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  
•       •       •

9355 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (1 year 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
 
2012-04-30 01:15:19 AM

eraser8: For some reason -- I'm not sure what it is -- you seem AWFULLY eager to believe Zimmerman's version of events.


Zimmerman is less brown.
 
2012-04-30 01:15:24 AM

Pincy: calm like a bomb: Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

Truer words have not been spoken in a Fark thread in quite a long time.


I am certain, then, that actual data in support of the claim may be directly referenced. Please do so.
 
2012-04-30 01:15:31 AM

Dimensio: Pincy: HeWhoHasNoName: These laws remove the legal requirement to flee or run away before being 'allowed' to make a legal claim of self defense, when an individual is in a place they have the legal right to be. Ergo, if you can legally be somewhere, and you believe there is an immediate, imminent threat to your life or the life or safety of another by a violent crime at that moment, you are NOT required to demonstrate some kind of attempt to flee before your right of self defense is respected by the legal system.

Great, so we all better hope the person who has a gun doesn't mistakenly believe there is an immediated threat to their life. Because as we have seen recently this would never happen.

Do you prefer, instead, that civilians who are threatened with grievous bodily injury or death be permitted no legal means of defense against their attacker?


The law excused homicides in cases of actual self-defense long before SYG laws came on the scene.
 
2012-04-30 01:16:04 AM

doglover: Did you not hear the 911 call. Zimmerman was crying for help for a LONG time. At any time Treyvon could have stopped hitting him. He'd won.


Sorry dude, that wasn't Zimmerman. Professional analysis has determined that the voice is most definitely NOT Zimmerman's. They can't use the voice of Trayvon for comparison, because he is unfortunately unable to make it to the recording studio, but they KNOW that it isn't Zimmerman.
 
2012-04-30 01:16:36 AM

Mikey1969: Felgraf: B) Bullets do not magically disappear when warning shots are fired. They come down eventually. Or ricochet. You easily wind up shooting *someone else* who's not even involved.

"Warning shots" can get you charged with a felony in Arizona, ironically, exactly for this reason. Can't remember the name of the girl the law is named after, but a girl died on new Year's one year because of some schmucks firing into the air on New Year's.


Shannons law.

And warning shots are a great indication that you are not in fear of your life and then makes an actual shooting harder to justify. Either you have to shoot to stop an immediate threat or you don't. Find the "lethal force policy" for your local PD. It will help you determine when to shoot and when not to. You won't find warning shots in any policies.
 
2012-04-30 01:16:45 AM

eraser8: Dimensio: Pincy: HeWhoHasNoName: These laws remove the legal requirement to flee or run away before being 'allowed' to make a legal claim of self defense, when an individual is in a place they have the legal right to be. Ergo, if you can legally be somewhere, and you believe there is an immediate, imminent threat to your life or the life or safety of another by a violent crime at that moment, you are NOT required to demonstrate some kind of attempt to flee before your right of self defense is respected by the legal system.

Great, so we all better hope the person who has a gun doesn't mistakenly believe there is an immediated threat to their life. Because as we have seen recently this would never happen.

Do you prefer, instead, that civilians who are threatened with grievous bodily injury or death be permitted no legal means of defense against their attacker?

The law excused homicides in cases of actual self-defense long before SYG laws came on the scene.


Did you not actually read HeWhoHasNoName's posting, or did you decide to dishonestly disregard it without actually attempting to show it to be false?
 
2012-04-30 01:16:56 AM
Culture of fear
Arseload of guns
Laws that immunize lethal force when you're "scared"

When things like this happen, it shouldn't be a surprise.

/currently living in China, far more strict with firearms.
//anyone with a registered firearm must account for each of their bullets each month
///not a lot of publicized gun violence as a result. still tons of stabbings, though
 
2012-04-30 01:17:36 AM

Chimperror2: I suspect the object in his hand


What object?
 
2012-04-30 01:18:10 AM

wildcardjack: but they make a product that should be in greater circulation.


fark that- gotdang cops pull those out at the blink of an eye, not as an alternate to a gun. Civilians would be even worse.
 
2012-04-30 01:19:25 AM

eraser8: doglover: Did you not hear the 911 call. Zimmerman was crying for help for a LONG time. At any time Treyvon could have stopped hitting him. He'd won.

Those cries WERE NOT FROM ZIMMERMAN...at least according to experts: Voice Experts Claim Cries Heard On 911 Call Were Not George Zimmerman's

For some reason -- I'm not sure what it is -- you seem AWFULLY eager to believe Zimmerman's version of events. Are you always this credulous when it comes to the claims made by killers...or just when their victims are unarmed black kids?

Would you like to tell us again how 7:09 PM is in the middle of the night?


Are you saying that at that time, on February 26th, it wasn't dark out?
 
2012-04-30 01:19:37 AM

nezlok: ///not a lot of publicized gun violence as a result. still tons of stabbings, though


Many advocates of restricting civilian firearm ownership do seem to believe violent crime -- including homicide -- acceptable if committed with an implement other than a firearm, as is evidenced by their insistence upon analyzing "gun crime" rather than all "crime".
 
2012-04-30 01:19:58 AM

Primum: Chimperror2: Lenny_da_Hog: 1. Go to Arizona gun show with shiatloads of weapons.

2. Burn flag in parking lot.

3. Gun down hundreds of rednecks who come after you.

4. Repeat until the country regains sanity.

You'd only have to try it once and sanity would be restored.

heck, just walk into a gun store and draw a weapon and hit the stop watch button to time the rest of your life.

Uh, bullshiat. The guy behind the counter wouldn't be able to pull a gun because mine would already be out and hot.

He'd be dead.

"hey, you can't do that in here"

Wrong.


You think there is only one?
 
2012-04-30 01:20:38 AM

Dimensio: Did you not actually read HeWhoHasNoName's posting, or did you decide to dishonestly disregard it without actually attempting to show it to be false?


Fine. I'll make the same sort of unsourced assertions he did:

Experts, almost to a man, have determined that in an age of lethal firearms, a duty to retreat is the best way to maximize public safety.
 
2012-04-30 01:21:44 AM

Dimensio: Pincy: calm like a bomb: Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

Truer words have not been spoken in a Fark thread in quite a long time.

I am certain, then, that actual data in support of the claim may be directly referenced. Please do so.


How do you prove stupidity?
 
2012-04-30 01:21:55 AM

bugontherug: calm like a bomb: Treyvon was on top of him trying to crack his head open like an egg.

According to Zimmerman, Trayvon was wrestling with him for his gun. Obviously, if we believe Zimmerman's account, Zimmerman was physically stronger than Trayvon, because he overpowered Trayvon to get the gun pointed at his chest. He could just as easily have pointed the gun at his leg.


Are you serious? Shooting someone anywhere is deadly force. You can't safely shoot someone in the kneecap, this isn't television. Either you feel there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death and you are justified in shooting, or the threat isn't imminent and you're not allowed to shoot at all. Even 'warning' shots will get you into trouble, those bullets will end up somewhere and it's reckless to fire some off willy nilly.
 
2012-04-30 01:21:56 AM
A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.
 
2012-04-30 01:22:06 AM
Um, people do realize that you have no obligation to flee or use force in self-defense in any state, right? This has been pretty universal for something like half a century or more now.

You also have to be legitimately threatened before self-defense can be used as a defense, again pretty much everywhere. This is also not new.

The only actual differences between the states are over whether you're allowed to use force in the defense of others or property. You can use it to defend yourself in quite literally the entirety of western civilization.
 
2012-04-30 01:22:19 AM

Dr.Zom: 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.


Except that they haven't. As was already pointed out, the 'stand you ground' law has nothing to do with this case.
 
2012-04-30 01:22:43 AM

Dimensio: Do you prefer, instead, that civilians who are threatened with grievous bodily injury or death be permitted no legal means of defense against their attacker?


I prefer guns in the hands of those responsible enough to wield them, and not giving an open license to kill to those putting bullets in guys armed with nothing more than a leashed labrador.
 
2012-04-30 01:22:46 AM

Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Believe me, they're not the only ones to be afraid of. You go to the range, inevitably you'll come across a few douchebags with machine guns who put everyone in danger because they have no clue how to use them, and they don't care that you're not even supposed to have machine guns at the range in the first place.

Last time I went the guy next to me missed the target entirely at 10 yards and hit the ceiling. Not the far back wall where a just over the target shot would go, but about 3 feet behind the target and 5 feet above it. Looking at him I guarantee you he has both a concealed carry license and keeps his penis extension on him at all times.

But ya, most gun owners are pretty responsible. There are millions of them around, and statistically very few crazy gun misuse stories.

/also, for those who don't know, some silly weirdos think those belt pouches are good places for a gun; I recommend being nice to men wearing one just in case.


Last time I went there were a couple dudes there with their ostensible girlfriends. They were holding a 9 mm pistol sideways like in a bad gangster movie, then they handed the thing off to the girls, who had no idea what they were doing. They screamed and giggled and jumped back with each shot.

And they were doing this all on the rifle side of the range.
 
2012-04-30 01:22:55 AM

s2s2s2: eraser8: doglover: Did you not hear the 911 call. Zimmerman was crying for help for a LONG time. At any time Treyvon could have stopped hitting him. He'd won.

Those cries WERE NOT FROM ZIMMERMAN...at least according to experts: Voice Experts Claim Cries Heard On 911 Call Were Not George Zimmerman's

For some reason -- I'm not sure what it is -- you seem AWFULLY eager to believe Zimmerman's version of events. Are you always this credulous when it comes to the claims made by killers...or just when their victims are unarmed black kids?

Would you like to tell us again how 7:09 PM is in the middle of the night?

Are you saying that at that time, on February 26th, it wasn't dark out?


It may have been quite dark...but, it wasn't the middle of the night, as doglover claimed in another thread.

doglover seemed to be making the case that Martin must have been up to no good -- since it would have been unheard of for law-abiding citizens to be awake and walking at that time of night.
 
2012-04-30 01:23:20 AM

eraser8: Dimensio: Did you not actually read HeWhoHasNoName's posting, or did you decide to dishonestly disregard it without actually attempting to show it to be false?

Fine. I'll make the same sort of unsourced assertions he did:

Experts, almost to a man, have determined that in an age of lethal firearms, a duty to retreat is the best way to maximize public safety.


Please explain, then, how an individual suffering the duress of an imminent violent attack may ascertain, instantaneously and infallibly, whether a guaranteed route for escape exists prior to using deadly force against an attacker. Such a determination must be possible, or an individual who attempts escape may incorrectly assess the ability to do so and an individual who uses defensive force may be prosecuted for failing to identify a viable means of escape.
 
2012-04-30 01:23:38 AM
So I am supposed to believe a man with a gun was seriously threatened by a retarded man with a pipe? What bullshiat. There are already laws granting exceptions for self-defense, let them get an exception that way if their excuse is legit.
 
2012-04-30 01:23:42 AM

Chimperror2: Shannons law.


There you go. Thanks. Scary thing is; I was at a friend's party that night, pretty close to where this happened. Bullet comes the other way, it could have hit me or one of my friends... I also have a friend that used to live in downtown Phx in a condo w/ copper roof. One New Year's, he was sitting on his balcony, enjoying a beer, listening to the morons, when he heard a whistling noise, something hit the roof, and then bounce down to fall off, somewhere within the 3 or 4 units that made up his section of the building. I'm not saying it's aliens, but it was aliens...

Good lord, if these people HAVE to fire a gun in the air for celebration, why in the Hell can't they use a damned shotgun? Oh that's right, they don't think this shiat through...
 
2012-04-30 01:23:59 AM

eraser8: Dimensio: Did you not actually read HeWhoHasNoName's posting, or did you decide to dishonestly disregard it without actually attempting to show it to be false?

Fine. I'll make the same sort of unsourced assertions he did:

Experts, almost to a man, have determined that in an age of lethal firearms, a duty to retreat is the best way to maximize public safety.


Additionally, please identify the "experts" to whom you refer.
 
2012-04-30 01:24:50 AM

Gyrfalcon: Dimensio: Pincy: calm like a bomb: Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

Truer words have not been spoken in a Fark thread in quite a long time.

I am certain, then, that actual data in support of the claim may be directly referenced. Please do so.

How do you prove stupidity?


Evidently some "proof" must exist, or the original claim and the subsequent affirmation cannot have been issued honestly.
 
2012-04-30 01:24:58 AM

Mikey1969: Chimperror2: I suspect the object in his hand

What object?


I believe it turned out to be a leash for his dog. Dunno if it was still attached to the dog or its length.
 
2012-04-30 01:25:46 AM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Dimensio: Do you prefer, instead, that civilians who are threatened with grievous bodily injury or death be permitted no legal means of defense against their attacker?

I prefer guns in the hands of those responsible enough to wield them, and not giving an open license to kill to those putting bullets in guys armed with nothing more than a leashed labrador.


You did not actually address my question.
 
2012-04-30 01:26:54 AM

Superjoe: So I am supposed to believe a man with a gun was seriously threatened by a retarded man with a pipe? What bullshiat. There are already laws granting exceptions for self-defense, let them get an exception that way if their excuse is legit.


No. You are expected to believe, based upon the shooter's testimony' that he was "seriously threatened" by a "retarded" man with an imagined pipe that was never actually located. I do not understand why charges have not yet been filed.
 
2012-04-30 01:28:01 AM

Gyrfalcon: Dimensio: Pincy: calm like a bomb: Most people in this country that believe they need to carry a firearm as part of their daily life have already proven they aren't smart enough to be allowed to.

Truer words have not been spoken in a Fark thread in quite a long time.

I am certain, then, that actual data in support of the claim may be directly referenced. Please do so.

How do you prove stupidity?


x + goose - 11 = retard.

/University of Phoenix ftw
 
2012-04-30 01:28:05 AM

Salt Lick Steady: Last time I went there were a couple dudes there with their ostensible girlfriends. They were holding a 9 mm pistol sideways like in a bad gangster movie


Me and my buddy tried this once, just to see if it was possible to even aim with the gun held this way. Needless to say, it wasn't. There was not a single benefit to holding the gun that way, it makes me want to kick anyone in the nuts who does it. For one, I know they won't be able to hit me with the gun if I do and they decide to shoot...
 
2012-04-30 01:29:01 AM

Alphax: A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.


That was Texas. Sharpton came out to protest that one too. The neighborhood practically ran him out of town, too. It was great.
 
2012-04-30 01:29:14 AM

Chimperror2: I believe it turned out to be a leash for his dog. Dunno if it was still attached to the dog or its length.


Wow, that's even more pathetic than the 'His baseball bat scared me' defense.
 
2012-04-30 01:29:27 AM

Dimensio: eraser8: Dimensio: Did you not actually read HeWhoHasNoName's posting, or did you decide to dishonestly disregard it without actually attempting to show it to be false?

Fine. I'll make the same sort of unsourced assertions he did:

Experts, almost to a man, have determined that in an age of lethal firearms, a duty to retreat is the best way to maximize public safety.

Please explain, then, how an individual suffering the duress of an imminent violent attack may ascertain, instantaneously and infallibly, whether a guaranteed route for escape exists prior to using deadly force against an attacker. Such a determination must be possible, or an individual who attempts escape may incorrectly assess the ability to do so and an individual who uses defensive force may be prosecuted for failing to identify a viable means of escape.


Well, lessee...

If I'm in my car and the attacker isn't, and the engine is running, and he doesn't have a weapon that would stop my car from running, and there isn't another vehicle blocking my egress to the street, and I can roll up my windows to keep him gaining access to my car, and the only way he could physically threaten me with any weapon he has is if I LEAVE my car and confront him; whereas if I were to drive forward I could leave the confrontation and escape without harm to myself or my would-be attacker...

That sounds pretty damn close to an infallible and instantaneous means of determining escape in this case, wouldn't you say, Mr. Super Genius?

For the rest: You and others make it sound like these confrontations drop out of the clear blue sky like a walnut hitting Chicken Little on the noggin. There is NEVER an interpersonal confrontation--NONE, EVER--that could not have been foreseen and prevented by at least one party using a little foresight and trying to prevent or avoid the confrontation beforehand. None. It's just that nobody wants to think about it because it's scary and requires a little bit of change in your behavior. It's so much easier to carry a gun and then blame the other person for making you feel threatened.
 
2012-04-30 01:29:45 AM
but but but I was scared!
 
2012-04-30 01:30:01 AM

Mikey1969: Sorry dude, I said that I have no duty to retreat, I didn't say that it applied in any way in regards to this case, but since you appear to be reading impaired, I don't expect this to sink through to you THIS time that I'm typing it either.


Oh, just you then, not everyone else? Ok, I won't apply your statement to anyone else's duty to retreat then.

Mikey1969: GTFO of my message threads until you learn how to read and respond correctly. I in NO WAY defended this asshat's actions. I merely stated that if the kid had had a ranged weapon, as in a weapon that can shoot from a distance, the shooter might have a defense. In other words, if the kid had had a gun in his hands, maybe the shooter would have a defense, because guns shoot through windows, and can kill you from a distance. Since the kid had an imaginary pipe, the shooter has NO defense.


Here's the problem though. You stand firmly behind the principles of this asshat, while your superior knowledge and 20/20 hindsight via a cnn article allow you to claim your principles don't actually support this kind of asshat doing what he did. The reality is that the principles of "zomg ain't nobody gonna make ME retreat from nothin'" is what directly leads to these laws, and this guy being an asshat, and this retarded guy getting shot for lookin' all scary.

It all starts with the bullshiat line of "I don't have to take no guff from nobody" and results in everyone treating one another like shiat and never backing down, resulting in every misunderstanding or error in judgement escalating into a farking shoot out. Then, because as I stated before, burdens of proof kick in where appropriate, and dead men don't get to tell tales, and every murder with poor evidence to prove otherwise defaults to self-defense.

I know you said the cops shouldn't be field adjudicating this shiat, and I agree, but the thing of it is is that the cops went there, looked around, made a report, and likely knew the prosecutor wouldn't follow up. Cops don't generally make arrests and charge people if they expect their district attorney's to laugh at them and hang up the phone, leaving them with a citizen screaming bloody murder about arrested over nothing. Just as you don't generally get locked up for shooting an armed robber because they know how its most likely going to be self defense, these extensions of the castle doctrine are apparently resulting in the same thing occurring with regards to outdoor shootings.

If we didn't have these bullshiat over the top tough guy laws that come from a nation full of people completely unwilling to take a deep breath and think for a few seconds or give these perceived aggressors and Trayvon Martin's some benefit of the doubt, we wouldn't have these deaths occurring.

Even if the aggressors are out of line, coked up, pissed their wives cheated on them, whatever, reasonable people should still be backing down and escaping the danger first, and escalating the situation as a last resort. We've all had bad days. People get drunk and stupid. Laws should never encourage these things from resulting in a killing.

And just look at Trayvon Martin's situation. If we take Zimmerman at his word, and maybe he's telling the god's honest truth, we have two people who failed to back down resulting in one of them dead. If the wrestling for the gun went the other way, we'd have a dead Zimmerman and a Trayvon citing self defense. If either had been reasonable enough to back the fark down, then they'd both be alive and free, with the taxpayer saved the court costs and police response costs. Everybody would win. Either Zimmerman would have been the reasonable person who accepted backing down before the perceived neighborhood burglar's interference with the peace of the neighborhood, or Trayvon would have kept fleeing and gotten away, or gotten to other people, or the 911 call would have gone on long enough for police to respond, any number of things.

But no, both of them had to be pigheaded and refuse to take shiat from a stranger. Both went in with assumptions and perceptions that were at least partially incorrect. One of them died. The other may find his life ruined as a result.
 
2012-04-30 01:30:09 AM

Alphax: A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.


That actually wouldn't be stand your ground law, it'd be castle law or another property defense law. In some states you are actually allowed to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a robbery, no ground or the standing thereof required. It's one of the places where the states differ (Stand your Ground, as I pointed out earlier, is not, it's basically the same in every state).

Honestly, if you're burglarizing someone's house and you get shot, that seems to be more "well, shiat happens when you intentionally do something illegal, dangerous, and sociopathic". I don't really have a problem with no charges being filed in your example. No charges doesn't mean no investigation, the cops still would have interviewed the neighbor, etc, to verify that the house was actually being robbed and the people that got shot were the culprits.
 
2012-04-30 01:30:12 AM

Dimensio: Please explain, then, how an individual suffering the duress of an imminent violent attack may ascertain, instantaneously and infallibly, whether a guaranteed route for escape exists prior to using deadly force against an attacker.


The route of retreat has to be obvious and safe. If a route out of the situation exists, but the shooter is unaware of it, he is covered by existing self-defense law. If the route exists but it would be unsafe for the shooter to take it, he is covered by existing self-defense law.

Dimensio: Additionally, please identify the "experts" to whom you refer.


They're the analogues of HeWhoHasNoName's "those who have experience them, and those who teach others how to survive them..."
 
2012-04-30 01:30:35 AM
BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?

Shouldn't we have heard about the hundreds of people nationwide who are in prison for rightfully defending themselves? Or about the stories of people with guns who could have defended themselves, but were afraid to because of the law?

And why is ALEC so hot on pushing them? What's in it for them, other than redneck loyalty to the GOP.... oh, wait.
 
2012-04-30 01:31:20 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: Alphax: A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.

That was Texas. Sharpton came out to protest that one too. The neighborhood practically ran him out of town, too. It was great.


What part of that would be 'great'?
 
2012-04-30 01:31:21 AM

eraser8: Those cries WERE NOT FROM ZIMMERMAN...at least according to experts: Voice Experts Claim Cries Heard On 911 Call Were Not George Zimmerman's


Are these so called experts at any way involved in the trial? Has the prosecution tapped them to testify? No?
Is the Zimmerman-Martin a giant media circus? Do proprietary voice analysis software makers want to get free publicity? Yes?

Well then.

Also consider:
Cops and DAs aren't always stupid. Quite the opposite. They love them some catching the bad guys, and some even not so bad guys, just to clean up the streets. So when they have to let someone with a smoking gun who admits he shot a teenager walk, I'm inclined to believe they have some information I do not. For example, the exact details of the situation. The police report matches Zimmerman's story. The eye wittnesses, ie the people who actually saw it, say the guy in the red shirt (Zimmerman) was on the ground before the shot. The medical evidence is a lacerated scalp and a broken nose which has apparently been documented although not released to the public, which HIPPA would actually prevent.

So basically on one side we have Zimmerman and every professional law enforcement officer that dealt with the situation and the eye witnesses and on the other hand we have NBC editing audio and video and some "experts" who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by getting in the public eye for even a day and the people who only heard something.

And I'm gullible?
 
2012-04-30 01:31:33 AM

Dimensio: You did not actually address my question.


Why should I? Another unarmed guy's dead and the shooter's claiming he stood his ground from behind the wheel of his car. Meanwhile, you're busily deflecting away with Paul Kersey fantasies.
 
2012-04-30 01:31:47 AM

Gyrfalcon: Farker Soze: Gyrfalcon: So anyone up there defending this freak because he felt "threatened"? Yeah, he was only worried this guy "might" be "trying" to hurt him. Even Zimmerman had a better claim than that. This asshole just wanted to kill somebody and get away with it. This is what you've stooped to defending. Someone who flat admits he wasn't worried about being killed.

Not to defend Deep Thinker or anything, but what's your line in the sand? Not getting killed, but raped? Losing an eye, but living? Is hospitalization with a pronounced limp a-ok?

Those are all results. My personal line in the sand is not getting in any of those situations to start with.

See, most people proceed from the viewpoint that "What do you want me to do? Wait until X happens to defend myself?" I proceed from the viewpoint that self-defense starts long before X ever occurs. I don't have to decide if I'd get raped before I'd defend myself, or lose an eye before I'd defend myself, because I would never be in an encounter that would force me to think in those terms.

Example: I've decided already that, were I to get raped, the rapist would die before, during or after the assault. Having made that decision, and preferring not to kill anyone, I don't go to places where I could inadvertently get raped. If I'm out drinking, I buy my own drink and keep it in my hand. If I'm dating, I arrive in my own car and don't leave with someone I don't know. If I'm living alone, I keep my doors and windows locked at night. This way, I'm never suddenly in a situation where a man is on top of me and I have to decide not IF but HOW to kill him. Or how to justify killing him because "I felt threatened." I never feel threatened.

People in all other situations never planned ahead, so they get "scared" or "afraid" when some freak pounds on the hood of their car, and then they panic. I already have thought about what I'll do in all kinds of situations, so I'm never scared like that. [shrug] Any outcome where I ...



That's way too good of a reply to my snark.

Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
 
2012-04-30 01:32:54 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?



Violent crime, Way down since enacted.
 
2012-04-30 01:33:13 AM

Alphax: The 4chan Psychiatrist: Alphax: A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.

That was Texas. Sharpton came out to protest that one too. The neighborhood practically ran him out of town, too. It was great.

What part of that would be 'great'?


Running Sharpton out of town would be freaking awesome, regardless of why you did it, I guess.
 
2012-04-30 01:33:16 AM

Alphax: The 4chan Psychiatrist: Alphax: A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.

That was Texas. Sharpton came out to protest that one too. The neighborhood practically ran him out of town, too. It was great.

What part of that would be 'great'?


Sharpton is often the "You're Not Helping" poster child.
 
2012-04-30 01:33:19 AM

Jim_Callahan: Alphax: A few weeks back, I heard about another shooting, might have been in Arizona. A man calls 911 to say that 2 men were burglarizing his next door neighbor. But when the police dispatcher told him to stay in his house, the guy refused, said that there was a Stand Your Ground law now, and he'd take care of this himself. Ignoring the police dispatcher, he put the phone down without hanging up, walked outside, and fired twice. I heard the actual recording. Both burglars shot dead, no charges filed.

That actually wouldn't be stand your ground law, it'd be castle law or another property defense law. In some states you are actually allowed to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a robbery, no ground or the standing thereof required. It's one of the places where the states differ (Stand your Ground, as I pointed out earlier, is not, it's basically the same in every state).

Honestly, if you're burglarizing someone's house and you get shot, that seems to be more "well, shiat happens when you intentionally do something illegal, dangerous, and sociopathic". I don't really have a problem with no charges being filed in your example. No charges doesn't mean no investigation, the cops still would have interviewed the neighbor, etc, to verify that the house was actually being robbed and the people that got shot were the culprits.


Wasn't even his own house. And burlgary isn't usually a death penalty crime.
 
2012-04-30 01:34:05 AM
Dude is in an SUV and was afraid a guy with an invisible pipe? He wasn't willing to run over the dog but was quite happy to shoot the man?

That's murder.
 
2012-04-30 01:34:19 AM

Gyrfalcon: Dimensio: eraser8: Dimensio: Did you not actually read HeWhoHasNoName's posting, or did you decide to dishonestly disregard it without actually attempting to show it to be false?

Fine. I'll make the same sort of unsourced assertions he did:

Experts, almost to a man, have determined that in an age of lethal firearms, a duty to retreat is the best way to maximize public safety.

Please explain, then, how an individual suffering the duress of an imminent violent attack may ascertain, instantaneously and infallibly, whether a guaranteed route for escape exists prior to using deadly force against an attacker. Such a determination must be possible, or an individual who attempts escape may incorrectly assess the ability to do so and an individual who uses defensive force may be prosecuted for failing to identify a viable means of escape.

Well, lessee...

If I'm in my car and the attacker isn't, and the engine is running, and he doesn't have a weapon that would stop my car from running, and there isn't another vehicle blocking my egress to the street, and I can roll up my windows to keep him gaining access to my car, and the only way he could physically threaten me with any weapon he has is if I LEAVE my car and confront him; whereas if I were to drive forward I could leave the confrontation and escape without harm to myself or my would-be attacker...

That sounds pretty damn close to an infallible and instantaneous means of determining escape in this case, wouldn't you say, Mr. Super Genius?


Having never experienced imminent violent attack, I had been unaware until your posting that all violent attacks occur in exactly the fashion that you describe, with absolutely no variation. If this is the case, and violent attacks never occur under any different circumstances nor any different contexts, then you have issued a sound explanation.


For the rest: You and others make it sound like these confrontations drop out of the clear blue sky like a walnut hitting Chicken Little on the noggin. There is NEVER an interpersonal confrontation--NONE, EVER--that could not have been foreseen and prevented by at least one party using a little foresight and trying to prevent or avoid the confrontation beforehand. None. It's just that nobody wants to think about it because it's scary and requires a little bit of change in your behavior. It's so much easier to carry a gun and then blame the other person for making you feel threatened.

You are correct. A majority of "interpersonal confrontations" would have been averted had a criminal attacker refrained from attempting to commit an act of violent crime. However, how that relates to the victim of a violent crime -- who is less likely to have been in a position to reasonably anticipate and thus avoid the confrontation -- is not evident.
 
2012-04-30 01:35:08 AM

Dimensio: Having never experienced imminent violent attack


Surprise, surprise, surprise.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report