standing one's grounds

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
MEJ
MEJ's picture

Considering the new stand your ground laws, would it be okay for people with horrible cancers from industrially polluted area to shoot those responsible....or those they think are responsible? Wouyld it be okay for someone with a pre-existing life threatening condition who is now insured thanks that Obama-cares to assinate the right-wing activist SCOTUS members that threaten to remove needed healthcare? Would it be okay....

I'm just askin'

Comments

bamboo
bamboo's picture
Yes. 

Yes. 

Calperson
Calperson's picture
I'd say No emphatically! Only

I'd say No emphatically!

Only a truly disgusting and disturbed mind would ever suggest that someone assassinate a Supreme Court Judge.

Thom, congratulations, you really have fostered a den of vile hatred using your website.

If the website in YOUR name, Thom Hartmann, calls for the murder of a Supreme Court Judge and doesn't cause you to take stock of your life and cause you shame, then I'm afraid nothing will.

Sad, and disturbing!

 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Violence is always

Violence is always wrong. 

But, since the right wing has passed a law that allows for you to stand their ground, and one could argue that, say, an ER doctor who refuses to treat a sick child could expect the mother to stand her ground to save her child's life.

I guess what MEJ is trying to say is, as always is the case, Republitards look to encourage violence, thinking their guys will commit violence against abortion clinics and liberal media elites. Then they go crazy when the guns get turned on their people.

I can remember when it was totally acceptable to have a TeaPartyTard protest Pres. Obama carrying a AR-15, but two women showing up at a public Bush event with a Kerry bumpersticker was such a heinous offense the women were arrested, and taken to jail. 

Anti liberals can carry assault rifles. Anti conservatives are not allowed to have bumperstickers. 

 

 

Proveloper
Proveloper's picture
So, two people, each armed,

So, two people, each armed, confront each other on the street and "stand their ground" unloading their pistol's magazines at each other.  In another time they called this "dueling".

Dominic C
Calperson wrote: I'd say No

Calperson wrote:

I'd say No emphatically!

Only a truly disgusting and disturbed mind would ever suggest that someone assassinate a Supreme Court Judge.

Thom, congratulations, you really have fostered a den of vile hatred using your website.

If the website in YOUR name, Thom Hartmann, calls for the murder of a Supreme Court Judge and doesn't cause you to take stock of your life and cause you shame, then I'm afraid nothing will.

Sad, and disturbing!

 

 

This, coming from one of the most vile posters here...

Karolina
Karolina's picture
And the most hillariously

And the most hillariously manipulating—as they all are.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
MEJ wrote: Considering the

MEJ wrote:

Considering the new stand your ground laws, would it be okay for people with horrible cancers from industrially polluted area to shoot those responsible....or those they think are responsible? Wouyld it be okay for someone with a pre-existing life threatening condition who is now insured thanks that Obama-cares to assinate the right-wing activist SCOTUS members that threaten to remove needed healthcare? Would it be okay....

I'm just askin'

No. But it does allow for vengeful, homicidal posters to recieve counselling.

On a serious note MEJ. Be VERY, VERY carefull!!!!! Tread lightly here!!!

You could find yourself in trouble with the secret service. An implied threat to the SCOTUS could land you in a tough spot.  If you were to write POTUS instead of SCOTUS that could bring big trouble. It's also not the kind of message that Thom would approve of.

Careful my friend!

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Karolina wrote: And the most

Karolina wrote:

And the most hillariously manipulating—as they all are.

You are throwing MEJ and bamboo under the bus. I would say that rather than obsess on the past sins of some of your mal-treated conservative members, you may want to focus on the situation at hand.

What if one these members decided to report this threat to the feds? Bamboo, MEJ and this entire forum could come under intense scrutiny. Charges could be filed. Internet threats are taken seriously and charges have been filed in the past. Hiding behind a screen name does not work in these situations. On Thom's show he has criticized vile conservative internet posts. Yet he remains silent in this case. He should be involved. This is his forum.

What ya'll need to do is to council these two folks on the danger of comments such as these, and ask for a retraction or explaination. This is nothing to joke about.

Calperson
Calperson's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: Violence is

Phaedrus76 wrote:

Violence is always wrong. 

But, since the right wing has passed a law that allows for you to stand their ground, and one could argue that, say, an ER doctor who refuses to treat a sick child could expect the mother to stand her ground to save her child's life >

I'm not exactly sure HOW this argument CAN be made. How is the sick child helped if the mother murders the doctor? Treatment I suspect would be even MORE difficult if the dude is now dead wouldn't you say?

Dominic C
Proveloper wrote: So, two

Proveloper wrote:

So, two people, each armed, confront each other on the street and "stand their ground" unloading their pistol's magazines at each other.  In another time they called this "dueling".

This.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
The people who put this law

The people who put this law out there are insane if they think for a moment that their lives and their children's lives are any less in danger than anybody elses. It is not a threat from any particular individual or any particular group. It is a fact—though they may not be aware of it in their blinding arrogance. We are discussing it as observers of life, who are also equally endangered by this "Shoot First, Then Decide What To Claim Later" law.

DRC
DRC's picture
If our con 'friends' think we

If our con 'friends' think we are not already open to being treated as enemies of the state by the Righties in Charge, they do not understand how tyranny works.  Plenty of serious questions have been addressed here, and this makes it a threat to them.

I think the argument of the absurd has its place in unmasking the operating absurdity, and we ought to be able to separate "threat" from hyperbole.  I like the European practice where anyone defending him or herself from a threat has to demonstrate a threat sufficient to warrant the action.  Even killing a killer requires threat of imminent harm, not just a sense of intent.  Verbal threats are not enough to justify taking a life.  The gun has to be drawn and ready to shoot.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
DRC wrote: If our con

DRC wrote:

If our con 'friends' think we are not already open to being treated as enemies of the state by the Righties in Charge, they do not understand how tyranny works.  Plenty of serious questions have been addressed here, and this makes it a threat to them.

I think the argument of the absurd has its place in unmasking the operating absurdity, and we ought to be able to separate "threat" from hyperbole.  I like the European practice where anyone defending him or herself from a threat has to demonstrate a threat sufficient to warrant the action.  Even killing a killer requires threat of imminent harm, not just a sense of intent.  Verbal threats are not enough to justify taking a life.  The gun has to be drawn and ready to shoot.

 

Maybe so, but that is not the way the Secret Service or Homeland security sees it. Do you think they would get a chuckle if they got wind of it. Find out how they have dealt with other internet "hyperbole." There is precedent.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Do these "stand your ground"

Do these "stand your ground" laws apply to all ages?  Can someone who has commited a school shooting based on bullying use this as a defense?  This law sounds kind of scary to me when it's being thrown around a web blog.  I'll have to read the actual writing of the law.

Dominic C
All 'Wild West' laws like

All 'Wild West' laws like this ultimately seem to advocate for vigilantism and taking matters into your own hands rather than leaving it to the police as we do in a civil society.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Well from what I have been

Well from what I have been reading most states look at it on a case by case basis.  If you are threatened in your own home it's almost always going to be a non issue.  If it's outside of your dwelling then it's more complicated.  However, I have not seen anywhere that it is defensible if YOU are the stalker.  By definition if you feel threatened for your life or serious bodily harm then you wouldn't follow the one you fear.  As a matter of fact, the stand your ground laws replaced, ironically, "retreat to the walls" laws that used to be the norm because of the now more powerful guns that came into existence. 

It used to be considered that your "duty" was to run or retreat when threatened by fists or even knives.  Once guns were invented it was found kind of ridiculous to think that you could retreat and run away from a bullet. 

The stand your ground law doesn't fit well with what happened in Florida.

DRC
DRC's picture
Yep, rigel, I do know that we

Yep, rigel, I do know that we are insane and treat "threat" as if it were lethal force ready to fire.  How else can you keep the fear amped up to prevent thinking or humanity?  TSA is a perfect example of a Rightwing Big Government takeover.  How do you like the new "fear of flying" where it is about getting to the plane rather than having it hijacked or crashing?  I just think the terrorists are laughing everytime we take out our belts to get past the scanners.

Dominic C
DRC wrote:   I just think the

DRC wrote:

  I just think the terrorists are laughing everytime we take out our belts to get past the scanners.

And I think that the terrorists have won most of the battle by getting the cowering fear riddled US populace to capitulate to having more  and more of our civil liberties stripped away in the name of security.

