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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 12:14:11 PM

technicolor-misfit: farking CNN is on his doorstep to ask about his son, and he's crapping his pants, warning about how he's brandishing a weapon.


I don't know that you're using the right example. It's his house, I got no beef with him not wanting to back down at his own house. People should back down when they are out and about, you can always retreat to your house. But at your house, where are you going to retreat to?

It's fully possible the dude has been crapping his pants since the story came out because a lot of people are really upset his kid killed someone. It's not beyond reason to imagine people have been threatening him and calling and whatnot.
 
2012-04-30 12:15:02 PM

lennavan: Lenny_da_Hog: lennavan: Dude, he had a rational point and you were harsh to ignore it. The second amendment affirms the right to keep a trained, well regulated and armed militia. Now people here usually focus on the armed part, not so much the regulated or militia part, or even the "security of a free state" part. But I digress. Stand your ground just re-affirms your well regulated armed militia does not have to retreat if it does not want to. Why is that so bad? Do you want our army forced to retreat?

Just as you ignore that after all the reasons for doing so, the constitution guarantees the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

I like to recall that society is the same today as it was back when the constitution was written and the founding fathers knew it would be the same, which is why they intended the document to be a "dead document" that never changes.

Like back then when the people had to keep arms because the redcoats might be coming at short notice, so the towns had to defend themselves against invasion. We still need to protect ourselves from invasion.


Yeah, I'm not sure what this post has to do with the discussion at hand, which concerns SYG versus retreat, but... it is ridiculous to think that the document is stagnant or set in stone. Some of the Federalist Society Conventions are comedy gold, though they don't realize it.

There was one gay dude who'd always crash the convention, start a speech about gay rights then get thrown out. I loved his speeches. They were insane (had some learning disabilities I think) yet spot on.

/I think we're nigh time for a constitutional amendment. Something about pot and the DEA, I don't know.
 
2012-04-30 12:16:17 PM
So by the standards in Florida, if someone aggressively cuts me off in traffic or tailgates at freeway speeds, do I have the right to put a bullet in their head? A speeding multi-ton vehicle is just as dangerous as a pipe, bat or knife after all.
 
2012-04-30 12:18:02 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: balloot:

I didn't ask you to link to some random 70 minute long video from a wingnut conference.

I asked you to name one single real event that has happened in a non ...

Ayoob lists quite a few, in detail, in that video. The fact that you are too lazy and myopic to even skim through what I posted does not reduce the credibility or validity of it. All it proves is that you listen solely to what you want to hear.


No, I'm not going to watch a 70 minute video. The fact that this is your counterargument makes me quite sure I'm right.

Again, to anyone out there: Give one single instance of a real life wrongdoing that would have been prevented by a SYG law. NOT a Castle doctrine law that let you protect your home, but the new version of the SYG law that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and this guy in Arizona, whereby you can murder someone legally anytime you feel "threatened".

I'm trying to set a nice low bar here, because in all the debate over the deaths of these people, I have never heard anyone actually explain the problem these laws are attempting to solve.
 
2012-04-30 12:18:36 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I'm not sure what this post has to do with the discussion at hand, which concerns SYG versus retreat


Someone said SYG was simply re-affirming the second amendment and I made a snarky reply to make fun of how stupid that was. It took off from there.
 
2012-04-30 12:19:40 PM

lennavan: Tman144: What the fark? "I didn't want to run over the dog, so instead I SHOT THE GUY IN THE CHEST?!?" WTF is wrong with people?

Even if you take him at his word and his belief - it's a strong argument for why people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns outside of their homes. If you take him at his word, this clearly demonstrates untrained citizens do not have the capability of making reasonable life and death decisions with a gun. Should be with the police/armed forces only.


It's weak sauce at best, and damn you have a scary mindset if you're serious. Only the popo should carry because there's a douchebag in the world who used his weapon wrongly?

I really hope you're joking.
 
2012-04-30 12:20:13 PM

balloot: Again, to anyone out there: Give one single instance of a real life wrongdoing that would have been prevented by a SYG law. NOT a Castle doctrine law that let you protect your home and NOT a self defense law, but the new version of the SYG law that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and this guy in Arizona, whereby you can murder someone legally anytime you feel "threatened".

I'm trying to set a nice low bar here, because in all the debate over the deaths of these people, I have never heard anyone actually explain the problem these laws are attempting to solve.


Can I add to your bar? I love it, I just wanted to add one bit (bolded above). By the way, it looks like Zimmerman might plead self defense, not SYG. SYG is truly the gun nut with a teenie penis' wet dream.
 
2012-04-30 12:22:19 PM

Salt Lick Steady: lennavan: Tman144: What the fark? "I didn't want to run over the dog, so instead I SHOT THE GUY IN THE CHEST?!?" WTF is wrong with people?

Even if you take him at his word and his belief - it's a strong argument for why people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns outside of their homes. If you take him at his word, this clearly demonstrates untrained citizens do not have the capability of making reasonable life and death decisions with a gun. Should be with the police/armed forces only.

It's weak sauce at best, and damn you have a scary mindset if you're serious. Only the popo should carry because there's a douchebag in the world who used his weapon wrongly?

I really hope you're joking.


You think this has happened only once? I did also say only the po-po should be allowed to carry outside of your home. This of course would exclude hunting, sport, etc. If you're that worried about going out in the super scary world that you need to carry a gun with you at all times, perhaps you should just stay home and have a good cry.
 
2012-04-30 12:22:50 PM

Salt Lick Steady: No, I wasn't a CO. I was a lawyer for FDOC. Changes the equation a bit.


yes, it does - in the direction of being even more similar. it'd be tangential as balls to bring this conversation back to where it started, but if you're as affected from your legal standpoint as you are, you can't see how a prosecutor and their decisions would be affected by laws such as this? again, that's all i'm saying - A leads to B, we ignore B. and we all shine on.

Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim, and I've had to go through really freaking bad trials as a defense litigator. Then there's the transactional work, where you see someone imprisoned for life for having stood their ground, generally convicted because they're black. That last aspect is not something I have to worry about, but yes. I would rather die than be incarcerated for life.


then your fight/flight reflex has got to be one of the most non-reflexive and semi-equation-like situations i've ever even conceived of.

that's the nice way of saying 'yah, i get that you believe that, but i'm still not buying it'. or the really really really nice way of saying 'bullshiat'.
 
2012-04-30 12:22:55 PM

lennavan: Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I'm not sure what this post has to do with the discussion at hand, which concerns SYG versus retreat

Someone said SYG was simply re-affirming the second amendment and I made a snarky reply to make fun of how stupid that was. It took off from there.


If I recall, the post only stated that it was a reaffirmation of existing constitutional rights. Not the 2d amendment in particular.
 
2012-04-30 12:22:55 PM

lennavan: balloot: Again, to anyone out there: Give one single instance of a real life wrongdoing that would have been prevented by a SYG law. NOT a Castle doctrine law that let you protect your home and NOT a self defense law, but the new version of the SYG law that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and this guy in Arizona, whereby you can murder someone legally anytime you feel "threatened".

I'm trying to set a nice low bar here, because in all the debate over the deaths of these people, I have never heard anyone actually explain the problem these laws are attempting to solve.

Can I add to your bar? I love it, I just wanted to add one bit (bolded above). By the way, it looks like Zimmerman might plead self defense, not SYG. SYG is truly the gun nut with a teenie penis' wet dream.


Whoops, I didn't bold it.
 
2012-04-30 12:23:55 PM

Salt Lick Steady: lennavan: Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I'm not sure what this post has to do with the discussion at hand, which concerns SYG versus retreat

Someone said SYG was simply re-affirming the second amendment and I made a snarky reply to make fun of how stupid that was. It took off from there.

If I recall, the post only stated that it was a reaffirmation of existing constitutional rights. Not the 2d amendment in particular.


That's true. I can't imagine what other one would be more relevant to this case but I also don't care. This is far too pedantic of an argument for even me.
 
2012-04-30 12:24:05 PM

lennavan: lennavan: balloot: Again, to anyone out there: Give one single instance of a real life wrongdoing that would have been prevented by a SYG law. NOT a Castle doctrine law that let you protect your home and NOT a self defense law, but the new version of the SYG law that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and this guy in Arizona, whereby you can murder someone legally anytime you feel "threatened".

I'm trying to set a nice low bar here, because in all the debate over the deaths of these people, I have never heard anyone actually explain the problem these laws are attempting to solve.

Can I add to your bar? I love it, I just wanted to add one bit (bolded above). By the way, it looks like Zimmerman might plead self defense, not SYG. SYG is truly the gun nut with a teenie penis' wet dream.

Whoops, I didn't bold it.


I find it veeeery interesting that now that it's going to trial the story's changed.
 
2012-04-30 12:25:38 PM

lennavan: You think this has happened only once? I did also say only the po-po should be allowed to carry outside of your home. This of course would exclude hunting, sport, etc. If you're that worried about going out in the super scary world that you need to carry a gun with you at all times, perhaps you should just stay home and have a good cry.


