TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

rascal_king Archive

View 0 posts and 11 comments by rascal_king on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

you are a sad little man. EDIT: again with the edits, eh? can't get your whole thought out the first time? firstly, you've moved the goalposts from "there is NO proportionality requirement in American law" to "there is no proportionality required in the use of non-deadly force" (which is still wrong). secondly, and again: the text you've bolded simply means that deadly vs non-deadly is what is usually litigated. and, even what you bolded indicates that you're wrong. here, i will give you a readi…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 04:51 PM
8

i'm going to imagine he went to a semester or two of law school. was the type to argue with the torts professor even though he is a 1L. terrible listener who could never admit he was dead wrong, or ask for any help, so he dropped out because of his awful grades.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 04:47 PM
3

all those statutes have proportionality requirements. doesn't bode well for your initial statement, "there is NOTHING in the american law requiring proportionality." deadly vs non-deadly is simply what is litigated the most. that doesn't mean that there isn't proportionality required in using non-deadly force.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 04:34 PM
8

he can't read a statute.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 04:31 PM
6

it's possible florida has done away with proportionality in the strict sense, the NRA lobby is big down there. but that makes them the exception and not the rule. you're still wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 11:33 PM
5

what?! you literally just made that up. please cite the law that says that reasonably necessary self defense "always includes at a minimum, incapacitation of the attacker." just to shut you up: "In a case where nondeadly force is used, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense if any view of the evidence would support a reasonable doubt as to whether the prerequisites of self-defense were present, to wit: (1) the defendant had a reasonable concern over his personal safety; (2) he…
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 11:18 PM
13

yes, yes they do. dude, the point of self-defense is not vengeance. it's to protect yourself from harm. you can use as much force as you reasonably believe necessary to do that. i.e. proportional to the threat.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 11:06 PM
12

no. it's is an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances. it is far more nuanced than you want it to be. EDIT: your hatred for women does not mean a 200lb man can knock a 100lb woman into next week because she slaps him. you're wrong but your revenge boner is blinding you. EDIT: pull those cases? what do you think i did?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 10:52 PM
14

modern jurisprudence? i cited a case from 2013. you are the one not recognizing the nuance by trying to separate everything as either deadly or non deadly. every state recognizes a proportionality requirement. please tell me how any of those cases are out of context.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 10:46 PM
1

you're totally wrong. where'd you get your law degree, Grenada?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 09:23 PM
19

you got it 100% wrong. "Defense is not to be used as an instrument of vengeance and must not be disproportionate to the real or threatened danger." State v. Rader, 94 Ore. 432 (1919). "The quantum of force which one may use in self-defense is proportional to the threat which he reasonably apprehends." United States v. Matheny, 523 Fed. Appx. 996 (4th Cir. 2013) "Self-defense requires a real, specific, actual, and immediate threat of bodily violence to which a defendant's actions are an appropria…
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/18 09:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter