Father of Larry Nassar victims lunges at disgraced doctor in court

The judge in the gymnastics sexual abuse case said on Friday there is “no way” she will punish the father of three girls who were his victims, after the man tried to attack the former US gymnastics team doctor in court on Friday. Randall Margrave, the father of three daughters sexually abused by disgraced team doctor Larry Nassar, was nevertheless told by the judge that his actions were wrong, and Margrave apologized at Nassar’s sentencing hearing in Michigan.

On Friday morning, after two of Margraves’ daughters had just given evidence, the father asked Judge Janice Cunningham for time alone with the former doctor. “I would ask you as part of the sentencing to grant me five minutes in a locked room with this demon,” said Margraves, who has a third daughter said also to have been abused while under Nassar’s care. When the judge declined, Margraves shook his head at Nassar and called him a “son of a bitch”. As some in the courtroom laughed, the judge warned Margraves about his language. He then lunged at the doctor.

Bailiffs quickly wrestled Margraves to the ground, knocking objects off a desk in the struggle. Nassar was subsequently led out the room, while crying was heard in the courtroom.

As officers removed Margraves, he repeatedly demanded “one minute!” and asked: “What if this happened to you guys?”

A few hours later, Margraves apologized for his behavior. Cunningham then responded that there was “no way” she would punish him for his rush on Nassar.

She added that a punishment isn’t appropriate based on the crimes committed by Nassar and the anguish felt by families. But she also told those attending it is wrong to “combat assault with assault”.








https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/02/larry-nassar-attacked-courtroom-gymnastics-abuse

More pc nonsense. If the guy broke the law, let him do the time.

This is how we got Donald Trump: "I'll pay his defense costs!"

I think that's fair. The guy was well pissed off at the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that's fair. The guy was well pissed off at the time.

If a black or Hispanic father did that, he would spend the next year in jail. White privilege has it's advantages.

It's all over pc shit anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that's fair. The guy was well pissed off at the time.

If a black or Hispanic father did that, he would spend the next year in jail.  White privilege has it's advantages.

It's all over pc shit anyway.

Well I can't help that - I think the judge was right to let him off, under the circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If a black or Hispanic father did that, he would spend the next year in jail.  White privilege has it's advantages.

It's all over pc shit anyway.

Well I can't help that - I think the judge was right to let him off, under the circumstances.

And "I'll pay his defense costs!"  Now do you understand the origins of my desire to break California off from the land of the nuts and berries?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If a black or Hispanic father did that, he would spend the next year in jail.  White privilege has it's advantages.

It's all over pc shit anyway.

Well I can't help that - I think the judge was right to let him off, under the circumstances.

Absolutely. Nobody was hurt, yes it was disrespectful to the court but luckily the judge had good common sense to understand the situation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I can't help that - I think the judge was right to let him off, under the circumstances.

And "I'll pay his defense costs!"  Now do you understand the origins of my desire to break California off from the land of the nuts and berries?

No I don't. The guy was held in a cell and he apologised after a good telling off by the judge. It was clearly an emotional reaction. What's your problem with the judge letting him off?

I imagine that father did what every other father would have liked to do given the opportunity, pity he didn't connect.

Good for the judge for realising it was a justified emotional reaction.

Judges judge. This judge judged the fathers reaction had been punished enough by a few hours in a cell.

Would the citizens have been served by a taxpayer funded trial of the father?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And "I'll pay his defense costs!"  Now do you understand the origins of my desire to break California off from the land of the nuts and berries?

No I don't. The guy was held in a cell and he apologised after a good telling off by the judge. It was clearly an emotional reaction. What's your problem with the judge letting him off?

If I rob a bank, can I apologize and keep the cash?

This is political bias, not real jurisprudence.  You make an exception of those with whom you agree, then punish those with whom you disagree.  There may be real purpose behind the law, but that kind of cherry-picking negates the scales of justice.

It's the difference between a banana republic, and a legitimate republic.

I wish he'd got to him and decked him before he was stopped !

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No I don't. The guy was held in a cell and he apologised after a good telling off by the judge. It was clearly an emotional reaction. What's your problem with the judge letting him off?

If I rob a bank, can I apologize and keep the cash?

This is political bias, not real jurisprudence.  You make an exception of those with whom you agree, then punish those with whom you disagree.  There may be real purpose behind the law, but that kind of cherry-picking negates the scales of justice.

It's the difference between a banana republic, and a legitimate republic.

He didn't rob a bank though. You have to get things in perspective Quill. You're biased because the guy is white. If he had been black, you would have said he should be let off.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If I rob a bank, can I apologize and keep the cash?

This is political bias, not real jurisprudence.  You make an exception of those with whom you agree, then punish those with whom you disagree.  There may be real purpose behind the law, but that kind of cherry-picking negates the scales of justice.

It's the difference between a banana republic, and a legitimate republic.

He didn't rob a bank though.

He did worse. He proved himself to be a threat to society by employing violence in the commission of his crime. There is a huge dividing line between crimes without violence, and crimes with violence. Those with violence are considered much more malevolent, and justifiedly receive much greater sentences.

Raggamuffin wrote:You have to get things in perspective Quill. You're biased because the guy is white. If he had been black, you would have said he should be let off.

This has nothing to do with black and white. I only mentioned in my example that a black man would receive greater treatment, because I wanted to point out that if you adjust a couple of factors--race being one--you can see that this is a crime deserving of much more severe sanction.

What justifies the light treatment in this case is the current pc movement brought on by this 'Me2' movement. I'm totally in favor of this lefty movement, naturally--I'm a lefty. But my concern is that the rule of law should not change because of passing waves of political correctness.

If you want to change the law fine...eg: it is now legal to engage in fisticuffs in a court of law. But you don't elasticize the law in the moment and say, this time it is good, but next time it is bad. Law is rule based, not incident based. You follow the rules, not the whims.

This pc popularity standard makes law frivolous, and subject to politics (which, after all, we see is whimsical).

I have been pulled over and given a warning. There is a latitude in our system. The judge employed some latitude here.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't rob a bank though.

He did worse.  He proved himself to be a threat to society by employing violence in the commission of his crime.  There is a huge dividing line between crimes without violence, and crimes with violence.  Those with violence are considered much more malevolent, and justifiedly receive much greater sentences.

Raggamuffin wrote:You have to get things in perspective Quill. You're biased because the guy is white. If he had been black, you would have said he should be let off.

This has nothing to do with black and white.  I only mentioned in my example that a black man would receive greater treatment, because I wanted to point out that if you adjust a couple of factors--race being one--you can see that this is a crime deserving of much more severe sanction.

What justifies the light treatment in this case is the current pc movement brought on by this 'Me2' movement.  I'm totally in favor of this lefty movement, naturally--I'm a lefty.  But my concern is that the rule of law should not change because of passing waves of political correctness.

If you want to change the law fine...eg: it is now legal to engage in fisticuffs in a court of law.  But you don't elasticize the law in the moment and say, this time it is good, but next time it is bad.  Law is rule based, not incident based.  You follow the rules, not the whims.

This pc popularity standard makes law frivolous, and subject to politics (which, after all, we see is whimsical).

He didn't hit anyone though - he was restrained.

Re robbing a bank, robbery generally involves a degree of violence. Also this guy had an emotional motive, and a bank robber doesn't. You don't know that a black guy would have been treated differently, and I suspect that you just want this guy to be punished because he's white.

Quill, and a few others around here need to Google false equivalence.

Original Quill wrote:More pc nonsense.  If the guy broke the law, let him do the time.

This is how we got Donald Trump: "I'll pay his defense costs!"

So in your eyes, there is never, ever a case of mitigating circumstances?

All crimes to you are the same and thus all should be punished equally?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:More pc nonsense.  If the guy broke the law, let him do the time.

This is how we got Donald Trump: "I'll pay his defense costs!"

So in your eyes, there is never, ever a case of mitigating circumstances?

All crimes to you are the same and thus all should be punished equally?

Law is rule based.  If we discard rules, or make exceptions the constant rule, we can no longer claim to be a nation of laws.

As for the exceptions: Mitigation is a body of law onto itself; Sentencing is a body of law onto itself.  We can have mitigation in sentencing, but only if it is pre-specified and coded in law written by the legislature.

In this situation, it's totally pc based...I don't think the judge pointed to any mitigating or sentencing standards.  This is the way they do it in banana republics.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So in your eyes, there is never, ever a case of mitigating circumstances?

All crimes to you are the same and thus all should be punished equally?

