If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Apparently, waving your arms in the direction of a guy who nearly runs you over is grounds for getting shot under the "Stand your ground" law in Arizona   (cnn.com) divider line 751
    More: Scary, emergency vehicle lighting, Laurie Levenson, drive-through, American Life, stand your ground, deadly force, martin case, Wesson  
•       •       •

9356 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



751 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-29 10:41:57 PM

doglover: Weaver95: probably the dead body.

THAT'S THE JOKE


I don't think the dead guy thought it was very funny.
 
2012-04-29 10:42:51 PM

Weaver95: doglover: However, legally, you CAN shoot down a lunatic swinging a pipe or bat at you.

i'm sure you could...if that had been what happened here, then this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

however...the dead guy had no weapon on him, nor was any weapon found in the area. witnesses also said the shooter appeared to act aggressively.


so why the fark wasnt the shooter arrested and a murder investigation started?
WITNESSES had a different story than the shooter. that reason alone is probably enough to warrant an investigation.

oh wait, I bet the shooter was white and his father is a cop or da.
god I hate these people
 
2012-04-29 10:46:41 PM
I feel threatened by this thread, i'm gonna shoot it!
 
2012-04-29 10:48:45 PM
never bring a yellow lab to a gunfight
 
2012-04-29 10:51:27 PM

Darth_Lukecash: I feel threatened by this thread, i'm gonna shoot it!


and we have a winner
 
2012-04-29 10:53:52 PM

namatad: gameshowhost: Boy, removing a reasonable duty to retreat sure has worked out splendidly.

go a step further
the people in the car were not at risk. not from a bat or a pipe.
his CAR might have been at risk. the paint jorb or the head lights.
but at no point was he or his baby momma in DANGER

for that reason alone he should be arrested for manslaughter


Common sense dictates that retreat is the best option. If the guy comes after you, then all bets are off, but you should make an effort to deescalate the situation.
 
2012-04-29 10:58:38 PM

cman: cman: I predict this shall go green

What'd'ya know?


Are you a wizard?
 
2012-04-29 11:01:48 PM

SkinnyHead: I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.


That's one of the problems in U.S. society. Perception, not reality.
 
2012-04-29 11:12:33 PM

EnviroDude: never bring a yellow lab to a gunfight


I'm a little ashamed I laughed at this.
 
2012-04-29 11:14:31 PM

Mentat: namatad: gameshowhost: Boy, removing a reasonable duty to retreat sure has worked out splendidly.

go a step further
the people in the car were not at risk. not from a bat or a pipe.
his CAR might have been at risk. the paint jorb or the head lights.
but at no point was he or his baby momma in DANGER

for that reason alone he should be arrested for manslaughter

Common sense dictates that retreat is the best option. If the guy comes after you, then all bets are off, but you should make an effort to deescalate the situation.


yup
and yet more and more people seem to think that just shoot and kill is completely acceptable.
I have no problem with situations which might be in the grey area. you "felt" that you were trapped. They were coming at you with a gun.
But the pipe/bat story is pure bullshiat. When the weapon disappears, you arrest the guy who CLAIMS that there was a weapon.

But this case and the trevon case have the same bullshiat feel to them. no threat, no danger, no risk and yet an innocent person is dead.
Better yet, this guy is going to be a father soon?? shudder
 
2012-04-29 11:19:03 PM

Weaver95: doglover: Weaver95: probably the dead body.

THAT'S THE JOKE

I don't think the dead guy thought it was very funny.



I dunno, you could say the joke


puts on glasses

SLAYED HIM!


YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
 
2012-04-29 11:25:40 PM
People should be legally allowed to defend themselves. They shouldn't be legally allowed to engaged in bullshiat vigilante fantasies and use lethal force on every stranger who walks by them on the street. That's all these "Make my Day/Stand your Ground" laws are. Ways for the insecure to indulge in their fantasies about being heroes.
 
2012-04-29 11:27:32 PM
Win or lose... guess who is making money.
Lose, and guess who else is making money.
 
2012-04-29 11:27:36 PM
Smart, ALEC.
 
2012-04-29 11:30:00 PM
*place car in reverse, back up six inches*

*let guy walking his dog pass*
 
2012-04-29 11:32:01 PM
I'm glad to see we're teaching those brown folk to stop being so scary.
 
2012-04-29 11:33:20 PM
From a literal reading of these laws I don't really see how they condone all of these shootings. The law says that they can use deadly force to protect their lives, if it is obvious that they were not in danger, like in this case. Then the shooter should be charged. I think the bigger problem is corrupt courts and police, not these laws.
 
2012-04-29 11:36:05 PM

Bloody William: People should be legally allowed to defend themselves.


They should. And they're only really "defending themselves" when they've made reasonable efforts to avoid physical confrontation at all. And there should be a hierarchy of permissible force, with lethal force an option only under the most dire circumstances. There was a perfectly sensible set of laws to cover these situations already on the books in most places. Thanks to conservatives, those days are over. And now, people across the country are being shot to death over stupid bullsh*t.
 
2012-04-29 11:36:48 PM
While I understand the initial reason of the law in that people who used their weapons in a justified (if albeit questionable) situation had to wait for the prosecutor to sit on his rear and decide if he would prosecute a much better situation would be to lower the bar for their affirmative defense or to force the prosecutor to decide much quicker to prosecute or dismiss. It would have also been better if the law had stipulated that the intent was to make sure that people didn't have to question their right to stand where they were and fight, as opposed to if they didn't have to question their right to run into a fight guns blazing.
 
2012-04-29 11:38:03 PM

chopit: *place car in reverse, back up six inches*

*let guy walking his dog pass*


*get arrested*

See, if you shoot a guy for no reason, you walk. So I'm assuming if you DON'T shoot someone, you go to jail.


I'm not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, please don't shoot people unless they deserve it. (knife wielding maniacs, armed robbers, etc)
 
2012-04-29 11:39:02 PM
Oh gee CNN, can you stage a more heart wrenching photo?
 
2012-04-29 11:39:12 PM

Darth_Lukecash: I feel threatened by this thread, i'm gonna shoot it!


I feel threatened by this comment text entry field... BLAM BLAM BLAMMETY BLAM
 
2012-04-29 11:42:22 PM
Gotta make room for all the unaborted fetuses that will repopulate the earth.
 
2012-04-29 11:43:16 PM
Does this mean that gays can start unloading on christians, because they feel threatened? I mean, if I was gay, I'd feel threatened by just going outside of my house.
 
2012-04-29 11:43:30 PM

Marysue: I'm glad to see we're teaching those brown folk to stop being so scary.


I always clutch my purse like this.
 
2012-04-29 11:43:51 PM

violentsalvation: Oh gee CNN, can you stage a more heart wrenching photo?


No shiat, that article wasn't biased at all...
 
2012-04-29 11:44:31 PM
Obvious problem with these laws: Psychos.

Too many people buy guns with the fantasy of killing someone. They can't wait until that one day someone does something that will allow them to kill with impunity. They want the feeling of power and judgment.

Watch the audience during gun show presentations. You can always spot them: They're the ones who look like they're watching a peep show.

These laws are catering to those idiots.
 
2012-04-29 11:45:00 PM

pueblonative: While I understand the initial reason of the law in that people who used their weapons in a justified (if albeit questionable) situation had to wait for the prosecutor to sit on his rear and decide if he would prosecute a much better situation would be to lower the bar for their affirmative defense or to force the prosecutor to decide much quicker to prosecute or dismiss. It would have also been better if the law had stipulated that the intent was to make sure that people didn't have to question their right to stand where they were and fight, as opposed to if they didn't have to question their right to run into a fight guns blazing.


If avoiding confrontation is an option, people shouldn't be allowed to stand where they are and fight. The common law of self-defense was developed over centuries, maybe millennia of real world experience. It is perfectly reasonable, especially in that it imposed upon all people at all times a duty to behave like a reasonable human being.

Link
 
2012-04-29 11:45:19 PM

bugontherug: nd they're only really "defending themselves" when they've made reasonable efforts to avoid physical confrontation at all.


I disagree. There's no reason a citizen of a free nation should move so much as an inch out of their way in the face of an actual aggressor.

The problem is not the law, but rather cases like this where the guy in the car was able to claim self defense with a gun, despite being encased in two tons of mobile light armor claiming to fall under the law.

And isn't this the case with every law? People will go out of their way to find a reason to apply it to their circumstances. Especially criminals.
 
2012-04-29 11:45:53 PM
I expect in a couple years things will quiet down after the initial house cleaning.
 
2012-04-29 11:46:16 PM

SkinnyHead: doglover: Where's the Black Panthers to put a bounty on this guy?

Seeing as how the shooter is black, I don't think that's going to happen.


I'm surprised it even got reported.
 
2012-04-29 11:47:18 PM
"While the shooter said he did not believe Adkins would have killed him and his fiancée had he not fired, he also said he feared Adkins was trying to hurt him."

Well then he's not entitled to use lethal force to defend himself under Arizona law, and he should be charged.

§ 13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another . . . When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.


Emphasis added.

If he didn't feel he was in immediate danger or deadly force, he wasn't entitled to use deadly force. Stand you ground laws here are irrelevant. Even under the old law you only had a duty to retreat in public if it was reasonably to do so. Here, the defendant indicates that he didn't feel he was able to retreat, so even under the old law that part of the test for self defense would likely be satisfied. However, the defendant admits he wasn't in immediate danger of deadly force, and therefore can't use deadly force in response.

Artillero: From a literal reading of these laws I don't really see how they condone all of these shootings. The law says that they can use deadly force to protect their lives, if it is obvious that they were not in danger, like in this case. Then the shooter should be charged. I think the bigger problem is corrupt courts and police, not these laws.


Or for a well stated, non legalese, plain english explaination. This.
 
2012-04-29 11:47:18 PM
Why am I not surprised that right wingers have legalized cold blooded murder?

This will go on until a prominent right winger has a son killed due to drunken antics and the killer walks. Then they will "see the light" and rail against these laws while conveniently taking in large speaking fees.
 
2012-04-29 11:48:10 PM

StopLurkListen: Darth_Lukecash: I feel threatened by this thread, i'm gonna shoot it!

I feel threatened by this comment text entry field... BLAM BLAM BLAMMETY BLAM


its still there. you can't kill the internet like that
 
2012-04-29 11:48:36 PM
Just last year some obese middle-aged redneck in a truck chased me down, stopped his truck in front of my car in the middle of the street, and jumped out to yell at me all because he thought he had the right-of-way at the last stop sign. As it was, I just chuckled at him from inside my car as he ranted and raved until he ran out of breath and gave up, but if only I'd been in Arizona I could've blown his brains out.

/Seriously, though, it's time to rescind Arizona's statehood
//Let them reapply in ten years if they take steps toward becoming a civilized, 21st century society again
 
2012-04-29 11:48:54 PM
The problem with "stand your ground" laws is that cowards and little biatches - which is to say, gun nuts, Internet Tough Guys, NRA members, and the like - tend to take the law as permission to gun down whoever they are afraid of.

In other words, everyone else.
 
2012-04-29 11:49:43 PM
Any law that is misused should be instantly repealed.

/Whistles innocently.
//More seriously, I would need to see statistics of how many people legitimately defended themselves under "stand your ground" laws, and how many people used them as an excuse to murder. Judging a law by statistical outliers is pretty much useless, unless you are trying to use them to justify an existing opinion.
 
2012-04-29 11:50:54 PM

doglover: I disagree. There's no reason a citizen of a free nation should move so much as an inch out of their way in the face of an actual aggressor.


I can think of a lot of reasons. He's bigger than you, he's brandishing a weapon, you're faster than him, you don't want to die. I'm no hero, I don't want to get blown away in a McDonald's so that the NRA folks can scream freedom over my grave.
 
2012-04-29 11:50:54 PM
So is this Zimmerman trial supposed to be some sort of ruling on SYG? I was under the impression that SYG wasn't the case for him and the DA said as much. All my right wing accqaintances tell me that if the verdict favors Zimmerman that's actually defence of SYG. All I see from news sources is he's on bail. What is this supposed to determine?
 
2012-04-29 11:51:13 PM
We currently have two of these cases going on.

Another involves a defense attorney involved in 3 prior roadrage incidents. On the 4th he shot an unarmed driver in a dark, secluded parking lot.
 
2012-04-29 11:51:53 PM

Spartapuss: So is this Zimmerman trial supposed to be some sort of ruling on SYG? I was under the impression that SYG wasn't the case for him and the DA said as much. All my right wing accqaintances tell me that if the verdict favors Zimmerman that's actually defence of SYG. All I see from news sources is he's on bail. What is this supposed to determine?


If it has to do with Zimmerman, he's automatically guilty. No matter what.
 
2012-04-29 11:52:33 PM

Farty McPooPants: violentsalvation: Oh gee CNN, can you stage a more heart wrenching photo?
No shiat, that article wasn't biased at all...


Doesn't matter, this farkhead ought to be in jail. Christ, it's even worse than the Trayvon Martin thing. This guy was in his car when he killed someone.

I hope his fiancee miscarries from the shock.

/not a chance, it probably made her excited.
 
2012-04-29 11:52:39 PM
Hmm...you are sitting in a mobile enclosure that is protected from the outside and a man with a bat is seriously threatening you and your response is to kill him? WTF?!

And the BS excuse of not being able to drive around him...then back the fark up. Did the kid continue stalking around the car so you couldn't leave? Or was he just upset you almost ran him over?

The driver should be arrested. You want to carry a gun around, use it responsibly. Shooting an upset man from your car is not being responsible.
 
2012-04-29 11:53:35 PM

Snarfangel:
//More seriously, I would need to see statistics of how many people legitimately defended themselves under "stand your ground" laws, and how many people used them as an excuse to murder. Judging a law by statistical outliers is pretty much useless, unless you are trying to use them to justify an existing opinion.


That's probably dicey since you would have to differentiate between events that would have been covered under normal self-defense laws and ones that would have only been covered under Stand Your Ground laws. Which would pretty much mean close reading of every example of self-defense.
 
2012-04-29 11:55:51 PM
Oh man, this thread is giving me some ideas.

I live in a mid sized city with plenty of crime. It's not a bad neighborhood but not the kind of place where you keep nice stuff out because someone will eventually see it through your window and you'll get a nice break in.

I just need to leave some valuable things out and wait. Then when someone breaks in I just hold them at gunpoint until I get a web channel up for people that want to watch a live execution on pay-per-view. Then I just terrorize the guy until he moves a little bit, act scared and blow his head off! I'll make millions!

And if I do it in Texas or Arizona or Florida, I'll probably get away with it.

/hey Hollywood, this idea is copyright Dr. Zom 2012.
 
2012-04-29 11:57:29 PM

doglover: bugontherug: nd they're only really "defending themselves" when they've made reasonable efforts to avoid physical confrontation at all.

I disagree. There's no reason a citizen of a free nation should move so much as an inch out of their way in the face of an actual aggressor.


Yes there is. These cases ARE the reason. The problem here is in fact the law, which not only emboldens the gun toting thugs who committed these murders, but also creates serious and possibly fatal obstacles to prosecution. But for SYG, the victims in all of these cases would most likely be alive today. But for SYG and its combination with concealed carry, if George Zimmerman had even been so bold as to confront Trayvon, the two would have emerged from the situation with a broken nose, some minor lacerations, and one severely bruised ego.

The problem is not the law, but rather cases like this where the guy in the car was able to claim self defense with a gun, despite being encased in two tons of mobile light armor claiming to fall under the law.


In fact, that is what you call "a problem with the law."


And isn't this the case with every law? People will go out of their way to find a reason to apply it to their circumstances. Especially criminals.


Not every law carries this kind of psychologically emboldening tendency. And not every law carries this kind of deterrence against mere arrest and attempt at prosecution. But for the public outcry generated by media coverage in Trayvon's case, George Zimmerman would not be facing charges today. It is bad enough that these laws encourage these thugs to act out their Dirty Harry fantasies. But they actually let them walk around free afterwards.

Did you read far enough into the article to see the case where the defendant who actually shot a subdued man in the back got acquitted? It is an indefensible moral outrage, and the inescapable product of the kind of macho dickheaded culture which says "free people shouldn't have to avoid confrontation."
 
2012-04-29 11:57:47 PM
He said witnesses at the scene told him that Adkins "went beserk" on his son, raising his hands and yelling: "What the hell, you almost hit me" and to "watch where the f*** you're going."

That's all of it? Really? He said mean words and actually confronted someone who almost hit him?

This isn't 'Stand Your ground' territory, people. Not in any way. This guy could have found a million ways to avoid this. I believe in the concept of 'Castle Doctrine', and even believe in the basic idea of Stand Your Ground. I shouldn't have to run if my life is being threatened, but that's the idea right there: My life has to be in actual danger, otherwise it's just a bullshiat excuse.

I like my guns, I like to go shooting, I like the idea that when I am traveling down a deserted highway in the middle of nowhere, I can kill IF my life is in danger. Notice that I said 'if'... I would also be willing to shoot someone in my house, my family's lives are worth that, mine also, I guess, but I will make sure that I have a SOLID reason, not some perceived "threat" from a normal encounter of chance.

I would not be surprised in the least to find out that this guy didn't qualify for an AZ CCW before they decided that you no longer needed one. We actually discussed the law and the consequences of taking someone else's life. When they decided that you didn't need a CCW to carry concealed, I knew the shiat was going to come raining down.

Once again, responsible gun owners get to be lumped in with the schmucks who don't bother to think past the present.
 
2012-04-29 11:57:55 PM

Mentat: doglover: I disagree. There's no reason a citizen of a free nation should move so much as an inch out of their way in the face of an actual aggressor.

I can think of a lot of reasons. He's bigger than you, he's brandishing a weapon, you're faster than him, you don't want to die. I'm no hero, I don't want to get blown away in a McDonald's so that the NRA folks can scream freedom over my grave.


Animals don't go around killing everything willy nilly. You don't see raptors pulling flocks of geese out of the sky for no reason whatsoever and decimating the populations. You don't see bears killing woodchucks for shiats and giggles. You don't see ants swarming children on the playground and stinging them to into a coma. (well, usually not)

What you do see is hundreds of thousands of creatures toting around the power of life and death over their neighbors mostly no bothering each other unless they need to eat.

I give humans at least that much credit. We're more than able to figure out the difference between when is a good time to fight and when is not. We can easily move out of the way of someone or give them our wallet or even just run away as it please us.

But we should have no legal duty to do so.
 
2012-04-29 11:59:07 PM
One thing I learned, back when I was a medical student and was working in the Office of the Medical Examiner, is that news articles regarding murder are awfully reported and the events described within it should be taken with a grain of salt.

We'd have homicides come in, review the crime scene photos, do the autopsy, the homicide detectives working the case observing the whole process, and then I'd go home and read the story online later that evening and it wouldn't even be remotely close to what the crime scene photos showed.
 
2012-04-30 12:00:21 AM

Dr.Zom: Why am I not surprised that right wingers have legalized cold blooded murder?


That's a teensy bit hyperbolic.

The problem is not so much with the laws, but with the gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors seem to take them as free reign to ignore what may otherwise be a messy, high-profile case.

Whether or not such shootings fall under the purview of SYG laws, and other self defense laws, is a matter of fact that should generally be sent to a jury to determine. Instead, you get these dickbags who decide, "Waving a pipe that was never found? Dog in the way? Eh, let it go, we're short on budget."
 
Displayed 50 of 751 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report