Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Tiassa]

where does it say anywhere that malice need be present?
where?
show me, please?

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.​

You don't "willfully cause harm" "because" by accident. "Willful" precludes accident. "Because" precludes accident. And in this cases, what that means is, accidentally needing to kill someone because someone wrongly perceived threat.

Is it that you don't really pay attention, Stumpy? You just keep trolling. Skin color as criterion of danger. Mortal fear. I even discussed contradictory inquest verdicts about the judgment of being really really scared when there isn't actually a threat. And throughout you're just deliberately wasting your time and everyone else's on a useless troll job tyring to change the subject. And along the way, you misrepresent↑ the record↑, repeatedly↑. Really↑.

And you even called me out directly↑ to witness your advocacy of Nazi respectability.

Or the bit rejecting the right of a black man to defend himself↑, and the excremental↑ revisionism↑ reminding that Stumpy will say anything to justify the murder of a black man ... yeah, speaking of malice, you never have told us what's up with yours.

Look, seriously, the only mystery about your troll job is who you think you're fooling.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I referred directly to your DOJ link on the Brown shooting, and you refused to accept it.

i can make the exact same claim: I referred directly to [the] DOJ link on the Brown shooting, and you refused to accept it.

difference: i quoted the findings, physical supporting evidence and the conclusions
you quoted just one of the Wilson witness statements

who is wrong? you singled out a small point in a changing statement, that you said had changed, that the DOJ document acknowledged changes in, as justification for you belief

I think I will hold off on wasting any time finding a bunch of quotes from AGs and prosecutors and judges and so forth, until you have explicitly made a fool of yourself by declaring exactly what it is you need documentation of, and thereby simplified my task.

1- WTF?

2- i've already explicitly stated what i need, repeatedly, for the past 15 pages or so

3- you've provided articles to support your belief, so why do you fear providing the source material if you're so sure the articles covered the facts?

4- refusal to produce source material to support your argument is pretty much all the evidence really needed to prove you have no argument or justification for your beliefs

For example: do you need documentation for my take on the Trayvon Martin case?

yes: articles are opinion and not proof of anything other than the opinion of the author

If so, on what basis do you think Zimmerman was found not guilty - by a jury - other than Zimmerman's account of his killing of Martin, including his justifications and claims of self defense etc, (and the odd manner in which charges were brought, omitting (for example) the possibility of lower degrees of manslaughter for the jury to choose).

i have no real opinion on the bases of Zimmerman, really, because i do not have the source material to make an informed decision on


if anyone makes or forms an opinion on the written material in the news, they could well be misinformed. case in point: "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night"
here is an even better and more relevant example: the navy yard shooting - where the gunman was originally said to have an AR-15, and in one case, used an AR-15 shotgun

Note that my argument depends on his account being a key aspect, and acceptance of his account (or at least recognition that it was not disproved) being central to his acquittal, {by establishing that the killing was or would be justified on that account, and therefore not a crime.} (edit in).

1- which account?

2- if you meant the news articles of his account: how did you validate the news article was correct?
2a - if you meant another source: how did you validate this was correct?
2b - if you meant a verbal account over the news by the person: this is not the same thing as the witness statement unless it is specifically included in the adjudication and used as evidence because it could be after the fact, or it could be showboating for attention, or it could be.... do you get the point yet?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You don't "willfully cause harm" "because" by accident. "Willful" precludes accident. "Because" precludes accident. And in this cases, what that means is, accidentally needing to kill someone because someone wrongly perceived threat.

1- this is your interpretation of the law - you literally just inferred malice
and
2- you didn't actually answer the question: where does it say malice need be present?

3- per the written law you quoted: if a person shoots another, even in self defense, then said person uses the justification of said shooting by argument of race, as explicitly stated in the law then said person can be charged with a hate crime.

you just proved my point and failed to prove your own point - literally - You just keep trolling.
i can prove you're trolling
you say:

Skin color as criterion of danger. Mortal fear.

the law says

Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person.

it's not rocket surgery, nor is it about implications or inferences of malice. it is explicitly worded.

I even discussed contradictory inquest verdicts about the judgment of being really really scared when there isn't actually a threat

yes - you've shown your opinion on the articles in the news which is the authors opinion

like ice, not once have you ever produced source material from any of your so called justified shootings - the closest you've come to source material is a state statute
state is trumped by federal if they're covering the same topic

but the topic is: killing blacks in the US
self defense laws don't cover that, but 18 U.S. Code § 249 does

reporting your other crap as trolling baiting BS
you still can't provide source material so you are attempting to garner support for your position by interpreting what i say as repugnant, then justifying your argument by simply lying

 

[billvon]

thank you for understand that point and getting it!

i doubt you will make any headway because i've been making this point for pages to ice, and he is still making the exact same claim that is still the exact same fallacy

You won't; it's looking like it's an ego thing for him now.

Killing someone because they're black is illegal, even if someone gets away with it.
Killing your wife because you are angry with her, or she's a cheating bitch, is illegal, even if someone gets away with it.
Speeding just because you are in a hurry is illegal, even if a lot of people get away with it.

And all the above don't depend on some esoteric philosophy or a thirty-two-paragraph rationale full of ALL CAPS and Bolded Statements - they depend on the definition of the word "illegal." And I find that once someone starts redefining words to try to win their argument, the discussion is no longer productive.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I referred directly to your DOJ link on the Brown shooting, and you refused to accept it.

I think I will hold off on wasting any time finding a bunch of quotes from AGs and prosecutors and judges and so forth, until you have explicitly made a fool of yourself by declaring exactly what it is you need documentation of, and thereby simplified my task.

i want to expound on this - because you still don't get it, apparently, based on your comments
here is the thing about source material: the judgement must take all evidence into consideration

lets take a look at your point about the double engagement - it is based upon a single statement from page 12-13
you admit as much: and you state i am ignoring it
so, does that statement prove guilt? what other evidence is available?

The Department conducted an extensive in ivestigation into the shooting of Michael Brown. Federal authorities reviewed physical, ballistic, forensic, and crime scene evidence; medical reports and autopsy reports, including an independent autopsy performed by the United States Department of Defense Armed Forces Medical Examiner Service (“AFMES”); Wilson’s personnel records; audio and video recordings; and internet postings. FBI agents, St. Louis County Police Department (“SLCPD”) detectives, and federal prosecutors and prosecutors from the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s Office (“county prosecutors”) worked cooperatively to both independently and jointly interview more than 100 purported eyewitnesses and other individuals claiming to have relevant information. SLCPD detectives conducted an initial canvass of the area on the day of the shooting. FBI agents then independently canvassed more than 300 residences to locate and interview additional witnesses. Federal and local authorities collected cellular phone data, searched social media sites, and tracked down dozens of leads from community members and dedicated law enforcement email addresses and tip lines in an effort to investigate every possible source of information.

so, we know there are multiple sources of evidence, and levels of evidence. some more reliable than others (Physical forensic evidence trumps eyewitness testimony; or can corroborate/refute it)
how does that work?

In order to make the proper assessment under these standards, federal prosecutors evaluated physical, forensic, and potential testimonial evidence in the form of witness accounts. As detailed below, the physical and forensic evidence provided federal prosecutors with a benchmark against which to measure the credibility of each witness account, including that of Darren Wilson. We compared individual witness accounts to the physical and forensic evidence, to other credible witness accounts, and to each
witness’s own prior statements made throughout the investigations, including the proceedings before the St. Louis County grand jury (“county grand jury”).

so, when you take the source material (the DOJ document), and you focus on point [x], while ignoring all the other points, then it is either an attempt to argue a bias or you've found the evidence needed for a federal grand jury to prosecute under the law

now, considering you've not had experience in investigations and the law, as evident by the refusal to link source material, then we can immediately dismiss the latter unless, and only unless, there is a secondary investigation that uses your point of contention to justify prosecution

i state a secondary investigation for a purpose: we do not have access to the original forensics and thus cannot make an actual informed judgement about it with secondary validation review, which is why evidence must be preserved in a case. and in a homicide case, evidence must be maintained for quite a long time

this is why i don't bother with your singular point as justification for anything: the cumulative evidence speaks volumes
this is why i ask for source material as well. there may well be myriad points of contention in any adjudication - however, unless you're a defense team of lawyers or an investigator attempting to find evidence of a crime (which you are neither) then you only really require the summary, justification and conclusions

in the DOJ document, that is: I, II, VI
those really are the important parts unless you want to make a specific point about the legal system
and to do that you must have at least some experience or know something about the legal system
otherwise it's uninformed opinion about information you don't understand

(unless, of course, you make an informed opinion based upon the legal writings, on the record, of a consultant and or judge, hence my oft repeated attempt to get you or tiassa to talk to a prosecutor about the legality of killing blacks in the US)

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You won't; it's looking like it's an ego thing for him now.

actually, for "them" - tiassa is making the same argument

sigh

nd all the above don't depend on some esoteric philosophy or a thirty-two-paragraph rationale full of ALL CAPS and Bolded Statements - they depend on the definition of the word "illegal." And I find that once someone starts redefining words to try to win their argument, the discussion is no longer productive.

yep
that has been a point i made from the beginning - what constitutes legal
or what makes something legal

you should see the hoops they jump through

actually, no
you would only get pissed and start repeating, in all caps with red letters, the same point and get dinged like i did
[actually, chastised - sorry]

.

EDIT: addendum

And I find that once someone starts redefining words to try to win their argument, the discussion is no longer productive.

i have mixed feelings

there may well be a person who is capable of thinking critically reading this thread now or in the future, and as such, what example will they have? tiassa the super genius who can't comprehend the difference between a law that covers self defense versus the explicit wording of a hate crime? and how self defense may justify killing, but it doesn't justify killing "blacks" specifically?

how will they know what constitutes "legal" if it isn't stated or drilled into the thread as a point every time someone makes that logical fallacy jump to justify their claims?

how will they know how to find information about what is being said in the media to prove or disprove the article author's statements in law?

they don't teach this in schools - how many people were taught in their high school that there is source material for the law just like there is source material for science?

some people may be taught that the law is listed in the CFR's, state and local statutes in a law library, but that doesn't teach anyone that there is always a source document for every case, with a final judgement, even if it is a dismissal or something similar


so i am torn

technically you could argue that they're trolling and baiting at this point given their refusal to actually link source material to justify their claims, much like it is done on any science thread when anyone refuses to link a study and instead links something similar, like creationism

if someone had posted an article about [insert topic] when the study directly refutes the claim, and then repeatedly linked articles when the source material refuted the claim, it would be moderated

so why is the above law topic not similarly moderated, even when moderators are asked to review it?

 

[iceaura]

lets take a look at your point about the double engagement - it is based upon a single statement from page 12-13
you admit as much: and you state i am ignoring it
so, does that statement prove guilt?

No, it proves double engagement. You stated that in Wilson's initial encounter with Brown he knew Brown was a violent robbery suspect. That was not the case, as Wilson himself testified under oath, and all physical evidence and eyewitness account supports. The significance of that (to the argument here) was then explained to you, at least twice - with the suspicion that you already knew it, because you insisted on denial.

Killing someone because they're black is illegal, even if someone gets away with it.

Not if the intermediary step of mortal fear, as outlined in my argument, justifies the killing. That's not "getting away with it" - that's being fully responsible for doing a legal deed.

It's not that the killer is declared innocent - it's that the killing is declared not a crime.

Killing your wife because you are angry with her, or she's a cheating bitch, is illegal, even if someone gets away with it.
Speeding just because you are in a hurry is illegal, even if a lot of people get away with it.

Again with the irrelevant, clueless, completely missing the point repetition of what everybody has always agreed is a fact of this world.

If you are found, in a court of law, to have done those things, you will be declared guilty. If a court finds that you killed your wife because you were in mortal fear of her, and you were in mortal fear of her because you thought she was a cheating bitch (cheating bitches sometimes murder their husbands for the insurance, after all), or because she tried to take your gun away while you were threatening her for being a cheating bitch, you are guilty of committing a crime. The deed itself is a crime - if you did it, you committed a crime. And no one is confused by the intermediary step of being in mortal fear, a fear of your contrivance or invention - that only mitigates your guilt: that you killed your wife because she was a cheating bitch is a perfectly sensible and well-understood and accurate description for what you did, which was a crime.

If you get away with it, it won't be because an authority declared what you did to have been legal. It will be - as in the farcical OJ example - because there was doubt about whether you had done it.

Penny drop?

And all the above don't depend on some esoteric philosophy or a thirty-two-paragraph rationale full of ALL CAPS and Bolded Statements - they depend on the definition of the word "illegal." And I find that once someone starts redefining words to try to win their argument, the discussion is no longer productive.

Nobody's banging on about the definition of "illegal" except except you clowns.

 

[Randwolf]

Nobody's banging on about the definition of "illegal" except except you clowns.

Relentless, aren't you?

Here is a summary of the argument:

It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are white (even if you are a member of a minority); Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are white.
If you are a member of a minority it is legal to have killed somebody because they were white.
Because they were white, it is legal for a member of a minority to have killed somebody.

Evidence:
=======================================================

Stand Your Ground Frees Black Woman Charged In Killing White Man In Road Rage Incident
Posted on July 3, 2015 by EaSY G

In what her attorney called a “perfect stand your ground case” an African-American Texas woman has been cleared in the shooting death of a white man who she claimed was a threat during a 2012 Harris County road rage incident. Crystal Scott, of Houston, had been charged with murder in the death of Jonathan Ables. Prosecutors dismissed the charge on Monday, June 29, 2015. The case drew widespread attention because of its racial undertones.

https://endstandyourground.wordpres...ees-black-woman-charged-in-killing-white-man/
=======================================================

Victim: Patrick Lavoie (killed)
White male
Age at time: 33
Weapon: unarmed

The accused: Cleveland Murdock
Black male
Age at time: 38
Weapon: gun

Case type: Road rage
Location: Defendant's Property
Initiator: Victim
Witnesses: Yes
Case year: 2010
Location details: Defendant's car in Pompano Beach, Broward County, on Sept. 15, 2010

What happened: Patrick Lavoie, a passenger in his girlfriend's Honda Civic, felt Cleveland Murdock was tailgating them as they drove in Pompano Beach. Lavoie told his girlfriend to stop the car, then he jumped out and angrily approached Murdock's black Toyota Tacoma truck. When Lavoie, who had a cigarette lighter in his hand, tried to reach through Murdock's passenger window Murdock shot and killed him. Murdock had a concealed weapons permit.

The outcome: The Broward County Sheriff's Office spoke with witnesses and interrogated Murdock, then let him go, turning the case over to prosecutors to decide if murder charges were warranted. In November 2010, a grand jury decided no charges would be filed.

Investigating agency: Broward County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Grand Jury

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_89
=======================================================

Victim: Shane Huse (killed)
White male
Age at time: 33
Weapon: unarmed

The accused: Oscar Delbono
Hispanic male
Age at time: 53
Weapon: gun

Case type: Neighborhood dispute
Location: Defendant's Property
Initiator: Victim
Witnesses: Yes
Case year: 2009
Location details: At the front gate of the defendant's yard in Homosassa, Citrus County, on June 14, 2009

What happened: Oscar Delbono, 53, shot Shane Huse, 34, in the neck and shoulder after an argument between the neighbors, the result of a long-running dispute over Huse's two pitbull terriers. Huse's two small children were in his truck nearby when Huse approached the shooter's yard after midnight. A witness said the two were arguing and Huse, who had previously threatened Delbono, was "flailing his arms." A witness who saw the fatal shooting said Huse was turning to leave when Delbono shot him, and bullet entry wounds supported that account. Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life."

The outcome: No charges were filed. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law there's no criminal prosecution," wrote assistant state attorney Pete Magrino, according to the Citrus Daily.

Investigating agency: Citrus County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Prosecutor

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_36
=======================================================

Victims: Edward Borowsky (killed), Steven V. Lonzisero (injured)

Edward Borowsky
White male
Age at time: 28
Weapon: knife

Steven V. Lonzisero
White male
Age at time: 43
Weapon: knife

The accused: Hygens Labidou
Black male
Age at time: 49
Weapon: gun

Case type: Road rage
Location: Public
Initiator: Victim
Witnesses: Yes
Case year: 2007
Location details: At a street intersection in Deerfield Beach, Broward County, on Dec. 13, 2007

What happened: Hygens Labidou was confronted by two men who yelled at him for his driving then stopped their pickup truck in front of his and threatened him. Labidou, who is black, told police the men pounded on his truck and yelled racial slurs. He said one of the men, Steven Lonzisero, carried a knife. Labidou stayed in his car and fired his gun, striking both men and killing 28-year-old Edward Borowsky. Sheriff's detectives initially arrested Lonzisero on murder charges for his role in his companion's death, but prosecutors declined to pursue those charges. Labidou, who had a concealed weapons permit, was not charged. He called 911 after the shooting.

The outcome: Not charged
Investigating agency: Broward County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Police

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_23
=======================================================

Victim: Fernando Castulo Morales (killed)
White male
Age at time: 32
Weapon: unarmed

The accused: Edwin Vargas-Lopez
Hispanic male
Age at time: 34
Weapon: knife

Case type: Fight at bar/party
Location: Defendant's Property
Initiator: Victim
Witnesses: Yes
Case year: 2009
Location details: In the defendant's car outside Antojitos Mexicanos Restaurant and Bar in Bradenton, Manatee County, on March 14, 2009

What happened: Fernando Moralez was stabbed to death outside a Bradenton bar. Defendant Vargas-Lopez had been dancing with a woman when two men confronted him. He left, got in a truck and was punched through the open driver-side window. He stabbed out the window. A witness said she was in the process of dragging the victim away when he was stabbed.

The outcome: Murder charge reduced to manslaughter, then dismissed by judge.
Investigating agency: Manatee County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Judge

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_5
=======================================================

Victim: Omar Bonilla (killed)
White male
Age at time: 27
Weapon: gun

The accused: Demarro Battle
Black male
Age at time: 21
Weapon: gun

Case type: Fight at bar/party
Location: Victim's Property
Initiator: Unclear
Witnesses: Yes
Case year: 2009
Location details: During party at victim's home in Fort Myers, Lee County, on July 17, 2009

What happened: Demarro Battle fatally shot Omar Bonilla after an argument at a party. Earlier in the dispute, Bonilla had fired his gun into the ground and beaten Battle in the head. Then Bonilla ran inside his apartment, gave his gun to a friend, telling him to hide it, and returned unarmed to confront Battle. Battle, meanwhile, had retrieved his gun from his car and fatally shot Bonilla.

The outcome: Battle was arrested by police and charged with second-degree murder. But charges were dropped by the state attorney. "Under current Florida law the defendant had no duty to retreat," an assistant state attorney wrote.
Investigating agency: Fort Myers Police
Case decision made by: Prosecutor

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_27
=======================================================

Victim: Marcos Santiago (killed)
White male
Age at time: 17
Weapon: unarmed

The accused: Adeirean Carey
Black male
Age at time: 26
Weapon: gun

Case type: Attempted home invasion
Location: Defendant's Home
Initiator: Victim
Witnesses: No
Case year: 2009
Location details: Defendant's home in Pine Manor neighborhood in Fort Myers, Lee County, on June 09, 2009

What happened: Adeirean Carey heard a noise outside the window of his house and told the intruder to stop. He said he fired a warning shot, not knowing it hit anyone. Marcos Santiago died, and police later found evidence that he was trying to break into a window.

The outcome: The charge of manslaughter was dismissed under stand your ground, with no opposition from the state. The assistant state attorney said, "The stand your ground law has ramifications that the Legislature did not envision. It oft-times slaps the face of grieving families."
Investigating agency: Fort Myers Police
Investigating agency: Lee County Sheriff
Case decision made by: Judge

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_26
=======================================================

Furthermore:

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/b...d-law-at-disproportionate-rate/#ixzz4YxFJr96U
=======================================================

So, between this argument and that of our esteemed colleague Iceaura it has now been shown that it is legal to kill people in America. Fait accompli...

 

[Randwolf]

In a less tongue in cheek mode, there are a lot of interesting data at: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

Such as:
Race's complex role
A Tampa Bay Times analysis shows that people who claimed self-defense after killing a black victim were more likely to go free than those who killed a white victim.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No, it proves double engagement.

for starters: what you perceive to be double engagement can be argued to be double engagement or simply a single engagement, and it isn't relevant, really, to the legality of shooting blacks, or it's factual representation statement you and i-MOD have presented - so when you say this:

The significance of that (to the argument here) was then explained to you, at least twice - with the suspicion that you already knew it, because you insisted on denial.