Sprinklerfitter
Sprinklerfitter's picture
Dominic C wrote: DRC wrote:  

Dominic C wrote:

DRC wrote:

  I just think the terrorists are laughing everytime we take out our belts to get past the scanners.

And I think that the terrorists have won most of the battle by getting the cowering fear riddled US populace to capitulate to having more  and more of our civil liberties stripped away in the name of security.

True.....but there is money to be made from fear mongering. Just ask your local GOPimpCon Politician

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Dominic C wrote: DRC wrote:  

Dominic C wrote:

DRC wrote:

  I just think the terrorists are laughing everytime we take out our belts to get past the scanners.

And I think that the terrorists have won most of the battle by getting the cowering fear riddled US populace to capitulate to having more  and more of our civil liberties stripped away in the name of security.

You me and the American people are not panicing. It's our government who panics and over does everything they touch. Only the Feds would think it's okay to hassle a 90 year old D-day veteran or a boy in a wheel chair.  All in the name of "fairness." Absurd.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
I think that we all know that

I think that we all know that our government is corrupted by the 1% for at least 3 decades now. It is not functioning as it was intended, nor as it does when strong patriots are in the three branches of our democratic government. The ones who are trying to privatize everything want to make you, me and the rest of the American people panic to effectively continue their takeover.

Had to mention this. Smaller government is not the answer. Obviously.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Arming surveillance drones is

Arming surveillance drones is the next step. They will be able to tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullet from remote centers. The of course they can lay off more of the police preferably before they qualify for pensions. The drones don't even have to operated within the state. Pictures of drone crowd abuse can't be traced, no badge numbers. 

The TX guy was a hero on fox. Claimed he was saving his life by shooting unarmed burglars of his neighbor's house. Property is more important than life in TX. The neighbor knowing his house vacant may have contracted the burglary because of a messy divorce, or insurance fraud, but you now deserve to die if you try to enter the wrong room in a hotel, or an alzheimer's patient wanders into the wrong house. The law as applied in both FL and TX is basically a license to hunt humans.

btw, Coke, Pepsi, and Kraft pulled out of alec. They didn't know their membership fees were used in such disgusting ways. The plans in place to deny voting rights are already in place. Like bush v Gore, voter suppression is the plan this year, complements of alec.

scriber1
scriber1's picture
rigel1 wrote: What if one

rigel1 wrote:

What if one these members decided to report this threat to the feds? Bamboo, MEJ and this entire forum could come under intense scrutiny. Charges could be filed. Internet threats are taken seriously and charges have been filed in the past. Hiding behind a screen name does not work in these situations. On Thom's show he has criticized vile conservative internet posts. Yet he remains silent in this case. He should be involved. This is his forum.

What ya'll need to do is to council these two folks on the danger of comments such as these, and ask for a retraction or explaination. This is nothing to joke about.

Good grief Rigel1, fear monger much?  That's the Conservative way huh?

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
The law as applied in TX and

The law as applied in TX and FL allows you to kill anyone you want. Niether fox or zimmerman were in danger, they just wanted to hunt humans.

scriber1
scriber1's picture
correction douglaslee,

correction douglaslee, Zimmerman wanted to kill an African American.  Why else would he say "they always get away" right before he pursued and murdered Trayvon in cold blood?

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
You're right scriber1, that

You're right scriber1, that and the "***king ****n" comment he uttered when he was in pursuit. Stand means stand, not pursue, not stalk. I wonder if zimmerman went to buy another gun since the police reluctantly came for the one used in the murder.

Art
Art's picture
Can we please just use the

Can we please just use the language as it is used? "Coon" is not one of the seven forbidden words in the media and we seem to be able to get away with "fucking" on these message boards. (This is a politically correct issue where I tend to agree with Conservatives who want license to offend). This is probably what Zimmerman said. 

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Karolina wrote: I think that

Karolina wrote:

I think that we all know that our government is corrupted by the 1% for at least 3 decades now.

You are half right. Yes the government is corrupt. But they are not corrupted by anyone. Honest people cannot be corrupted. The government can be bought because they are corrupt. It's the governments job to serve tyhey people not the campaign donors. Anyone who can be bought will be bought.

Karolina
Karolina's picture
Oh Rigel, why don't you think

Oh Rigel, why don't you think things through?

