Skank lied to me.... No im going to have problems

Im in pittsburgh,lol if you wanna "hide out" i'm just like a hour away,but im down for shooting up someone also...
I can see this turning out like one of those fights that starts on myspace //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 
I don't know. To all the guys saying it's ok to shoot as long as you feel threatened in YOUR home, you might be wrong. Better check the rulebook again. For example, I HEAR TX was the only state you can shoot someone in the back and not go to jail for. Aagin, this is just what I heard.

 
I don't know. To all the guys saying it's ok to shoot as long as you feel threatened in YOUR home, you might be wrong. Better check the rulebook again. For example, I HEAR TX was the only state you can shoot someone in the back and not go to jail for. Aagin, this is just what I heard.
thats why u shoot them in the face

 
I think I would rather have a gun then some mase... I know he will have one if he is retarded enough to do it again
screw SOME MASE...

take A MACE!

jk507_FULL.jpg


I wouldn't mess with a guy that carried a mace

 
What drugs is that girl on? She has to be on something or have down syndrome.

Grow a pair and go about your daily life. If someone wants to scrap just be ready to kick some ass. Not really all that complicated.

Sounds like high school **** to me.

 
Whatever happen to a good old ass whooping? Two guys and no weapons. The loser shuts the **** up and leaves the winner alone.
This seems more logical than shooting someone in the face.
yea that doesnt happen anymore some kid was being a b*tch to me and told me if i wanted to fight then meet him at his house, i stopped his out pretty bad still cant get all the blood out of my clothes so naturaly hes a punk @ss b*tch and told 12 of his homies me and four people jumped him, f***er tried to kill me even though he started it and i finished it, he was just to gaannnssttaaa and hardcore to take his place and anyone that brings a gun is probably the same way

 
not sure how the law works there but i know here in ILif someone comes in the door and you feel threatened in any way at all

you can do whatever you feel you have to in order to stay safe or alive

Lol. to an extent. I had a friend knock on the wrong door. Just so happened it was a drug dealers house. Granted it was a 4am the dude came out and popped him in the face with a .38. They found 13 lbs of bud and 15k cash in his house. Luckily her survived and only has a small scar and a little eye damage.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1058126,2_1_AU16_SHOOTING_S1.article

 
isnt it standard law, if some1 breaks into your house u can nail em on the spot...
as long as they wuz in yer house?

kinda how it works in nevada i think.. lol
nope. people have actually been sued for this kinda **** before. How dumb would you feel if someone broke in your house, you stabbed him and he was able to sue you?

 
isnt it standard law, if some1 breaks into your house u can nail em on the spot...
as long as they wuz in yer house?

kinda how it works in nevada i think.. lol
Criminal Liability

13A-3-23 Use of Force in the Defense of a Person

(A) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person

in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonable

believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by

that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably

believes to be necessary for that purpose. A person may use deadly force

if the actor reasonably believes that such other person is:

1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling

while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling; or

3) Committing or about to commit a kidnaping in any degree, assault

in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any

degree, forcible rape or forcible sodomy.

(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (A), a person is not

justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if it

reasonably appears or he knows that he can avoid the necessity of

using such force with complete safety:

1) By retreating, except that the actor is not required to retreat:

a) If he is in his dwelling or at his place of work and was not the

original aggressor; or

b) If he is a peace officer or a private person lawfully assisting a

peace officer at his direction.

2), & 3) repealed by Acts 1979, no.79599, p.1060, ss 1.

© Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (A), a person is

not justified in using physical force if:

1) With intend to cause physical injury or death to another person,

he provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person; or

2) He was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force

upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he

withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to

the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless

continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by

agreement not specifically authorized by law.

 
Duty to Retreat

The confusion comes from a fundamental difference in the philosophy of criminal law. The current self defense laws in America are based on a theory of one's duty to retreat, meaning when faced with a hostile situation, run away. If you cannot run away and have to defend yourself, then use of force is acceptable.

In 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.

The Law

"Stand-Your-Ground" Law - The New Debate in Self Defense Law

"Stand Your Ground" laws, sometimes called shoot-first laws by their critics, are statutes that significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases.

The state of Florida became the first to enact such a self defense law on October 1, 2005. The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful placing, throwing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

The Florida law authorizes the use of defensive force by anyone "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be." Furthermore, under the law, such a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." The statute also grants civil and criminal immunity to anyone found to have had such a reasonable belief.

Since the enactment of the Florida legislation, South Dakota, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Indiana have adopted similar statutes, and 15 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" self defense laws of their own.

 
MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Governor Riley signed legislation today that puts Alabama among a growing number of states giving new legal protection to people who kill intruders in their homes, businesses and vehicles.

The new law deletes language from state law that says a person should not use deadly force during a break-in if he or she can "avoid using force with complete safety."

The new law was pushed by the National Rifle Association. It follows the passage of similar laws in Florida, Indiana, South Dakota and Mississippi. NRA lobbyist Chris Cox says the pendulum had been swinging toward criminals for too long and now it's swinging back toward crime victims.

Ronald Jackson of People United in Birmingham says the legislation will lead to more gun violence. He says it also sends the wrong message about Alabama because it implies that crime is out of control in Alabama.

looks like I can blast intruders away

 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

Korn4Life

5,000+ posts
SUB LOVE
Thread starter
Korn4Life
Joined
Location
PA
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
91
Views
1,910
Last reply date
Last reply from
BassAddictJ
IMG_1882.jpeg

slater

    Oct 4, 2025
  • 0
  • 0
Screenshot_20251004_120904_Photo Translator.jpg

1aespinoza

    Oct 4, 2025
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top