keepitcherry: My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.

Is your dad a 6 y.o. girl?

vpb: The odd thing is that this isn't the first time this has happened, it is just the first time involving a white shooter and a black guy getting killed, so it makes a good story.

The shooter was Hispanic. What makes this a story is that the dead guy was an unarmed kid and the fact that the shooter chased him down before shooting him. The shooter wasn't "standing his ground", he initiated the conflict. If he had left the kid alone (like the police dispatcher told him to do) then the whole thing would have ended.

I May Be Crazy But...: Think about it this way. These laws tell you that you can kill someone who wants to steal your wallet. Of course you have nothing but disdain for someone who would kill a guy to take the $30 in his wallet. But then why don't you have the same feeling for someone who would kill to not lose $30?

I've been robbed at gunpoint. I had about $30 in my wallet. It cost me a lot more than that, probably $100 or more, plus a lot of time and trouble.

I didn't just lose the $30, I also lost my drivers license, which is a major pain to replace because when you go to try and get it replaced, they want you to show your old drivers license as ID. The fact that they have my picture and fingerprints in their database should, logically, make it easy for them to verify me. But they don't do that, so I had to do a bunch of stuff like getting a copy of my birth certificate, school transcripts, marriage license, etc. Oddly enough, I could get all of those things without showing any ID, and by using those, I can get an ID. That means anyone could get an ID in my name the exact same way.

And of course, I had to buy another wallet, and I had to cancel and replace credit cards, stuff like that.

So the thief may only gain $30, but the victim is out a lot more than that. And the thief isn't going to rob one person and stop. The kind of person who will rob you at gunpoint isn't going to suddenly turn honest, and $30 isn't going to give him the life of luxury that he would like, so he's going to rob someone else, and then someone else.

So screw him. The only good thief is a dead thief.

Pretending that the thief is no worse than the guy who would kill a thief just puts you on the thieves side. Being a criminal should not be a safe career choice.

Muta: keepitcherry: My dad is Italian and makes a delicious rabbit pasta. More people eat rabbit than you think.

Is your dad a 6 y.o. girl?

No but it sure sounds like you are, pussy.

wthgtfo: And I forgot to mention the whole thing about forcing colleges and universities to allow firearms on to their property. She has pushed for pretty much allowing a weapon anywhere, even in places where it might be a really really bad idea or doesn't fit with the ideals of whatever institution or group runs the property.

I didn't follow this bit of legislation. I could see a bill to prevent *public* universities from banning firearms, such as Utah has done, but did it actually say that private universities couldn't?

JuggleGeek: The shooter was Hispanic. What makes this a story is that the dead guy was an unarmed kid and the fact that the shooter chased him down before shooting him. The shooter wasn't "standing his ground", he initiated the conflict. If he had left the kid alone (like the police dispatcher told him to do) then the whole thing would have ended.

Yup, so far, that appears to be the case. Under the facts currently known (and I understand that trials often have information that's not publicly widely-known), I don't think this would pass the "reasonable person" standard. I favor castle and standing-ground laws, and this still stinks.

ddelorm: I asked him why he wore a seat belt, was he expecting to crash?

It's illegal for me to drive while not wearing a seatbelt. The only reason I carry a spare tire is because it came with the care. I guess I am just one of those people who aren't afraid of their own shadows. Your life must be very sad.

treesloth: wthgtfo: And I forgot to mention the whole thing about forcing colleges and universities to allow firearms on to their property. She has pushed for pretty much allowing a weapon anywhere, even in places where it might be a really really bad idea or doesn't fit with the ideals of whatever institution or group runs the property.

I didn't follow this bit of legislation. I could see a bill to prevent *public* universities from banning firearms, such as Utah has done, but did it actually say that private universities couldn't?

FTAHammer was the primary lobbyist for a bill introduced in the Florida state legislature in January 2011 that sought to force the state's colleges and universities to allow guns on campus. Under SB 234, anyone with a concealed handgun permit recognized by Florida would have been able to carry a loaded gun onto a college campus-including into classrooms and dormitories.

The bill was introduced just days after Florida State University sophomore Ashley Cowie, 20, was accidentally shot and killed at a fraternity party by fellow student Ryan Wilhelm, who discharged his semiautomatic AK-74 assault rifle while showing it off. Wilhelm had a blood alcohol level of approximately .10 at the time of the shooting and had also been smoking marijuana.

It hasn't passed yet, but she is pushing for it. And you are right, it is only public universities. Sorry that I didn't make a clear distinction. But from the looks of things I doubt it will be long before she pushes for that too. And didn't know about the Utah thing. Probably another reason to avoid that state.

keepitcherry: No but it sure sounds like you are, pussy

How so Mr. Internet Toughguy?

I was just trying to stay on topic. After all, Ms. Hammer's claim to knowledge on what is best for everyone is that she killed rabbits when she was six. I questioned whether that makes her the authority for the other 99% of Americans who weren't killing rabbits at 6. The person I responded to pointed out that his dad makes rabbit pasta like that had something to do with the price of tea in china. I wanted him to clarify what appeared to me a non sequitur. Are you too stupid to discuss the merits of guns without resorting to name calling?

Why not go shoot your gun at a paper plate and talk about how close together the holes are? it might make you feel like a real man.

bluehubcap: pedrop357: Some people would like the choice to carry a gun on their person at all times, or most of the time, or sometimes.

...

And using the argument that having to lock your gun in your car when you go to school is impractical because your car might get stolen, is a poor one. Yes, your car might get stolen with your gun in it. Might be safer to leave the gun at home, unless you need it to do your job or protect your person against immediate and deadly threat.

If it's not a job requirement, why do you need a gun with you at all? That must be because you want to have it to protect your person. Fair enough.

Protect yourself against whom? Another person? Do you think that someone is going to target you? If so, you must have a compelling reason why. Because walking around with a loaded gun assuming that someone, somewhere, somehow might shoot you is paranoia unless you have a good reason to think you will have to resort to deadly force.

Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.

Let me start by saying I agree with about 95% of what you have said and is the reason you will not find me with a gun on my person 99.9 of the time. Even when I am out backpacking in the woods you will find me without a firearm. However I feel compelled to answer.

I do not believe the average law abiding citizen has the expectation their day will present them with a situation where they should consider defending their life with deadly force. Although I generally don't have a problem with those who want to be prepared for such a situation, and that is the answer to your question. They should have the right to be prepared! Unless you have a gun on your person, you are unlikely to be prepared to face a life threatening emergency where a firearm would be appropriate. That being said I choose not to prepared to face stations like being in the store at the time of an armed robbery. Instead I choose to be prepared to vacate and render aid to everyone who needs help (except maybe the robbers). There is this defense guy who tells me you are 83% less likely to be shot if you run away, and I don't like being shot.

Ten years ago there were neighborhoods in my city where I might choose to be armed before going out in public because of my robbery example. I want to have the right to be armed. If there were a disaster like hurricane Katrina in my city, I would have a firearm by the bedroom door because in that situation law enforcement was completely overwhelmed and people were facing looters on their own.

/do you still eat rabbit, elk and things?

keepitcherry: R.A.Danny: keepitcherry: Muta: ArkAngel:
Rabbit is AWESOME! So is pheasant, duck, venison, and bear. I always find it odd how people can be against hunting, yet are ok with fishing. I do both.

Exactly, makes no sense to me. Rabbit is one of the tastiest things you can eat, it's just one of those things for some reason or another people get freaked out about it. I want to come over for dinner at your house, lol.

I peaked at your profile, you can come eat dinner at my house. Rabbit happens once in a while, there are 2 pheasant in the freezer along with some sturgeon right now, and don't get me started on deer or bear.

wthgtfo: It hasn't passed yet, but she is pushing for it. And you are right, it is only public universities. Sorry that I didn't make a clear distinction. But from the looks of things I doubt it will be long before she pushes for that too. And didn't know about the Utah thing. Probably another reason to avoid that state.

For what it's worth, it's worked out pretty well here. Very few students even want to carry here, but it was more a matter of the university trying to tell the state that it was exempt from the state's preemption laws rather than explicitly authorizing carry. But, as much as I favor gun rights, I'd find it pretty ridiculous to force private universities to allow firearms. I think that trying to do that would be a completely different kind of case than they're used to fighting, and it would trigger private property protections that have generally held up well.

davidab: bluehubcap: pedrop357: Some people would like the choice to carry a gun on their person at all times, or most of the time, or sometimes.

...

And using the argument that having to lock your gun in your car when you go to school is impractical because your car might get stolen, is a poor one. Yes, your car might get stolen with your gun in it. Might be safer to leave the gun at home, unless you need it to do your job or protect your person against immediate and deadly threat.

If it's not a job requirement, why do you need a gun with you at all? That must be because you want to have it to protect your person. Fair enough.

Protect yourself against whom? Another person? Do you think that someone is going to target you? If so, you must have a compelling reason why. Because walking around with a loaded gun assuming that someone, somewhere, somehow might shoot you is paranoia unless you have a good reason to think you will have to resort to deadly force.