When there are billionaire right-wingers plotting how to take over the US government quietly, don't you think that even after just the FIRST decade things, and political workers would already be changing on all levels of government? Changing, that is, in ways and alliances that would help with the accomplishment of the billionaires' evil plan...even like, say, that a President on their team would be voted in to start getting things done more quickly? 

And by the THIRD decade..... don't you think that things in the government would be in UTTER CHAOS, and the entire power-position work force would consist of either people on board to get the evil plan done, or people in government jobs fearing for their lives.

The only thing that is even more of a kick in the proverbial nuts for all of us, is the fact that these billionaire right-wingers are, no doubt, now in a fucking panic because they know that the entire financial system is already coming apart. Hence, the crazy desperate controlling laws, and the planning of new, unnecessary wars.

DRC
DRC's picture
And, if humans were saints,

And, if humans were saints, we would need no laws.  If you make corruption legal, you make honest people compete with the corrupt without any protection from the law.  What does an honest politician do when tons of money are dumped in his district to buy lie time on tv and spread vicious rumors about him beyond the sphere of those who can possibly know him/her personally?  Where does that person find equivalent funding or fail to have to spend a ton dealing with lies rather than talking about what matters?

Your opinion on government and corruption misses the whole point.  Bernie Sanders lives in a state small enough for him to have established his personal trust.  Peter DeFazio is a Congressman from Southern Oregon who wins in a Purple district while being a solid Progressive.  I am not discounting honesty or integrity as a good thing; but I am saying that those with it deserve to have a legal election system that prevents and/or punishes corruption to support their virtue.  What your GOPimps and Supremes have established is legalized bribery and unbrideled corruption.  If you want to support election reform and getting the money out of our elections, you will find that virtue can be more than its own reward, in retirement.  We could get rid of Daryl Asshole, for example.

rigel1
rigel1's picture
Karolina wrote: Oh Rigel, why

Karolina wrote:

Oh Rigel, why don't you think things through?

When there are billionaire right-wingers plotting how to take over the US government quietly, don't you think that even after just the FIRST decade things, and political workers would already be changing on all levels of government? Changing, that is, in ways and alliances that would help with the accomplishment of the billionaires' evil plan...even like, say, that a President on their team would be voted in to start getting things done more quickly? 

And by the THIRD decade..... don't you think that things in the government would be in UTTER CHAOS, and the entire power-position work force would consist of either people on board to get the evil plan done, or people in government jobs fearing for their lives.

The only thing that is even more of a kick in the proverbial nuts for all of us, is the fact that these billionaire right-wingers are, no doubt, now in a fucking panic because they know that the entire financial system is already coming apart. Hence, the crazy desperate controlling laws, and the planning of new, unnecessary wars.

Okay, I'll play. If the 1% is buying influence, who are they buying it from? And do billionaire left wingers not buy influence?

Karolina
Karolina's picture
I'm not joking or playing

I'm not joking or playing Rigel. It's the God's truth. It's not about buying influence—it's about rich people with no moral fiber declaring a war to the death on the middle & poor classes of their own country.

DRC
DRC's picture
The very few billionaire left

The very few billionaire left wingers try to correct the damage done by the rightwing money.  They do not use their fortunes to buy the government for their personal profit.  rigel, you have not grown at all since you began to post crap like this.  Learn.  You do not improve with time.  You just look less honest and more trollish.

TChamp3121
TChamp3121's picture
People, ...settle down.

People, ...settle down.  Don't let your emotions get the best of you.  It' quite simple.  In order to stand your ground with lethal force your life has to be in IMMENENT danger.  The validitly of this danger is measured against what a sane and prudent person would do in the same situation.  So, just because YOU many think your life is in immenent danger does not mean that it IS in the eyes of the law.  You may see pink cows talking to you, but that doesn't mean they are real.  To you they are, but not to everyone else.  One is SUBJECTIVE, the other OBJECTIVE.  

 

DRC
DRC's picture
Champ, it is one thing to

Champ, it is one thing to call for calm, and quite another to tell real victims that they are paranoid.  We would not be trying to get the courts to do their job if "self-defense" was not about the scary Black guy instead of a reasonable fear that one's life was in danger.  Picking a fight with a guy who turns out to be able to kick your ass is not grounds for self-defense shootings.  If the law were fair and objective about this, there would be no issue.