Out of Pod Experience

The terminology causes mix ups in the UK too, violent self defence is perfectly legal here as long as the violence is proportional. But anyone who seriously hurts or kills someone in self defence will be arrested, people often mistake that for self defence being illegal but that's not true.

They are arrested because they have to give evidence/make a statement under caution and have the interview recorded, its a legal requirement. If the level of force used is appropriate they are not charged with anything.

What happened to "somebody commits a crime against my life, liberty, or property, they die"? Let me guess, out in the real world where there are consequences to your actions, you declined to murder people. I won't give you too much credit though, since I suspect the reason you didn't shoot has far more to do with fear of being sent to prison than any ethical standards.

The really funny thing here is that you feel the need to brag about your (fake) willingness to murder people on an internet forum.



Meanwhile, you are still a paranoid sociopath. And wrong.

I thank you as well. The same is true in the US. If you seriously hurt and kill someone in self-defense, you WILL be arrested and detained in order to get your side of the story. As others have stated before, including myself, that doesn't mean you're going to prison, that just means they need to ensure it really was in self-defense. If they conclude it was, in fact, self-defense, you are free to go.

I really don't understand where Riedle has the disconnect. They're not going to come to your house and ask if it was in self-defense and then say "Derp, okeydokie...no harm no foul" when you tell them it was self-defense. They have to corroborate your story because if it in fact wasn't self-defense, you just committed murder, not justifiable homicide.

Yeah, exactly. That's kinda my point. There is a difference between legality and covering something up. Just because you don't go to prison for it doesn't mean it's legal. Riedle has obviously never had to deal with firearms and their laws in the US, and especially in the south.

Saying, "But, but, but, but there are PLENTY of people who have never gotten into trouble for killing others in the US, so you can't be held responsible in any case of self-defense lolz!!!!!" is pure, unadulterated idiocy.

That very case in Florida is calling into question the Castle Doctrine and its applicability.

Here's a perfect example:

My cousin was filling his vehicle up at a service station about 1 am one morning on his way home. A man asked him if he could get a lift since he was going in the same direction as my cousin. My cousin said, "Sorry man, I don't know you and I'm not about to let you into my vehicle." The man continued asking and bothering him, and even started berating him. He repeated that, once again, he didn't know him so didn't feel comfortable letting him into his vehicle. He then went inside, paid for his gas, and got back in his car. As he was pulling out of the service station, the man ran up to his window, which was down, and grabbed him and shouted, "LET ME INTO YOUR CAR!!!". My cousin pulled out his .44 magnum under the seat, pointed it at the man square in the chest and told him that if he didn't leave him alone, he would be forced to shoot him. The man saw the pistol and immediately apologized and ran away. Had my cousin shot him, he would've been found guilty of either manslaughter or murder because although the man had attacked him, when he pulled out his pistol, the situation was immediately defused. He could've claimed self-defense due to being attacked but it wouldn't have held up. You have to be able to prove that your life was in danger AFTER giving a warning to the intruder, and that's very difficult to prove.

Not only that, had the man gone to the police, my cousin would probably have been arrested for having a concealed weapon due to his not having a permit for said weapon. Even in cases of self-defense, you still can't carry a weapon around with you or in your vehicle unless you have a concealed weapon permit. However, in the south, it's rather common people have weapons in their vehicles even if it's illegal. This also reinforces my statement that just because you may not get into trouble with having firearms, that doesn't mean they're legal to carry or use without a permit, even in cases of self-defense. Even if he had been cleared in self-defense, he still would've been brought up on charges for carrying a concealed weapon. This is also why I believe firearm laws are much too lax in the US and need a complete overhaul....it's simply too easy to obtain one, legally or illegally. The real culprit, however, is the social nature and attitude towards firearms in the US. People don't necessarily want to bear arms, many of them just want to be able to shoot people legally and this is their hypocrisy of their constant bringing up of the second amendment.

Great point, Herz. This is exactly what I'm talking about in the south. Almost word for word, you just detailed the very same thing explained to me in private conversations with police officers.

The law is a fluid, viscous thing that is a lot like trying to hammer snot to a wall. Sometimes it's good to be able to bend the law, other times it may work against you. How a law is enforced has a much bigger impact than the law itself. Just like in self-defense shootings, it depends on a multitude of things...however, it's still illegal to shoot people no matter who they are. Whether or not you get into trouble for your actions is up to the enforcers of the law. However, that doesn't change the fact of whether or not it's a law.