it doesn't make a damn bit of sense
the reason why:
1- it's still a federal law that you can't shoot someone over race
2- because in that said sworn testimony, the exact same witness statement, Wilson explicitly said he did recognize said suspects as he passed them during the, what you are calling, "disengagement", for what you call the second engagement. that all happened at the same time.
so, if you say the argument is valid because of the point of not recognizing the suspect, then you're wrong because that is proven false. the only thing you're clinging to is the semantic argument of a double engagement, which is irrelevant to the point of the legality of shooting blacks in the US

and moreover, none of that was illegal as the law enforcement officer was legally performing his duty, regardless if this was a 2nd, 3rd or 42nd engagement. the suspect violated the law and attempted to fight for whatever reason, and this is also clearly stated in that same witness statement, which is not a matter of supposition or "he said; he said" as this is also corroborated by physical and forensic evidence. as well as the recognition of a suspect. hence my pointing out to you, repeatedly, that other paragraph and the rest of the statement.

if you want to focus on the wording of a single point in the statement and make a case, i suggest you file a class action lawsuit and see just how far it gets you, as a judge will shut you down with the exact same argument.

so that part of your argument is closed and clearly explained: what else do you have to prove it's legal to shoot blacks in the US regardless of the explicit law that states otherwise?

oh right: you're opinion and interpretation of state statutes on defense, which is why you say

Not if the intermediary step of mortal fear, as outlined in my argument, justifies the killing. That's not "getting away with it" - that's being fully responsible for doing a legal deed.

It's not that the killer is declared innocent - it's that the killing is declared not a crime.

and again: this is not evidence that it is legal to shoot blacks in the US
this is evidence that, in certain states, there is a law that has allowed certain people to defend themselves and you interpret it to mean, in certain circumstances, that due to the racial element, it is legal in those states to shoot blacks.

nowhere have you produced source material that actually proves this with a statement or explicit wording from the final judgement
not once have you produced any source material that is not subjective
everything you have hinges on two things:
1- the Wilson/Brown shooting to which you are ignoring the physical and forensic evidence and attempting to interpret the findings
2- your belief that all your news sources are 100% correct

the first is proven to be a bad idea for various reasons - the least of which is your ignoring all the evidence and failure to provide a logical reason why it applies to the federal and overall US legality of shooting blacks when it explicitly states otherwise in the section on law in the document itself.

the second has been proven to be a bad idea because you can't trust someone's opinion on a topic when you don't bother to actually validate that said opinion is factually correct, as noted by my reference to the NYTimes article and the Navy Yard shooting.

the best argument made on the point of shooting blacks in the US really may be the argument of "malice"... except that there is no legal requirement to prove malice as explicitly stated in the quoted federal statute ( 18 U.S. Code § 249 ). now, you can argue "malice" on the state statute, and likely that is one of the reasons people have not been prosecuted, but there is no explicit statement in 18 U.S. Code § 249 that requires proving malice; only the point of proving it was racially motivated. that is it. it is racially motivated. once this is proven it is considered a crime per 18 U.S. Code § 249 as this is explicitly stated in the law.

now, if you want to prove that it is legal to shoot blacks in the US, you have to provide source material, and i even suggested how to do this: get a prosecuting attourney and or judge to issue a formal written statement advocating your argument. in writing. and i have stated that multiple times as well

this will never happen because: it's illegal
and i have stated that multiple times as well

Nobody's banging on about the definition of "illegal" except except you clowns.

actually, you are: when you state and support the argument that it's legal to kill blacks in the US, then produce your argument of state statute while blatantly ignoring the federal statute, then you are not aware of what constitutes "legal"
as such, it is a matter of you making an argument because you're not aware of what "legal" means - you are using your interpretation of what it means

and you proved that by your argument of multiple people getting away with shooting blacks with a state law that is about self defense without ever once providing the source material which proved this was a racially motivated crime, not a self defense situation

it doesn't matter if there is a multi-race incident. it matters if said incident is racially motivated, which is what you're arguing... but how can you prove that by simply pointing to two separate races? i mean... where does it justify your argument that the shooting was because he was black? other than the media attention that is proven to be biased, subjective and usually anti-gun?
where?
where does it prove it?
because you say it does?
because some author said it does?
because [insert media outlet] said it does?
ok, so they say it does: how do you know that is factual?

get it yet?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

In a less tongue in cheek mode, there are a lot of interesting data at: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

if i may make a point: that is not really source material, though you are correct about there being a lot of interesting data
and this is one of my points that i've made a bit, too... source is important

i liked the link though - i used to live in Tampa. graduated high school there. i hate the place, but it brought back some fond memories.

