Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aaah-so now we're getting down to the nitty gritty- a political decision-I see
As for the majority thing-was there a vote by allthe residents in Charlotte?
No? then it should go to court and let a properly elected jury decide.
So basically the DA looks after number 1. Wow.
The DA who made this decision, Peter Gilchrist, holds an elected position. This is a representative government so the answer to your question is yes, he was voted in by the residents of this city to make these decisions. Sure not all people voted but that was their decision.
Even if people don't agree it may not technically be self defense, I still see no issue with a guy attempting to retaliate. Unfortuntately in this case it led to a kid's death. But I'm sure many men if put in the same situation (being tied up and beaten) would want to kick the guys' butts in return.
Honestly, I think much of it was a normal reaction.
It's like fight or flight. Some would fight back, some would flee.
I personally am more of a scaredy cat and would runaway screaming like a little girl lol. But I wish I had bravery like that. I'd rather be stronger and not be paralyzed in fear by pieces of garbage like this.
Ani, I'm going to take a guess and say as a Brit she cannot fully grasp our history in America and the value we place on our second ammendment
For me, it might be like going to England and not understanding why 16 year olds are allowed to buy and drink alcohol in pubs - something we could never support in America and in fact would think is irresponsible.
So in response to the post she made-(I chose to ignore her scathing use of the term Brit and refrain from calling her by a deregatory term)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Note the "well regulated" .
Additionally does she have knowledge of the origins of the concept of "a universal militia"?
I draw attention to this quote made by the American bar association "There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue."
Hardly surprising when the second ammendment was written in 1792.
How many people in the UK does she think support 16 year olds buying alcohol in pubs-or anywhere else for that matter?
The legal age for consumption of alcohol in a pub in the UK is 18
Anyway-way off topic.
The DA who made this decision, Peter Gilchrist, holds an elected position. This is a representative government so the answer to your question is yes, he was voted in by the residents of this city to make these decisions. Sure not all people voted but that was their decision.
No-I was replying to someone who said that the DAs view regarding this case was the view of everyone in Charlotte.I was being rather tongue in cheek when I asked if he had taken a vote-sorry.
President Obama was also voted in but not all US citizens agree with his views.
So in response to the post she made-(I chose to ignore her scathing use of the term Brit and refrain from calling her by a deregatory term)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Note the "well regulated" .
Additionally does she have knowledge of the origins of the concept of "a universal militia"?
I draw attention to this quote made by the American bar association "There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue."
Hardly surprising when the second ammendment was written in 1792.
How many people in the UK does she think support 16 year olds buying alcohol in pubs-or anywhere else for that matter?
The legal age for consumption of alcohol in a pub in the UK is 18
Anyway-way off topic.
Susan,
No one here has mentioned a universal militia? And by what you have posted here, you have no clue as what our constitution means and stands for. LOL...
You are the one taking the thread off topic. You haven't posed any questions, that have not already been answered in this thread. You aren't hearing what you want to hear, that is your problem. Like I said, I encourage you to do some research and you will see how far off base your comments are.
No one here has mentioned a universal militia? And by what you have posted here, you have no clue as what our constitution means and stands for. LOL...
You are the one taking the thread off topic. You haven't posed any questions, that have not already been answered in this thread. You aren't hearing what you want to hear, that is your problem. Like I said, I encourage you to do some research and you will see how far off base your comments are.
I am hearing exactly what I don't want to hear-LOL.
So in response to the post she made-(I chose to ignore her scathing use of the term Brit and refrain from calling her by a deregatory term)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Note the "well regulated" .
Additionally does she have knowledge of the origins of the concept of "a universal militia"?
I draw attention to this quote made by the American bar association "There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue."
Hardly surprising when the second ammendment was written in 1792.
How many people in the UK does she think support 16 year olds buying alcohol in pubs-or anywhere else for that matter?
The legal age for consumption of alcohol in a pub in the UK is 18
Anyway-way off topic.
Why was the Ani's use of the word "Brit" scathing? I hope you don't think mine was too as no insult was intended at all. I was merely making the observation that I understand that gun ownership and use is a foreign concept to you, and therefore you can't fully appreciate why so many of us support the victim (Mr. McClure).
I am hearing exactly what I don't want to hear-LOL.
If you don't want to hear it, then why keep coming back for more? This isn't a game susan, this is a very tragic story and you are trying to interject into something that you have no clue whatsoever about.
.....
President Obama was also voted in but not all US citizens agree with his views.
Indeed, but as long as Obama holds that position, then he makes that decision for that office. I am going to go out on a limb and say that most Americans do believe in the authority of the President's office to make certain decisions as covered by the US Constitution.
In the same token, the DA's office is granted authority from the NC Constitution to make the decision to bring criminal charges against a party on behalf of the municipality that he represents and is elected from. Like Obama people may not like his views, but ultimately it is his decision.
This is the definition of murder in North Carolina and the penalty for having committed it. Note: the penalty is death or life imprisonment unless you are under 18, then no death.
14‑17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.
A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14‑288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole as the court shall determine pursuant to G.S. 15A‑2000, except that any such person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the murder shall be punished with imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole. All other kinds of murder, including that which shall be proximately caused by the unlawful distribution of opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or cocaine or other substance described in G.S. 90‑90(1)d., or methamphetamine, when the ingestion of such substance causes the death of the user, shall be deemed murder in the second degree, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished as a Class B2 felon.
So the question comes down to "willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing". Gilchrist decided there wasn't enough evidence to proceed on these grounds. I would agree with this as while the victim showed very bad judgement in choosing to to chase these thugs, it would not seem to be a premeditated move to off any of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