Law is rule based.  If we discard rules, or make exceptions the constant rule, we can no longer claim to be a nation of laws.

As for the exceptions: Mitigation is a body of law onto itself; Sentencing is a body of law onto itself.  We can have mitigation, but only if it is pre-specified and coded in law.

In this situation, it's totally pc based...I don't think the judge pointed to any mitigating or sentencing standards.  This is the way they do it in banana republics.

I asked you a very simple point and you never answered.

Do you believe in mitigating circumstances?

If you do, then do you not think, this was a mitigating circumstance?

A father finding out, his three daughters had been sexually abused. That this father should be punished. As his emotions got the better of him and lashed out, which caused no actual harm?

So what has PC got to do with anything here, unless you think no father should be as angered at learning his threee daughters have been sexually abused?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Law is rule based.  If we discard rules, or make exceptions the constant rule, we can no longer claim to be a nation of laws.

As for the exceptions: Mitigation is a body of law onto itself; Sentencing is a body of law onto itself.  We can have mitigation, but only if it is pre-specified and coded in law.

In this situation, it's totally pc based...I don't think the judge pointed to any mitigating or sentencing standards.  This is the way they do it in banana republics.

I asked you a very simple point and you never answered.

Didge, if you are not intelligent enough to understand the answer, stop crying on my shoulder.  I am a retired professor of law and political theory, not a special education teacher.

Didge wrote:Do you believe in mitigating circumstances?

If you do, then do you not think, this was a mitigating circumstance?

Is it codified in law?  Why didn't the judge issue Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law?  Perhaps because she (the judge) wants to make up her own laws...the very thing I am criticizing.

Didge wrote:A father finding out, his three daughters had been sexually abused. That this father should be punished. As his emotions got the better of him and lashed out, which caused no actual harm?

Everybody's got a sad story when it comes to facing the consequence of their illegal actions.  I say 'suck it up', and do the time.  This guy's nothing special.  There are sad stories all over: someone robs a bank to feed his family; someone breaks into a warehouse for shelter for him and his three daughters.  Sad stories all...they still have to do the time.

Didge wrote:So what has PC got to do with anything here, unless you think no father should be as angered at learning his threee daughters have been sexually abused?

I'm just going to repeat myself this once.  These waves of political correctness come along and everyone bends the practice to accommodate.  It's no longer Merry Christmas, but now it's Happy Holidays.  Etc., etc.  But when we start "accommodating" in the law, we are destroying the very fabric it's made of.  The law depends upon foreordained codes, and continuity in its application.  When a judge starts flying by the seat of her pants, it's time to send her back to school.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I asked you a very simple point and you never answered.

Didge, if you are not intelligent enough to understand the answer, stop crying on my shoulder.  I am a professor of law and political theory, not a special education teacher.

Didge wrote:I understood your answer.
It was divel

Is it codified in law?  Why didn't the judge issue Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law?  Perhaps because she (the judge) wants to fly the seat of her pants...the very thing I am criticizing.

Didge wrote:Well for one, the father was not even on trial and only there because his 3 daughters had been sexually abused. The judge asked him for some comments and emotions got the better of him, which again caused no harm to anyone.
A clear example of a real mitigating example.

Everybody's got a sad story when it comes to facing the consequence of their illegal actions.  I say 'suck it up', and do the time.  This guy's nothing special.  There are sad stories all over: someone robs a bank to feed his family; someone breaks into a warehouse for shelter for him and his three daughters.  Sad stories all...they still have to do the time.

Didge wrote:A sad story?
That shows you have no ability of empathic intelligence. The judge did and yet you did not.
The guy never claimed he was special.That is your ill concieved poor conception.
He sadly allowed his emotions to get the better of him and again, no harm was done

I'm just going to repeat myself this once.  These waves of political correctness come along and everyone bends the practice to accommodate.  It's no longer Merry Christmas, but now it's Happy Holidays.  Etc., etc.  But when we start "accommodating" in the law, we are destroying the very fabric it's made of.  The law depends upon foreordained codes, and continuity in its application.  When a judge starts flying by the seat of her pants, it's time to send her back to school.

Again, you have not pointed out what PC.

Which group are we talking about here?

Men?

Since when have men been concieved as a minority group in the west and due PC protection?

To be fair, Quill does have a point. The law and the upholding of it, doesn’t have room for emotion. I’m not saying it’s the best way necessarily, (and I want to high-five the father in this case, and the judge), but the law is the law. There has to be definitive lines.

eddie wrote:To be fair, Quill does have a point. The law and the upholding of it, doesn’t have room for emotion. I’m not saying it’s the best way necessarily, (and I want to high-five the father in this case, and the judge), but the law is the law. There has to be definitive lines.

No he has zero point.

What crime was committed here?

Contempt of court

Not assualt

But the emotional actions of a father who just found out his daughters had been sexually abused.

The judge rightly took this into consideration. Its why she even stated what he could have been charged and sentenced with.

How can you make imaginary lines on how a dad or mother would feel, hearing and knowing their daughters or sons have been sexually abused.

Its so grey an area, you can never set boundaries on that.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge, if you are not intelligent enough to understand the answer, stop crying on my shoulder.  I am a professor of law and political theory, not a special education teacher.



Is it codified in law?  Why didn't the judge issue Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law?  Perhaps because she (the judge) wants to fly the seat of her pants...the very thing I am criticizing.



Everybody's got a sad story when it comes to facing the consequence of their illegal actions.  I say 'suck it up', and do the time.  This guy's nothing special.  There are sad stories all over: someone robs a bank to feed his family; someone breaks into a warehouse for shelter for him and his three daughters.  Sad stories all...they still have to do the time.



I'm just going to repeat myself this once.  These waves of political correctness come along and everyone bends the practice to accommodate.  It's no longer Merry Christmas, but now it's Happy Holidays.  Etc., etc.  But when we start "accommodating" in the law, we are destroying the very fabric it's made of.  The law depends upon foreordained codes, and continuity in its application.  When a judge starts flying by the seat of her pants, it's time to send her back to school.

Again, you have not pointed out what PC.

Didge, take a refresher course in reading. I clearly stated:

Original Quill wrote:What justifies the light treatment in this case is the current pc movement brought on by this 'Me2' movement.

Do you see why people lack patience with you? You don't read; you don't retain; and you don't think. You're like those bobblehead dolls, with your repetitious ...didn't answer my points.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again, you have not pointed out what PC.

Didge, take a refresher course in reading.  I clearly stated:

Original Quill wrote:What justifies the light treatment in this case is the current pc movement brought on by this 'Me2' movement.

Do you see why people lack patience with you?  You don't read; you don't retain; and you don't think.  You're like those bobblehead dolls, with your repetitious ...didn't answer my points.

Men are not a minority group

PC is about protecting minority groups through lanaguge.

Hence your point was at best dumb and stupid?

The light treatment has been answsered.

He never actually harmed anyone and just found out his 3 daughters. Not one, but 3 had been sexually abused

He was rightly angered this went under his nose

I am not saying what he did was right. It was not and neither did the judge. She condemned him for it. She rightly took into account how someone might feel knowing this.

She has empathic intelligence.

Hence the sound decision she made.

So again, what PC here?

That is just a misdirection load of babble

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:To be fair, Quill does have a point. The law and the upholding of it, doesn’t have room for emotion. I’m not saying it’s the best way necessarily, (and I want to high-five the father in this case, and the judge), but the law is the law. There has to be definitive lines.

No he has zero point.

What crime was committed here?

Contempt of court

Not assualt

But the emotional actions of a father who just found out his daughters had been sexually abused.

The judge rightly took this into consideration. Its why she even stated what he could have been charged and sentenced with.

How can you make imaginary lines on how a dad or mother would feel, hearing and knowing their daughters or sons have been sexually abused.

Its so grey an area, you can never set boundaries on that.

Emotionally and with every ounce of empathy that I possess, I agree with you. But the law is logical chain of rules not an emotional one. That’s all I’m saying.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


No he has zero point.

What crime was committed here?

Contempt of court

Not assualt

But the emotional actions of a father who just found out his daughters had been sexually abused.

The judge rightly took this into consideration. Its why she even stated what he could have been charged and sentenced with.

How can you make imaginary lines on how a dad or mother would feel, hearing and knowing their daughters or sons have been sexually abused.

Its so grey an area, you can never set boundaries on that.

Emotionally and with every ounce of empathy that I possess, I agree with you. But the law is logical chain of rules not an emotional one. That’s all I’m saying.

If its logical, then why do we place sentencing based on emotional morality?

We factor in how bad a crime is, right?

Its not logical at all, its only logic is based on preconcieved laws.

Hence why we do not agree with stonning adultereous women, do we?

Absolute law is bad law

Lord Foul wrote:Absolute law is bad law

Is it?

How about our view and law on murder?

I am not talking about self defense laws, but murder

Murder is an absolute law.

What is arbitrary is on how people die.

Lord Foul wrote:Absolute law is bad law

Absolutely 'no law' is still worse. If judges can make up a law on the spot, what goes around comes around. You cheat this once, and it's comes back to bite you next time.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Absolute law is bad law

Absolutely 'no law' is still worse.  If judges can make up a law on the spot, what goes around comes around.  You cheat this once, and it's comes back to bite you next time.

He said it was bad and yet knows we do follow absolute law

How we define murder is absolute law,.

Judges dismiss people for time served all the time. This judge didn't ignore law. He applied it in a manner afforded him by the................






Law.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Absolute law is bad law

Absolutely 'no law' is still worse.  If judges can make up a law on the spot, what goes around comes around.  You cheat this once, and it's comes back to bite you next time.

He said it was bad and yet knows we do follow absolute law

How we define murder is absolute law,.

No its not
Murder for gain may well be treated more severely than murder for "passion"
Murder with a sexual element may well be treated more severely than plain old thuggery......

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


He said it was bad and yet knows we do follow absolute law

How we define murder is absolute law,.

No its not
Murder for gain may well be treated more severely than murder for "passion"
Murder with a sexual element may well be treated more severely than plain old thuggery......

Okay

Now I will translate

Think dummy

We are talking about murder as a concept

Not gain

Not anything else

Murder

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:



No its not
Murder for gain may well be treated more severely than murder for "passion"
Murder with a sexual element may well be treated more severely than plain old thuggery......

Okay

Now I will translate

Think dummy

We are talking about murder as a concept

Not gain

Not anything else

Murder

In the US we often call it homicide, and we define it a number of ways. There are homicides that get you sent to death, some homicides give you a slap on the wrist, and other homicides are considered justified.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:
Okay

Now I will translate

Think dummy

We are talking about murder as a concept

Not gain

Not anything else

Murder

In the US we often call it homicide, and we define it a number of ways. There are homicides that get you sent to death, some homicides give you a slap on the wrist, and other homicides are considered justified.  

In other words, its how we define murder.
An absolute law

Exactly madog.....Mr arrogant is off on one again....

murder...the nearest definition I can find is "The unsanctioned taking of human life"


However in PRACTICE (as opposed to the wierd world in didges head) this is so hedged about with motive driven conditions that its largely irrelevant. Thus it becomes murder in persuit of gain or murder for sexual pleasure or murder to evade prosecution or even reduced to manslaughter if you can prove you didnt intend to take a life....... no the law on murder is far from absolute....

IF the law on murder was absolute EVERYONE who killed another without sanction would get a whole of life sentence.

Such sanction could be codified in self defence laws etc of course...it would not have to be specific to an individual.

Lord Foul wrote:Exactly madog.....Mr arrogant is off on one again....

murder...the nearest definition I can find is "The unsanctioned taking of human life"


However in PRACTICE  (as opposed to the wierd world in didges head) this is so hedged about with motive driven conditions that its largely irrelevant. Thus it becomes murder in persuit of gain or murder for sexual pleasure or murder to evade prosecution  or even reduced to manslaughter if you can prove you didnt intend to take a life.......  no the law on murder is far from absolute....

And mR arrogant, you has to insult when he loses an argument

Finally, murder is what we percieve it to be

In this case unsanctioned taking of life

Its an absolute law

What is arbitrary is on the taking of life

So dont act a bigt head, because i will make you look stupid as seen

Try debating like an adult

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In the US we often call it homicide, and we define it a number of ways. There are homicides that get you sent to death, some homicides give you a slap on the wrist, and other homicides are considered justified.  

In other words, its how we define murder.
An absolute law

I'm not sure what you mean. You can commit murder (homicide) in the US and be found to have not broken any laws.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


In other words, its how we define murder.
An absolute law

I'm not sure what you mean. You can commit murder (homicide) in the US and be found to have not broken any laws.

Unsanctioned and sanctioned killing. The later and former is wars and self defense

So how can you not know what I mean?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. You can commit murder (homicide) in the US and be found to have not broken any laws.

Unsanctioned and sanctioned killing. The later and former is wars and self defense

So how can you not know what I mean?

OK, I can shoot you here because you are on my property after dark. I don't have to prove self defense. Is that sanctioned then, because it's a legal murder?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Unsanctioned and sanctioned killing. The later and former is wars and self defense

So how can you not know what I mean?

OK, I can shoot you here because you are on my property after dark. I don't have to prove self defense. Is that sanctioned then, because it's a legal murder?

Who sanctioned its your property?

I think defending your life is self defense

Do you place material objects above humans?

Lets go back to basics

What is a threat?

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Exactly madog.....Mr arrogant is off on one again....

murder...the nearest definition I can find is "The unsanctioned taking of human life"


However in PRACTICE  (as opposed to the wierd world in didges head) this is so hedged about with motive driven conditions that its largely irrelevant. Thus it becomes murder in persuit of gain or murder for sexual pleasure or murder to evade prosecution  or even reduced to manslaughter if you can prove you didnt intend to take a life.......  no the law on murder is far from absolute....

And mR arrogant, you has to insult when he loses an argument

Finally, murder is what we percieve it to be

In this case unsanctioned taking of life

Its an absolute law

What is arbitrary is on the taking of life

So dont act a bigt head, because i will make you look stupid as seen

Try debating like an adult

Maybe you should look in thethe mirror and stop being so condescendingly ignorant with your "dummy" and such...then perhaps I wouldnt reply in kind!!!!!!!...


As to thethe rest of that pointless rant of yours ...it makes bog all sense....

I and thousands of lawyers DONT GIVE a monkeys what YOU think.....there MAY be a strict dictionary definition for murder.....BUT.....that is NOT translated into law....hence the law on murder IS NOT absolute

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


And mR arrogant, you has to insult when he loses an argument

Finally, murder is what we percieve it to be

In this case unsanctioned taking of life

Its an absolute law

What is arbitrary is on the taking of life

So dont act a bigt head, because i will make you look stupid as seen

Try debating like an adult

Maybe you should look in thethe mirror and stop being so condescendingly ignorant with your "dummy" and such...then perhaps I wouldnt reply in kind!!!!!!!...


As to thethe rest of that pointless rant of yours ...it makes bog all sense....

I and thousands of lawyers DONT GIVE a monkeys what YOU think.....there MAY be  a strict dictionary definition for murder.....BUT.....that is NOT translated into law....hence the law on murder IS NOT absolute

1) Grow up you child

2) I guess it would to an idiot like you

3) I simple stated Murder is an absolute law

It is dummy

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK, I can shoot you here because you are on my property after dark. I don't have to prove self defense. Is that sanctioned then, because it's a legal murder?

Who sanctioned its your property?

I think defending your life is self defense

Do you place material objects above humans?

Lets go back to basics

What is a threat?

The law here contends that a person sneaking around your property at night is a threat. I can use lethal force against them.

Doesn't matter if I think that's a good law or not. It is the law. For the record, I wouldn't take advantage of that law, because I don't agree that all trespassers after dark are necessarily a threat.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. You can commit murder (homicide) in the US and be found to have not broken any laws.

Unsanctioned and sanctioned killing. The later and former is wars and self defense

So how can you not know what I mean?

OK, I can shoot you here because you are on my property after dark. I don't have to prove self defense. Is that sanctioned then, because it's a legal murder?

If that is the law of your state then it's sanctioned

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Who sanctioned its your property?

I think defending your life is self defense

Do you place material objects above humans?

Lets go back to basics

What is a threat?

The law here contends that a person sneaking around your property at night is a threat. I can use lethal force against them.

Doesn't matter if I think that's a good law or not. It is the law. For the record, I wouldn't take advantage of that law, because I don't agree that all trespassers after dark are necessarily a threat.  

You are not following my point

Murder is an absolute

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. You can commit murder (homicide) in the US and be found to have not broken any laws.

Unsanctioned and sanctioned killing. The later and former is wars and self defense

So how can you not know what I mean?

OK, I can shoot you here because you are on my property after dark. I don't have to prove self defense. Is that sanctioned then, because it's a legal murder?

If that is the law of your state then it's sanctioned