stevena198301
Elite Refuge Member
Thanks, I needed a laugh today.
Here we go again. Texas school shooting
- Thread starter lugnut
- Start date
Thanks, I needed a laugh today.
Steelshot Scott
Elite Refuge Member
^^^^^^^^^^^
I bet you were in the "They will never overturn Roe vs Wade" camp too.
I stated way back, and on a number of different discussion threads in this forum why Roe was unConstitutional and if the SC ruled based on the Constitution, it would be overturned.
Almost everyone said it would never happen.
Then 3 Constitutionalists were appointed to the SC.
I was right, they were wrong.
Same thing applies here, strictly ruling on the law with no emotional bias, the state had no basis to bring charges because of the vague nature of the "in fear for your life" clause. It is a loophole if you will, except in this case, it was a loophole to protect victims and allow them self defense. The DA decided to ignore this loophole.
But it is still there.
I hope the Drejka case makes it to the SC. I bet they are planning it now, even if they weren't before.
I bet you were in the "They will never overturn Roe vs Wade" camp too.
I stated way back, and on a number of different discussion threads in this forum why Roe was unConstitutional and if the SC ruled based on the Constitution, it would be overturned.
Almost everyone said it would never happen.
Then 3 Constitutionalists were appointed to the SC.
I was right, they were wrong.
Same thing applies here, strictly ruling on the law with no emotional bias, the state had no basis to bring charges because of the vague nature of the "in fear for your life" clause. It is a loophole if you will, except in this case, it was a loophole to protect victims and allow them self defense. The DA decided to ignore this loophole.
But it is still there.
I hope the Drejka case makes it to the SC. I bet they are planning it now, even if they weren't before.
Last edited:
stevena198301
Elite Refuge Member
Well, you’re absolutely wrong with your assumption of my opinion of RvW, but you do you, Brocephus.
Steelshot Scott
Elite Refuge Member
So you thought it would be overturned? All along?
stevena198301
Elite Refuge Member
Stop grasping Scott.
Honestly: NO, BUT I'm glad it was!
Steelshot Scott
Elite Refuge Member
I am not grasping. I have been consistent, from the beginning. My positions on things have not varied, at all.
Unlike most of the people who seem so determined to force me to change my mind or admit that I am wrong in my opinions, I have not argued the justice of the cases we discussed, I discussed what I consider the legality of the laws. I am able to disconnect how I personally feel about the defendant and how I feel the law is being interpreted.
In the case of abortion. I find it morally reprehensible, but I did not discuss the subject with arguments about heartbeats and the sanctity of life. Putting aside my personal opinions, I looked at the law and I realized that it was improperly founded. The SC enacted law, rather than interpreting it. And my argument was vindicated when the SC ruled exactly on the merits of the argument I put forward.
I know that Michael Drejka was convicted because he was a jerk. He was a unlikable human being. He has a history of picking arguments. He is known to have a temper. But none of those things are illegal. He was convicted because people argued he shouldn't have confronted the woman about the handicap space. But that is not against the law.
When McGlockton knocked him to the ground and advanced on him, this was the first time a law was broken in this confrontation(other than the illegal parking). The phrase "in reasonable fear for your life" is sufficiently vague enough to create a loophole that should have shielded Drejka(and it was vaguely written for that reason). It was written this way so radical DAs couldn't charge people based on political views. I felt that based on the law, his actions were legal(even if not justified morally). I feel that if the case ever got before legal literalists, it would be overturned.
Just like Roe vs Wade. I knew the law was improperly founded. In the Drejka case, the charges shouldn't have been brought, based on the law as written. If you don't like the law the way it is written, then revise the law. Stand Your Ground is no longer the protection of self defense it was due to convicting Drejka based on the fact he was a unlikable jerk and parsing the video, frame by frame, second by second.
I guarantee that time would have flown by a lot faster if you had been knocked to the ground and advanced on by a huge career felon. In that split second, you might just make the wrong decision too. That is why the law was written like it was.
Don't like that, then write in a "responsibility to retreat" clause. I disagree with doing that, but it would fix the problem y'all seem to have with the Michael Drejka case
Unlike most of the people who seem so determined to force me to change my mind or admit that I am wrong in my opinions, I have not argued the justice of the cases we discussed, I discussed what I consider the legality of the laws. I am able to disconnect how I personally feel about the defendant and how I feel the law is being interpreted.
In the case of abortion. I find it morally reprehensible, but I did not discuss the subject with arguments about heartbeats and the sanctity of life. Putting aside my personal opinions, I looked at the law and I realized that it was improperly founded. The SC enacted law, rather than interpreting it. And my argument was vindicated when the SC ruled exactly on the merits of the argument I put forward.
I know that Michael Drejka was convicted because he was a jerk. He was a unlikable human being. He has a history of picking arguments. He is known to have a temper. But none of those things are illegal. He was convicted because people argued he shouldn't have confronted the woman about the handicap space. But that is not against the law.
When McGlockton knocked him to the ground and advanced on him, this was the first time a law was broken in this confrontation(other than the illegal parking). The phrase "in reasonable fear for your life" is sufficiently vague enough to create a loophole that should have shielded Drejka(and it was vaguely written for that reason). It was written this way so radical DAs couldn't charge people based on political views. I felt that based on the law, his actions were legal(even if not justified morally). I feel that if the case ever got before legal literalists, it would be overturned.
Just like Roe vs Wade. I knew the law was improperly founded. In the Drejka case, the charges shouldn't have been brought, based on the law as written. If you don't like the law the way it is written, then revise the law. Stand Your Ground is no longer the protection of self defense it was due to convicting Drejka based on the fact he was a unlikable jerk and parsing the video, frame by frame, second by second.
I guarantee that time would have flown by a lot faster if you had been knocked to the ground and advanced on by a huge career felon. In that split second, you might just make the wrong decision too. That is why the law was written like it was.
Don't like that, then write in a "responsibility to retreat" clause. I disagree with doing that, but it would fix the problem y'all seem to have with the Michael Drejka case
Last edited:
