fool

Apparently so. I'm watching this video released by ACLU covered by Al Jazeera; You can see clearly that neither the guy with the flag nor the guy with the flame were moving from the spot where they stand.

No wonder the popo killed and continue to kill so many people. Such animalistic mindset is not surprising for a wingnut.

Who am I? And yes, I'm in jail now.

Of course no. The key point here is: Through out the video clip we can see people passing back and forth in front of the flame nor will the flame hurt anyone under reasonable ordinary typical scenario where simple reflects will avoid any harm. Indeed, through out the video clips we witnessed these back and forth actions where no one was in any immediate threat of any major bodily injury or death. The only major threat in the video clip is the gun itself due its nature that no one can possibly avoid by simple reflexes. Proportionality is the key point here, not the blood lust of a white supremacist lunatic.

Good to know. At least now the two baboons can log in back on TAZ all the while pretending they haven't touch the site for years. Lol, what baboons!

And why the fuck are we talking about Texas' law? Virginia's law is clear; --- 1.3. Unlawful force, serious bodily harm, or death There is an important distinction between threats involving mere unlawful force and threats involving serious bodily harm or death. Threats involving mere bodily harm do not permit a person to use deadly force, only threats involving great bodily injury or death justify the use of deadly force. A person may only use deadly force if there was a present danger of great bodily injury. Words alone are not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.13 For instance if you were defending yourself from someone trying to commit: A murder A malicious wounding Or a rape You may be justified in using deadly force in self defense, provided the other elements of the defense are met. Deadly force is defined as force intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily injury. This definition focuses on the likely outcome as opposed to the actual result. In contrast, many batteries do not constitute deadly force. This is true even if the victim subsequently dies unexpectedly from the injuries. However, if the person injured is elderly or very sick, or otherwise a person who would be likely to die from a battery, the battery may constitute deadly force. 1.4. Force used must be reasonable under the circumstances In Virginia, a person is only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to repel the force used against him.14 This rule requires that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened. Excessive force is not protected. Therefore, when threatened with a non-deadly attack, a person is not justified in using deadly force to repel the attack. --- Virginia's Self Defense Laws: What You Need To Know

The phrase in 9.33 (2); (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. Must be understood within the context of the whole section; --- Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. --- Your fellow nazi satisfy neither of these requirements.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You are trying to defense your fellow nazi by invoking Section 9.33; PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY --- Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. --- SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or © was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection ©; (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. © The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or © was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. © A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection © reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. --- Which point justify your fellow nazi?

Who's making any argument?

Lol, the baboon can't log in. It misses TAZ as fast as it diss the site.

What argument?

This is the problem with crazy people like you, you live in your own lunatic fantasy. Iraq did not attacked murrika. What self defense are you lunatics talking about? Which country declared war on which country? After it was illegally invaded? Who will take the responsibilities for the dead Iraqi population? Typical right wing mentality, complete scum of the earth, the filthiest of the filth. There were neither Al Qaeda nor WMD in Iraq when murrika illegally invaded. All WMD was destroyed via UN program prior to the illegal invasion and Al Qaeda only came in during the power vacuum after the illegal invasion.

It's funny how different Americans and Japanese celebrate their tragic history. For every years of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remembrance, the Japanese spirit is always of peace and reconciliation, not war. But to the wingnuts, the lunatic gun nuts, the white supremacists, the nazis and every single piece of shit in the basket of deplorables, their theme for 9/11 is always about vengeance, jingoism, patriotism, nationalism and more wars. And thus Trump, their lunatic leader who also happens to have small penis dropped even more bombs than Obama. Not once was a moment of self-reflection ever conducted.

Now that Usama ibn Mohammed ibn Awad ibn Ladin is dead for years since 9/11, how many people have been prosecuted and hanged a la what was done to the Nazis at Nuremberg for the illegal invasion of Iraq? Oh yeah, none, nada, zero, zilch.

Thanks, it says exactly as what the criminal attorney said. Everything you've said so far is complete rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=208t80uceSg View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=208t80uceSg

I'm quoting current active practicing career criminal attorney whose website even has chat function for potential customers. He specifically paraphrased section 9 Texas Penal Code while all you did was commit logical fallacy (argument from authority without any source to back you up). The two baboons can repeatedly suck your dick and tell you that you won but the fact remain the same. You offered no source apart from your own made up stories.

The two baboons are definitely related. 1. Both are current active users on TAZ. 2. Both use sock accounts here (because they're afraid of Mr. V). 3. Both use other people's avatars (due to lack of self esteem). 4. Both strokes each other tiny-right-wing-dick posts for psychological approval. 5. Both jointly thumbed down posts they hate. 6. Both behave like rabid animal, specifically baboons.

In other words, you made shits up your ass. Laws are written, not made up on the spot when you stop and frisk minorities.

Yeah, I was quoting a career criminal attorney who himself was paraphrasing Section 9 Texas Penal Code. What's your source? You do know this forum isn't one of your regular traffic stop where you can just make up laws out of your ass, do you?

No, it's not! It's defined by the law! --- Generally, force is justified "when and to the degree necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." The individual must have a "reasonable" belief that the use of force is immediately necessary. So to start, force is justified when an individual has a "reasonable" belief. The use of force must also be immediately necessary. There are special rules which govern the use of deadly - such as using a weapon. Generally, you cannot use deadly force unless its immediately necessary to protect against the other person's use or attempted use of deadly force. In other words, you have to reasonably believe someone is trying to use deadly force against you. You are also authorized in using deadly force if it's necessary to prevent the imminent commission of "aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery." You can also use deadly force against someone who "unlawfully and with force" enters your habitation, vehicle or place of work. --- What is the law of Self-defense in Texas

There is an implied threat there because that distance can be closed within less time than people can react to. The fact that no one suffered any burn makes all your claims amount to garbage.

That is up to the individual being "threatened". No it's not. It's defined by the law, not up to what individuals feel. I know the popo always feels threatened and that's why they killed so many people.