trials. kids just happening to stand on the wrong corner when the wrong guy walks by and they catch a stray bullet. some poor fucker who accidentally flashed a few bills when he went to buy a pack of smokes or a bag of chips. 0 coverage for any of them because they had the unfortunate luck of being killed by someone with the same color skin.

Let me put it this way; if you live amongst criminals, you're tarred with the same brush. Nobody's assumed innocent in the shithole town full of criminals. Nobody cares about their murder because they're associated by being in the same ends. When somebody not from their ends getting killed there it would stand out, but that person would have to be an idiot to go in to shithole town so they must know somebody there.

Criminals and friends of criminals killing eachother isn't news, it's par for course, it doesn't stand out, it's what we expect and it's normal. It's not to do with race beyond the criminals not choosing to associate outside their own.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How does your lawn mine know the difference? And how do you intend to stop your traps catching the uninvited only? It's not reasonable to expect people to keep on top of this so laying traps is seen as negligent of the risks.

Who said anything about lawn mines? When originally talking about this, we were talking about tripping over a cord in someone's house. Setting a landmine is very different from tripping over a random cord in the house. Not to mention, an actual booby trap. I said you can make booby traps illegal. But someone tripping over a cord in your house doesn't always mean booby trap. So, Idk why you're even mentioning a lawn mine.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The difference is not present in evidence, only in the accused's mind. You could say it's just forgotten but how can we prove that? We can't so the law is set to put the burden on the potential trap maker.

You also can't prove it was intentional. Or even left out. That means I can go to someone's house, pull the vacuum from wherever it is, and trip over it to get a payout. And that shouldn't be legal. Which is why you shouldn't pay criminals because they suck at life.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Unless of course it's used to injure somebody excessively. Just as you can't break someone's arm in self-defense without justification, you can't paralyse a burglar because he's in your house. Any trap can be viewed as negligent as you aren't in control of the harm done and you are not in danger.

Again, you're talking about setting a booby trap. Maybe you're forgetting, but I said multiple times to make having a booby trap illegal. If you don't want to have a real conversation, just let me know so I can stop wasting my time talking to you. Having a booby trap should be illegal. Having loose floorboards because you haven't fixed them should be fine. The problem is proving it. In that case, have the criminal prove it was a booby trap. And if they can't, they lose. If they can, they both the home owner and criminal get in trouble.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The government has to operate assuming people act in bad faith otherwise criminals would just deny wrongdoing and get away free. If you are simply willing to act as a good citizen, it won't effect you. If you refuse to even maintain your house, why shouldn't they challenge you? It's not normal to live in a death trap.

So, you're saying to arrest people who don't have money? Because not everyone has the money to do full house maintenance. And it wouldn't be an issue for anyone but the person/people living/visiting the house. For example, if the floor broke that night, there might not have been a place that can replace floorboards open still. So, you can't get it fixed until tomorrow after they open. If a burglar breaks in and falls through the floor, causing more damage, they should have to pay the extra. And be arrested for stealing. They can pay their own medical bills. Alternatively, the floorboards could be loose, but you have to wait until you have money to fix them. If a criminal breaks is and falls, same thing. They should pay for the extra damage they cause and get arrested.

Also, you mention that if "the government has to operate assuming people act in bad faith otherwise criminals would just deny wrongdoing and get away free." But by letting criminals sue the home owners, you're doing just that. Not only are you letting criminals get away, but you're paying them. So, it makes no sense. DON'T PAY CRIMINALS FOR GETTING HURT WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME. It's really simple. Only criminals would think it's ok to pay a criminal for getting hurt while committing a crime, unless the reason they got hurt was because of another (actual) crime.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Suppose they're actually somebody you invited to your house and you baited them in to setting off your trap and killing them. Why should you be able to just shrug your shoulders and say he was a burglar? How is it acceptable to leave a provision for this type of killing to be made effectively legal? Laws don't only effect what they're aimed at.

Maybe you should actual read what I wrote. Because you obviously aren't if you're asking questions I already answered. Post #97, third response. I said: "If you don't, and a guest gets hurt, I think you should be at fault. If you told them, then it should be on them."

So, that means you would bee at fault if you baited them into it. Also, I said you can make booby traps illegal. You said they were, so now that person is actually committing a crime by baiting someone into a booby trap. So, now the home owner is a criminal.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Decent countries don't charge for medical care and compensation for injury isn't a reward, it's to cover recovery, to return to 0 because your house is a health hazard.

Compesation for injury is a reward when the injury was caused because you were committing a crime. And depending on how you're billed, you could also just not use the money for that. And use it for whatever you want to use it for.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Don't want to be liable for injuries? Don't leave hazards unmarked.

How about, "Don't wanna get hurt while committing a crime, don't commit a crime." That's how decent humans think. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you if you think criminals should get paid for getting hurt while committing a crime for being clumsy. If there's a booby trap, then both should get in trouble. But if they just tripped of fell or whatever, they shouldn't get jack shit.
---

The question I see nobody ask is how they were so certain this was the guy. Apparently he is well known in the area for his jogging etc but they couldn't be 100% sure unless they had his pics, which I saw no mention of. They just spotted "black guy jogging" and went after him. That's extremely dangerous behaviour regardless of whether it had a racial motive or not. I think it obviously did even if not in the intent to kill him. Imagine being mistaken for this guy and getting jacked up, since all black people look the same didn't yknow.

---

streamofthesky posted...

It sure can. And in this case, it was a pair of white guys being racist against a black guy.

Indeed. I see this topic went places though. Bligh got warned and perhaps other posters. Shocking.

---