Wow. Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling?

Good to know you're an anti-abortion moron as well. What happened to that whole small government thing? You know, the part where the government stays out of your business when you aren't harming anyone else?



(Hint for the clueless: "gun laws suck" is complete nonsense as a reply to "abortion laws suck". It's possible to be in favor of both abortion and gun ownership, since, you know, the two sets of laws have absolutely nothing to do with each other.)

As a brit we don't need guns we just need the right to defend ourselves, and not get arrested back. If someone breaks into my house I want the right to stab him 100000000 times until the litle ******* pieces stop moving. Its disgusting we can't.

You called me clueless without asking.

A small government would not let a SCOTUS decision become law by fiat. This is why the states pretend to challenge it, to keep people like yourself thinking that your votes still matter.

My votes, neatly carried in magazines, still matter (you are being trolled. If you are not satisfied with your troll, please return unused portion in the original packaging)

I have had to tangle with the "pro lifers" (who tend to favor all these wars overseas - how ironic) over this. Whereas you have a centralized state using a ruling in it's court on a matter that the states should cover under Amendment 10, the people against it want the same centralized state to do the exact same thing.

So both sides think they can put on the One Ring and do good with it. The same thing goes for the so-called "gay marriage" issue.


I enjoy trolling you, but a part of me hopes there is a civill war so I can get a chance to not be in the same country you are in. The world would be better off with 1000s of independent nations and no central banking to pay for a tight border. This way despotic states will empty out.

Now go enjoy your personal salt mine.

Now, if the law is such as you describe, what defense from it? What justice?

I think you know.

Once upon a time juries had the power to judge both the case and the law. Since the courts rob them of this, we now have to have a stupid law for every stupid thing. This is why there was no need for a castle doctrine before. There are a lot of other subjects where jury nullification would matter.

But as Nock wrote about, the state seeks to rob social power and replace it with state power. 12 people deciding a case and a law on an individual case basis is too much social power. So if you have two cases, one a self defense against perve breaking into a house, and another like this case with Zimmerman, a jury would have to be brain dead to get it wrong. But very often juries are not given this discretion, and judges will "instruct" juries on what they can consider.

It's a dry subject, but quite important. I have friends get approached my cops, hands on guns, for the crime of going to the courthouse with pamphlets on the rights of the jury. It's actually in the law, but if you bring it up, you are a threat. During political season I go to the conventions and derive great fun when judges to their stump speeches and then as "any questions" and I hit them with this topic. They hate it. I have actually chased judge candidates shouting questions about the rights of the jury. Answering it in public the way they want to would cost them their election, answering it the right way will cost them the funding they get for their election from the dark back rooms where the real rulers lurk.

I will now go back to my racist, religionist, big government activities merely because some people say it's what I do.

Correction: your ideal small government would never have allowed religious doctrine (with no factual support at all) to become law in the first place, therefore there would have been no need to challenge the non-existent laws against abortion. The supreme court decision is 100% in line with small-government ideology, and you should be praising the fact that it became law as a perfect example of how to reduce the power of government.

The fact that you can find anything to object to in this case suggests that, like most "small government" advocates, you're really concerned with your own personal agenda, not an actual minimization of government power.



One side wants to ban unjustified laws restricting individual freedom, and appeals to higher levels of government to stop those laws (since that whole "tyranny of the majority" thing keeps them from doing it at lower levels).

One side wants to pass laws that enforce religious doctrine and restrict individual freedom.

See a difference here?



Err, how?

One side wants to have all marriages recognized (legally) the same way.

One side wants to use the power of the state to take away the rights of a group that the majority dislikes, including using the power of the federal government to pass laws banning local or state governments from restoring those rights.

How the **** are these two groups equal?


PS: it's not a "so-called" issue if you're one of the people who has to sit and watch while the government spends your tax money to tell you how much Jesus hates you.




I don't know which is more delusional, that you want a civil war, or that you actually think you'd be on the winning side of it. Unfortunately for you, the side with the modern weapons* tends to win, and the moral high ground isn't very comforting when a stealth bomber just wiped your town off the map.


*That would be the government, in case you were wondering.