Race's complex role
A Tampa Bay Times analysis shows that people who claimed self-defense after killing a black victim were more likely to go free than those who killed a white victim.

can you provide any source material from the court records?

and for the record: i am not stating that you're wrong in making the claim "people who claimed self-defense after killing a black victim were more likely to go free than those who killed a white victim" based upon your newspaper article

i will question the source, however, considering it's a newspaper and not something with a few more constraints, like say: a scientific study

i would even take a DOJ, BJS or FBI study over a newspaper study as they at least produce all the source material and data to review.

EDIT:

So, between this argument and that of our esteemed colleague Iceaura it has now been shown that it is legal to kill people in America. Fait accompli...

also note: this wasn't the argument between ice and i
it is legal to kill people in the US under certain circumstances. i've never challenged that one

i just wanted to make that clear before someone chooses to latch onto that and go all uber-stupid

this is in no way an attack on the data, that point, or anything else, and is offered for clarity and specificity only

just sayin'

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

now this part i will challenge:

Relentless, aren't you?

Here is a summary of the argument:

It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are white (even if you are a member of a minority); Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are white.
If you are a member of a minority it is legal to have killed somebody because they were white.
Because they were white, it is legal for a member of a minority to have killed somebody.

although i do appreciate the tongue in cheek point - the evidence you present still only demonstrates that it's legal to defend yourself under state law or to kill a person due to self defense
(or you could make the claim that homicide is legal under certain circumstances)

it in no way, shape, or form, validates the claims that homicide due to race is legal
or as tiassa put it, and ice defended:

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

 

[Randwolf]

the evidence you present still only demonstrates that it's legal to defend yourself under state law or to kill a person due to self defense

Well, duh... That's the point. However, if Ice wants to say that his logic and citations show that it is legal to kill black people then the exact same can be used to show that it is legal to kill white people.

I'm lost - you did realize that was what the exercise was for, right? I want to see whether Ice says, "Yep, you're right - legal to kill white people" or "No, that's different" and why.

My position hasn't changed - this is a misuse of the word legal.

PS - I've never encountered Poe's law before re a post of my very own...

 

[parmalee]

Well, duh... That's the point. However, if Ice wants to say that his logic and citations show that it is legal to kill black people then the exact same can be used to show that it is legal to kill white people.

I'm lost - you did realize that was what the exercise was for, right? I want to see whether Ice says, "Yep, you're right - legal to kill white people" or "No, that's different" and why.

My position hasn't changed - this is a misuse of the word legal.

PS - I've never encountered Poe's law before re a post of my very own...

A couple of years ago Louie CK hosted SNL and did this bit on “mild, benign racism”—the whole opening monologue can be found >>>here <<<. Too lazy to timestamp, so just watch the whole damn thing, or don’t.

Anyways, for Louie, an example of such would be seeing a white guy in a hoodie outside a gas station at night. He thinks “ athlete” or whatever. Then:

If he's black, unless he has a big smile on his face, then I become mildly racist. I think 'that's fine, everything's fine, nothing's going to happen. Of course I'm fine. Why did I even think that for a second?’

Would you agree that we (in the U.S.) have lots of notions about “scary black guys,” but not a whole lot about “scary white guys”? Stand Your Ground laws are contingent upon “feeling” threatened; conversely, a Nazi is demonstrably—in fact—a real threat. Like, you know, by definition. Kinda seems like some are deeming "feelings" as more rational justifications for action than "facts." Regardless, one’s only got to “feel” in danger for one’s life. So, on the legality of killing blacks and whites, if you agree that the “scary black guy” theme is still very much prevalent in U.S. culture, and the “scary white guy” theme is virtually non-existent, save as a joke:

Would you then agree that, in actuality, it is far more likely to be legal to kill a black guy than it is to kill a white guy?

 

[parmalee]

Is the Apache in dress and colors, presenting a warring posture or advocating the extermination of the whites?

Just to clarify: I was being lazy there and alluding to the "war as justification for punching" argument, and the non-existence of a formal peace treaty with the Apache. I'm not aware of any significant "white genocide" sentiments amongst the Apache, only the "white genocide" strawman invention of neo-Nazis.

 

[Randwolf]

Would you then agree that, in actuality, it is far more likely to be legal to kill a black guy than it is to kill a white guy?

