Should this be done in New Orleans?

Should we honor the protesters of Chocolate City in the same fashion? They may appreciate it.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12...rotesters-confederate-flag-fried-chicken.html

Sounds like a fun time would be had by all !

Yeah, we should show the dipshits burning cars that their claims of racism are true and that they are victims by doing stupid **** instead of acting like adults. I'll go buy some brother's chicken and start cutting pillow cases right now...

Asking for a job and suggesting people do some of the most racist things that someone can do all on the same site.......

alpinehyperlite said:

Asking for a job and suggesting people do some of the most racist things that someone can do all on the same site.......

Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

JR1572

Absolutely the wrong response. Kill them with kindness instead. Racism is a tool of the left. OTOH, each law breaker that they can identify from video should be arrested and prosecuted and given max sentences.

I've always felt that rioting should be treated no differently than looters after a hurricane. People defending their property should be immune from prosecution and from civil action after for firing on rioters or looters that are on or attempting to damage your property.

LACamper said:

Absolutely the wrong response. Kill them with kindness instead. Racism is a tool of the left. OTOH, each law breaker that they can identify from video should be arrested and prosecuted and given max sentences.

I've always felt that rioting should be treated no differently than looters after a hurricane. People defending their property should be immune from prosecution and from civil action after for firing on rioters or looters that are on or attempting to damage your property.

Click to expand...

Good job! Condemn the racist acts, but condone the use of deadly force to defend property.

You guys are something else.

JR1572

JR1572 said:

Good job! Condemn the racist acts, but condone the use of deadly force to defend property.

You guys are something else.

JR1572

Click to expand...

Yep, we used to be called "Red blooded Americans".

JR1572 said:

Good job! Condemn the racist acts, but condone the use of deadly force to defend property.

You guys are something else.

JR1572

Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't the only one that caught that

kenny said:

Yep, we used to be called "Red blooded Americans".

Click to expand...

Please elaborate

I guess I'm not understanding some of your comments. I see no problem with using lethal force to protect your property during a riot situation. I realize that is not legal here, but I believe people are deserving of it if they are trying to destroy your home or business during a riot; regardless of their race.
I'm not saying to do it, only that I would be okay with it.

LACamper said:

Absolutely the wrong response. Kill them with kindness instead. Racism is a tool of the left. OTOH, each law breaker that they can identify from video should be arrested and prosecuted and given max sentences.

I've always felt that rioting should be treated no differently than looters after a hurricane. People defending their property should be immune from prosecution and from civil action after for firing on rioters or looters that are on or attempting to damage your property.

Click to expand...

I agree, even if that makes me a derp.

Why anyone would think that kind of stuff is okay is beyond me. People that do that kind of stuff are pretty messed up in the head.

JR1572 said:

Good job! Condemn the racist acts, but condone the use of deadly force to defend property.

You guys are something else.

JR1572

Click to expand...

That may/may not be an accurate assumption. If Joe is inside his store and an angry mob walks down the street torching buildings, etc., is the use of deadly force employed to protect property or protect Joe who is in his property? I am sure the transparent motives thus broadcasted from some individuals would exempt them from this question and put them in line with your comment (just as those using deadly force in an "authorized" situation would be in hot water as they waxed poetic about how the 3rd round was intended to kill the SOB), but what about the others?

Isn't forcible entry into a business and or assault with a deadly weapon (incendiary) grounds for self-defense on the basis of defending life and limb. Would a person cocking back his arm to throw a Molotov cocktail into the area or dwelling below the man on a roof put the man on the roof into a state of apprehension that imminent and grievous bodily harm was about to be unleashed upon him?

JR1572 said:

Good job! Condemn the racist acts, but condone the use of deadly force to defend property.

You guys are something else.

JR1572

Click to expand...

So if someone wants to torch your home, you gonna sit back and allow it?

Lol it was a joke guys....its just pretty crazy how far this stuff is going.

Danny Abear said:

So if someone wants to torch your home, you gonna sit back and allow it?

Click to expand...

LACamper stated businesses. Me shooting someone who is attempting to burn my house down in suburbia while me and my family are inside of it is totally different than what we saw in Missouri. Furthermore, I doubt someone would randomly decide to torch my humble residence. If that does take place, I'm sure it would be a retaliatory act.

Again, me or anyone else shooting someone for trying to burn down our home while we are in it isn't the problem. Shooting someone because you don't want your business to burn down because you know that isn't covered by your insurance, that may be a problem.

JR1572

I read this, when it first posted. My first thoughts, were that some has issues. There are many minorities, myself included, that object, and speak against the mob violence, in Ferguson.
Realize that the world, is watching this madness. They are hearing the perps, scream racism. Raising a confederate flag, using racial icons (watermelons & fried chicken) will have some of the global spectators, think that may be validity, to their cries of racism.
In this case, I don't think its wise to fight fire with fire. joking or not

instead of looking for racial confrontation, organized groups, should be demanding arrest, and just punishment, for the looters, and arsonist.

If someone is trying to destroy my means for feeding myself and my family, and keeping a roof over our heads, please tell me why I'm not justified in using whatever force necessary to stop them?

kenny said:

If someone is trying to destroy my means for feeding myself and my family, and keeping a roof over our heads, please tell me why I'm not justified in using whatever force necessary to stop them?

Click to expand...

Read the statute. It's pretty simple.

JR1572


§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.