Which brings me to my only question. Does the average law abilding citizen, who's job does not require them to be armed, really wake up with the expectation that at some point in their day someone might mean them bodily harm and they may be required to shooting that someone? My guess is no. That would be unreasonble and paranoid.

Let me start by saying I agree with about 95% of what you have said and is the reason you will not find me with a gun on my person 99.9 of the time. Even when I am out backpacking in the woods you will find me without a firearm. However I feel compelled to answer.

I do not believe the average law abiding citizen has the expectation their day will present them with a situation where they should consider defending their life with deadly force. Although I generally don't have a problem with those who want to be prepared for such a situation, and that is the answer to your question. They should have the right to be prepared! Unless you have a gun on your person, you are unlikely to be prepared to face a life threatening emergency where a firearm would be appropriate. That being said I choose not to prepared to face stations like being in the store at the time of an armed robbery. Instead I choose to be prepared to vacate and render aid to everyone who needs help (except maybe the robbers). There is this defense guy who tells me you are 83% less likely to be shot if you run away, and I don't like being shot.

Ten years ago there were neighborhoods in my city where I might choose to be armed before going out in public because of my robbery example. I want to have the right to be armed. If there were a disaster like hurricane Katrina in my city, I would have a firearm by the bedroom door because in that situation law enforcement was completely overwhelmed and people were facing looters on their own.

/do you still eat rabbit, elk and things?

I do, I do. Yum!

pute kisses like a man: the centuries of jurisprudence on self-defense were perfectly satisfactory. people who defended themselves were not being convicted.

the old standard worked as well as it needed to. lowering the burden only increases the danger of justifying a non-self defense homicide or a disproportionate use of force, it does not decrease the danger of prosecuting the justified, because the justified were not at risk.

every homicide should be thoroughly examined. if it were justified by self-defense, then it is justified. the so called "duty to retreat" included a reasonableness standard and proportionality. this new doctrine is more subjective and less demanding. it clouds the notion of reasonable force and opens the door to abuse.

the age old justification standard was working (I have not heard of anyone satisfactorily arguing a legal crisis with the old justification).

lowering the burden on the justification swings too far in the favor of accepting homicide. it's a balancing act. you don't want to justify everything.

if you think the duty to retreat is centuries old jurisprudence I must tell you that you don't have the vaguest idea what you are talking about. there isn't even a duty to retreat in the UK, and there hasn't been since Henry codified a right to stand your ground as long you acted reasonably in 1532.
in NY state the duty to run for your life wasn't forced upon the population until 1965.
stand your ground laws don't change any of the balancing, you still have the affirmative obligation of proving you honestly feared for your life or serious bodily injury and that a reasonable person in your place would have experienced that same fear.
you just no longer have the ridiculous obligation of turning your back on a person who intends to end your life and run for the hills.
these laws are simply just redressing the moronic liberal overreach that dumbasses like yourself managed to pass which put violent criminals on squarer footing with the law than honest citizens who became their victims.
and this has nothing to do with zimmerman case.

Someone explain this to me:
In addition to providing immunity to criminal prosecution and civil action, I saw one other notable provision the immunity to ARREST, without having "probable cause" that the use of force was not lawful:

(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Why was this provision considered necessary, and what is the bearing on this case?

It seems unusual to me, because arrests which don't lead to charges happen all the time. I would think if I just shot someone, that it would not be unreasonable to arrest me, take the gun into evidence, and I'll remain silent until my lawyer explains how and why the SYG law applies, and if the case is decent the DA will probably say "nevermind" because attempting to prosecute losing cases with a position unsupported by law is bad for his job.

Normally, police don't arrest you UNLESS they have a probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Why would they DO this? It's pointless and generally bad for business, and brings up constitutional rights against unreasonable arrest. But because they specifically included this term here, it seems to mean something more.

If they're making it impossible to ARREST someone without showing probable cause, can you ever HAVE probable cause? Seems to me if the other person is dead, you decline to answer questions, can they ever establish probable cause to arrest you? To me, I might say, well, the body over there is pretty farking good probable cause even if you have a plausible story, but then why state that in the statute?

It says they can investigate using "standard procedure", but if you need to analyze his shirt for powder residue, but can't be arrested yet, can't he just go home and clean it before you get a warrant for this item? Isn't part of the motivation for arrest to secure evidence against tampering, or is that something else?

Skarekrough:
At the hundreds of other colleges and universities in the United States?

Probably pretty damned good.

For the R.A. who had to wrangle a few hundred students away from home for the first time, experimenting with alcohol and drugs in what has generally been a consequence-free environment?

As an RA, exactly how many of your wards could legally buy a handgun, much less legally get a concealed permit? Honestly, I didn't think most of the kids who lived in dorms were over 21, which is Federal law.

I have a concealed permit. It's redundancy for me, as it keeps me from having to explain to idiots why exactly I'm exempt from my State's concealed weapon law. I'm exempt because of what I do for a living and who I work for. I "meet or exceed" my State's training requirements for law enforcement officers, am required to qualify periodically, et cetera. Hell, I still keep my "Firearms Instructor" certification up to date, despite the fact that I no longer get paid to kick in doors and train my co-workers. Yet if I were to go on the local campus with my concealed, issued sidearm to be a guest speaker, there's no shortage of morons (of course, this does NOT include the campus police, they're fine with me being armed on campus) who would have a problem with me keeping my gun on me, instead of leaving it locked in my car. This is despite the fact that it's against policy for us to leave our guns in our cars.

Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

I'd be far more willing to speak on campus if the people who run the campuses weren't such whiny little biatches.

Oh, and BTW, shootings on college campuses aren't any rarer than shootings at K-12s.

Secret Master of All Flatulence: As an RA, exactly how many of your wards could legally buy a handgun, much less legally get a concealed permit? Honestly, I didn't think most of the kids who lived in dorms were over 21, which is Federal law.

It would depend muchly on the housing situation. Housing is a for-profit venture for them so the emphasis has been on retaining those students throughout their college career. Keep in mind that students rarely go JUST for four years and due to the financial crisis there were alot who went back to school to let it blow over.

Where I was an RA my first year more than 50% of the students were over 21. At the time they were actively looking for that number to be higher.

However, like most gun arguments, the point was missed entirely.

The environment fostered in college is one of being reduced or free of many consequences. They handle the policing of many matters internally. While minor acts of violence, some vandalism, theft and alcohol possession would likely net a person off-campus with relevant consequences, on-campus the emphasis is on rehabilitation so the institution can keep the customer (student) there. It's usually only when the student becomes a serious hazard to others around him will they bring in campus law enforcement. It is only when things are WAY out of hand do you start to see town and state police. In order to see any real consequences you need to go through two levels of deterrent.

For the sake of a paying customer they foster this environment. In the real world it wouldn't fly. Which is why something like firearms, the results of which have permanent real-world consequences aren't a good idea.

If you want to change that environment then knock yourself out.

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

I'd be far more willing to speak on campus if the people who run the campuses weren't such whiny little biatches.

You're too frightened to step on a college campus and you keep a list of which professors are "anti-gun morons".

Which mall do you patrol, brave warrior?

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

Dude, you're doing it wrong. I actually managed to change a professor's mind on the matter, and it wasn't by driving a wedge or shunning them. It also wasn't easy, but it was engaging and educational.

Prosecute Zimmerman as a vigilante, convict him for murder, and gift-wrap him for "Cell-block Caesar"

//

With some of his comments heard on the recording from the 911 calls he may be prosecuted under the hate crimes laws. The police chief should definitely be fired though. It's not his job to determine guilt or innocence, but he did it any way.

Skarekrough: Secret Master of All Flatulence: As an RA, exactly how many of your wards could legally buy a handgun, much less legally get a concealed permit? Honestly, I didn't think most of the kids who lived in dorms were over 21, which is Federal law.


You can own a gun at 18, you just can't buy one. In some states you can even get a CCW permit at 18. I did.

treesloth: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Every so often, I'll get an invite to come on campus to lecture, and sometimes, instructors will try to talk me into allowing the students to come into my workplace as unpaid interns. I uniformly refuse to go on campus, and will only accept interns from professors who aren't anti-gun morons.

Dude, you're doing it wrong. I actually managed to change a professor's mind on the matter, and it wasn't by driving a wedge or shunning them. It also wasn't easy, but it was engaging and educational.

No kidding,
Next time you are invited to give a lecture say "SURE, but I will only give it at the gun range so that I can train all your students how to shoot safely after I give my talk"

maxximillian: I Said: EnderX: Nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, its just the application that's Farked up.

yeah I don't really see an issue with the law itself.

The difference in this case is that the killer didn't listen to the cops, put himself in "danger" (IF his life was actually threatened at all, which there's no evidence to say it was) and according to 911 calls, executed the kid.

The law shouldn't apply here.

Just to be clear in this case the 911 operator was not a cop. They don't have authority to tell you what to do.

Actually the police don't either, the police cannot tell you to not prevent a crime with any authority behind it.

EnderX: Actually the police don't either, the police cannot tell you to not prevent a crime with any authority behind it.

The "crime" that the shooter prevented was "walking home and giving skittles to his brother".

/We can't have that.