Strawman. I never said you said he was being charged with using lethal force.

I am simply explaining how there are two separate laws at play in this case and that is why he still faces one charge even if exonerated of the other.

Goal post moving

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Goal post moving

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My pointing out your strawman is not moving a goalpost.

Thanks for nitpicking.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I just gave readers the accurate version of the law, why does that bother you so much? I didn't insult you in any way yet you are so bothered you have to take us down this path.

My pointing out your strawman is not moving a goalpost.

Says the goalpost mover.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I just gave readers the accurate version of the law, why does that bother you so much? I didn't insult you in any way yet you are so bothered you have to take us down this path.

Wow, pushing blame back now. Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Wow, pushing blame back now. Thanks for playing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Well whose fault is it that you made an inaccurate statement?

Well whose fault is it that you made an inaccurate statement?

Here we go again. Thanks for proving my point.

Strawman. I never said you said he was being charged with using lethal force.

I am simply explaining how there are two separate laws at play in this case and that is why he still faces one charge even if exonerated of the other.

You are not a lawyer.

You show evidence of that fact frequently.

Stop trying to lecture us on the law, especially laws from other states.  You are not the expert you pretend.

The case comes down to the intended victim being punished for choosing self defense over the state's cumbersome and prohibitive firearm possession laws.  It's 100% 2A infringement circumstances.

He was in his own residence.  The intruder was uninvited.  The man defended himself and his family.  The shooting was ruled justified.

To then DECIDE to charge him with a firearm infraction is nothing short of political and everyone with a brain knows this to be true. 

Prosecutors have the discretion to charge or not.  You seem to think they had no choice in the matter, because the law is the law.

The correct remedy would have been to confiscate the gun, since it was evidence anyway, and tell him to jump through the hoops if he gets another one.

All they did now is open him up to a wrongful death lawsuit by the CRIMINAL'S family on top of the years in prison.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, a prohibited purchaser who lied to obtain a firearm, is walking around free.

Here we go again. Thanks for proving my point.

What point? That if you make an incorrect statement you shouldn't be corrected but if I do I must grovel?

You are not a lawyer.
You show evidence of that fact frequently.
Stop trying to lecture us on the law, especially laws from other states.  You are not the expert you pretend.

The case comes down to the intended victim being punished for choosing self defense over the state's cumbersome and prohibitive firearm possession laws.  It's 100% 2A infringement circumstances.
He was in his own residence.  The intruder was uninvited.  The man defended himself and his family.  The shooting was ruled justified.
To then DECIDE to charge him with a firearm infraction is nothing short of political and everyone with a brain knows this to be true. 
Prosecutors have the discretion to charge or not.  You seem to think they had no choice in the matter, because the law is the law.
The correct remedy would have been to confiscate the gun, since it was evidence anyway, and tell him to jump through the hoops if he gets another one.
All they did now is open him up to a wrongful death lawsuit by the CRIMINAL'S family on top of the years in prison.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, a prohibited purchaser who lied to obtain a firearm, is walking around free.

One does not need to be a lawyer to understand the basic distinction I pointed out.
You don't have a degree in being a snarky a-hole yet you play the role frequently.

The rest of your explanation, though accurate in my opinion, has nothing to do with my explanation. Focus.
My comment was about the application of the statute, your explanation is a moralistic one about how he shouldn't be punished for what he did. Are you unable to compartmentalize two different aspects of an incident?

What point? That if you make an incorrect statement you shouldn't be corrected but if I do I must grovel?

Thanks for continuing to prove my point.

You are not a lawyer.

You show evidence of that fact frequently.

Stop trying to lecture us on the law, especially laws from other states.  You are not the expert you pretend.

The case comes down to the intended victim being punished for choosing self defense over the state's cumbersome and prohibitive firearm possession laws.  It's 100% 2A infringement circumstances.

He was in his own residence.  The intruder was uninvited.  The man defended himself and his family.  The shooting was ruled justified.

To then DECIDE to charge him with a firearm infraction is nothing short of political and everyone with a brain knows this to be true. 

Prosecutors have the discretion to charge or not.  You seem to think they had no choice in the matter, because the law is the law.

The correct remedy would have been to confiscate the gun, since it was evidence anyway, and tell him to jump through the hoops if he gets another one.

All they did now is open him up to a wrongful death lawsuit by the CRIMINAL'S family on top of the years in prison.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, a prohibited purchaser who lied to obtain a firearm, is walking around free.

What he's doing is adding in something that I already covered because in his mind, he wants to be right about something.

My comment was about the application of the statute, your explanation is a moralistic one about how he shouldn't be punished for what he did. Are you unable to compartmentalize two different aspects of an incident?

There is no need to explain the statue at all because he wasn't charged. Why don't you also explain how he wasn't charged for having a magazine that can hold more than 10rds. How about explain that he wasn't charged for having a SBR, suppressor, etc...

There is no need to explain the statue at all because he wasn't charged. Why don't you also explain how he wasn't charged for having a magazine that can hold more than 10rds. How about explain that he wasn't charged for having a SBR, suppressor, etc...

According to the article you posted they are trying to pursue charges so....

If you don't want a legal breakdown then just ignore it. No need to be a drama queen

According to the article you posted they are trying to pursue charges so....

If you don't want a legal breakdown then just ignore it. No need to be a drama queen

And what charge are they pursuing?  Read my post above again, why not mention mag charge, SBR charge, suppressor charge, all of which aren't being charged, same with any non-self defense charge. Thanks for playing and refusing to admit you were adding in stuff not needed.

And what charge are they pursuing?  Read my post above again, why not mention mag charge, SBR charge, suppressor charge, all of which aren't being charged, same with any non-self defense charge. Thanks for playing and refusing to admit you were adding in stuff not needed.

I didn't mention them because they are not relevant to the point I was making.

I didn't mention them because they are not relevant to the point I was making.

Why not?

Why not?

Because I was offering an explanation for why a shooting could be found legally justified while the individual could still be charged with a gun law violation with the gun used. It is a fair question to ask why he wasn't also charged with certain other gun crimes doesn't go to explain how use of force is a separate question from legal firearm.

If I was drunk driving and rammed someone with my car who was shooting innocent people my use of force could be found justified yet I still be charged with DUI. Asking why I wasn't cited for my expired safety check is a separate question.

Because I was offering an explanation for why a shooting could be found legally justified while the individual could still be charged with a gun law violation with the gun used. It is a fair question to ask why he wasn't also charged with certain other gun crimes doesn't go to explain how use of force is a separate question from legal firearm.

If I was drunk driving and rammed someone with my car who was shooting innocent people my use of force could be found justified yet I still be charged with DUI. Asking why I wasn't cited for my expired safety check is a separate question.

Goal post moving.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk