Michigan Residents Could Face 5-Years Prison, $10,000 Fine for Using Wrong Pronouns

QP! said:
Real threats as determined by a jury.

What you are asking is like asking 'what is a real threat a person with a gun could perceive, where the person is not overtly pointing another gun (weapon) at them, such that a jury would decide, using the reasonable person test, that it was justified self defense'.

That is not something easy to answer as in each case you would list, it would be possible, based on very specific instances that the answer would be 'justified' in some cases and 'not justified' in others.
Click to expand...
What could be a potential charge filed?
 
QP! said:
And the person who shot the person who simply rang their door bell, MIGHT claim self defense and castle doctrine.

Does not mean a jury who applies the 'reasonable person' test would agree with them and not convict them.


Are you for removing from law anything the MIGHT allow charges based on feelings? Meaning much of castle doctrine and much of self defense would not be defensible in court if anyone acts prior to 'actions' actually be taken and instead based on the person PERCEIVING a threat and acting proactively?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the person shot in self defense will be able to show actual injury......
 
QP! said:
You really are slow.


What is being pointed out to you is that what you 'FEEL' is not a defense if a jury does not find it reasonable threat via the 'reasonable person' test.

So to answer your question, what does the jury say?
Click to expand...

the difference is that in your case, the "feel" is being raised as a defense on whether a person is guilty of a crime that has caused harm.......in the harassment case the "feel" is being used by the offense to charge a crime INSTEAD of harm
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I wonder if the person shot in self defense will be able to show actual injury......
Click to expand...

A smart lawyer would know we are discussing whether the person who shot "FEELINGS' justified the shot or not and not whether the person shot, got a real demonstrable injury from a bad shoot.

And since you are not a smart lawyer we are here.
 
QP! said:
if you allow anyone to carry a gun and they can shoot someone based on what they FEEL is a threat, who knows who they will shoot over what stupid claimed threat.

Do you agree, and would see people's gun rights serious curtailed?
Click to expand...

wrong......what you are saying is that even if someone is not carrying a gun and does not shoot someone, if a "victim" feels like the guy wanted to carry a gun and wanted to shoot someone, he is guilty......
 
Here is the matter of FACT for the derps.

We know for FACT all sorts of people with rights to have guns, have crazy unjust FEELINGS about why they are being threatened and why they need to shoot someone. Some do shoot and the courts and jury system hold them to account, freeing those who are innocent and punishing those are guilty.

You derps are perfectly ok with that system. With not changing gun laws because crazies with FEELINGS might shoot or threaten someone wrongly.

You then say the EXACT SAME application of the law when it comes to any LGTBQ+ persons of 'FEELING' at threat, and how the law and jury system will adjudicate whether that threat was real or justified, is somehow not right to use or sufficient.

That is because you are illogical hypocrites who are dumb.


If the law is adequate to leave the guns in the hands of the crazies and sort them out AFTER via a jury determining whether their shooting someone was justified or not via 'real' threat or not, that same law can also answer the EXACT SAME question when it comes to other forms of threat.
 
This isn't a thread about gun laws.. the two laws aren't even remotely similar...
 
QP! said:
A smart lawyer would know we are discussing whether the person who shot "FEELINGS' justified the shot or not and not whether the person shot, got a real demonstrable injury from a bad shoot.

And since you are not a smart lawyer we are here.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that went over your head.......the "harassed" person used to be required to show injury, intent to cause harm..and reasonable fear.....now that they have changed the statute they don't need to show any of that......they just need to show fear....the prosecutor in the stand your ground shooter obviously found no problem showing injury or intent to cause harm.......and the defendant had to show reasonable fear as a defense.....
 
TOP said:
This isn't a thread about gun laws.. the two laws aren't even remotely similar...
Click to expand...

We already went thru this TOP. They are EXACTLY similar in every way with regards to how 'threats' are assessed and 'adjudicated'.

When i asked you to explain what was different you could not.

So you now trying to preclude that FACT as you do not like it, is not going to fly.
 
Bigdog said:
I don't know if you've been lied to or are just ill informed, Frank.

Why you and your boy, Biden, THINK Will Thomas is a woman is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I hate to be in charge of making a list of the things that are beyond you, Dog.

You are a fool. But my guess is you can live with that.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I gave you the text and you claimed to have read it......apparently you lied......read what is crossed out in the first paragraph.......
Click to expand...

Sure but i pointed out how you were wrong and remember you are the slum lord lawyer who does not understand the law or what you read.

What is left or crossed out does not change the FACT that a jury would be applying a 'reaonable man' test to determine the following...


(1) A person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously and intentionally does any of the following to an individual based in whole or in part on an actual or perceived characteristic of that individual listed under subsection (2), regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors:
...
Click to expand...

A jury has to DETERMINE if the action was done maliciously and intentionally, and the way they can do that is by applying the 'reasonable man' test.


You do not understand the law and that is why you claim, wrongly the reasonable man test will not apply, when it clearly does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top