WTF is wrong with people? Of course I would agree with that, perhaps you missed this post:

In a less tongue in cheek mode, there are a lot of interesting data at: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

Such as:
Race's complex role
A Tampa Bay Times analysis shows that people who claimed self-defense after killing a black victim were more likely to go free than those who killed a white victim.

and this one:

This is the distinction that I was trying to illustrate for Ice... Not that he isn't already aware of it - rather he made a sweeping statement: "it is legal to kill black people" and refuses to qualify it in any way. Stubborn like that.

You won't find permission to kill minorities in any statute or definitively expressed in common law. Attorneys cannot explicitly appeal to "But he was black, your honor!" to avoid a conviction or mitigate at sentencing.

The problem is far more insidious - precisely because it is not codified. If killing black people was specifically exempted from the definition of murder it would be much easier to combat - everyone would denounce it. (Well, everyone except some Trump supporters perhaps.)

This murkiness is what leads professional attorneys to say: "it is not legal to murder a black person or any other person.", "So is it 'legal' to murder blacks? No.", "Is it legal to kill blacks and other minorities... Yes, it is..." - all in the same post.

Regardless of the means chosen to express the concept, it is most definitely a "bad" thing. Sad! We need big league change in this area to make America great again. (Sorry, I can't resist the Trumpisms )

and maybe this one:

Something is very, very wrong and I don’t think it just started – rather, it just started becoming verifiable with everyone having a video camera in their pocket. If we don’t acknowledge the problem’s existence we can’t address it – similar to “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. (I was on the fence about that label but have landed on the side for calling it like is – but being sure to include the “Radical”)

As I posted to T:

My only horse in this race is that it looks like people are trying to say: "Oh yeah, it's legal to shoot black people in the US - says so right here! Hell, you don't even need a huntin' license!".

 

[iceaura]

Well, duh... That's the point. However, if Ice wants to say that his logic and citations show that it is legal to kill black people then the exact same can be used to show that it is legal to kill white people.

And if Ice does not, and never has, said or "wanted to say" that;

and if that is yet another repetition of TCS's strawman paraphrase, which by now only trolls and the like would be bound and determined to talk about rather than the actual argument,

which it is

no point in treating it with respect.

Here is a summary of the argument:

It is legal to kill somebody because one feels sufficiently and legitimately threatened by them; it is legal to feel legitimately threatened by someone because they are white (even if you are a member of a minority); Therefore, in some circumstances, it is legal to kill somebody because they are white.
If you are a member of a minority it is legal to have killed somebody because they were white.
Because they were white, it is legal for a member of a minority to have killed somebody.

Which is excellent, because as we know (and you proceed to demonstrate) the minor premise of that argument is false rather than true: it is (apparently) not legal to feel legitimately threatened by somebody because they are white.

And you have presented several examples of the difference - showing that white people are a threat when they are actually attacking somebody, police officers in control of situations and making official decisions don't appear in lists of those shooting unarmed white people behaving normally, etc.

So we see that is really difficult, as you illustrate, to find examples comparable with - say - an armed black man in an unmarked pickup truck following a white teenager down a dark street , chasing him when he ran, getting into a fight with the kid, and killing him when it appeared the fight wasn't going his way.

Unless the difference between victim and assailant, threatened and threatener, instigator and target, raging accostor and normally behaving accostee, and so forth, is another example if one of these quarrels over what "is" is. Of course.

 

[James R]

I'm trying to understand the point of dispute in this thread.

Is anybody here actually arguing that it is legal to kill somebody on the basis of their race alone? I don't think they are, but correct me if I'm wrong about that.

And is anybody actually arguing that is illegal to defend yourself if you're being threatened? Again, I don't think that's what people are arguing here, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

On the thread topic (and I haven't read the entire thread), the answer as to whether it's ok to punch a Nazi depends on the circumstances. Punching the Nazi just because he's a Nazi is an assault and not justifiable on the basis that you don't like his political or racist views. On the other hand, punching a Nazi who is threatening to hurt you because he doesn't like your race (for example) may be completely legal and legitimate.

So, could somebody please explain what the actual point of dispute is here? Or are you all just spending page upon page splitting hairs?

 

[Dr_Toad]

I think you've nailed it, thanks.

 

[spidergoat]

On the other hand, punching a Nazi who is threatening to hurt you because he doesn't like your race (for example) may be completely legal and legitimate.

Nazis are by definition a threat to anyone who isn't white, or straight.