No, dude, I carry occasionally, when I'm camping or when I go out west for, well, camping. I don't feel the need to carry all the time, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for laws that prohibit carrying outside the home except for hunters. ?
 
2012-04-30 12:26:19 PM

qorkfiend: lennavan: lennavan: balloot: Again, to anyone out there: Give one single instance of a real life wrongdoing that would have been prevented by a SYG law. NOT a Castle doctrine law that let you protect your home and NOT a self defense law, but the new version of the SYG law that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and this guy in Arizona, whereby you can murder someone legally anytime you feel "threatened".

I'm trying to set a nice low bar here, because in all the debate over the deaths of these people, I have never heard anyone actually explain the problem these laws are attempting to solve.

Can I add to your bar? I love it, I just wanted to add one bit (bolded above). By the way, it looks like Zimmerman might plead self defense, not SYG. SYG is truly the gun nut with a teenie penis' wet dream.

Whoops, I didn't bold it.

I find it veeeery interesting that now that it's going to trial the story's changed.


I dunno, the Zimmerman case for me is a poor example to hang our hat on. At the end of the day, best I can tell, no one has any idea of what really went on that day. My best guess - we should burn the dude at the stake. But I also don't think we should run our courts based on our best guess and it's supposed to be a good thing people like me aren't running the courts/prosecutors office. I'm really farking disappointed in the prosecutor here and I'll only be upset at the decision if he's guilty. There's just no way there's enough evidence to convict unless Zimmerman actually admits it. This has Duke Lacrosse written all over it.
 
2012-04-30 12:26:20 PM

balloot: EWreckedSean: theknuckler_33: EWreckedSean: Granted you gotta feel bad for the guy with the skull fracture, but there is no way the 77 year old guy who shot him could have reasonably known the person who rushed into his home with his elderly wife was injured.

Amazing.

"Sorry I shot and killed you for no reason whatsoever, but hey, them's the breaks!"

I mean, it's almost like shooting first and asking questions later is a bad idea.

Amazing. You in your wife are in your late 70s, it's 2am, and some 35 year old pushes passed you into your house with your wife and gets into a physical struggle with you. Obviously you should stop and talk for a bit to figure out what is going on. Darwin isn't your friend.

-------------------------

Fail. Nobody is arguing against Castle doctrine. If someone invades your house, you get to defend it by any means necessary. We are arguing against legally being able to shoot and kill anyone who you get into an argument with.

These SYG laws are so incredibly broken. It amazes me that people even attempt to defend them. There is quite literally no other law anywhere that makes an illegal act legal based on the subjective opinion of the perpetrator. This isn't an oversight, because it's completely retarded to let people use an opinion to legally justify crimes.

While we're at it, we should pass a "She totally wanted me" law that cancels out rape if you claim the girl in question was giving you sexy vibes. Also, a "greedy douchebag" law that lets you rob someone as long as you perceive them as being not generous enough.


The only fail is you reading his post.

As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.
 
2012-04-30 12:27:27 PM

Salt Lick Steady: lennavan: You think this has happened only once? I did also say only the po-po should be allowed to carry outside of your home. This of course would exclude hunting, sport, etc. If you're that worried about going out in the super scary world that you need to carry a gun with you at all times, perhaps you should just stay home and have a good cry.

No, dude, I carry occasionally, when I'm camping or when I go out west for, well, camping. I don't feel the need to carry all the time, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for laws that prohibit carrying outside the home except for hunters. ?


And sport. And I'm sure there are other reasonable times to carry outside, like collectors and shiat. I guess I just don't find the world as scary as you do dude.
 
2012-04-30 12:27:57 PM

lennavan: balloot: Again, to anyone out there: Give one single instance of a real life wrongdoing that would have been prevented by a SYG law. NOT a Castle doctrine law that let you protect your home and NOT a self defense law, but the new version of the SYG law that led to the deaths of Trayvon Martin and this guy in Arizona, whereby you can murder someone legally anytime you feel "threatened".

I'm trying to set a nice low bar here, because in all the debate over the deaths of these people, I have never heard anyone actually explain the problem these laws are attempting to solve.

Can I add to your bar? I love it, I just wanted to add one bit (bolded above). By the way, it looks like Zimmerman might plead self defense, not SYG. SYG is truly the gun nut with a teenie penis' wet dream.


---------------------------

What exactly is the difference between a SYG law and a "self defense" law?
 
2012-04-30 12:28:05 PM

EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.


Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?
 
2012-04-30 12:28:56 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim,

Bull. farking. shiat.

If you feared trial more than death, you could shoot the guy, and then commit suicide to avoid the trial.

It's not trial itself, though that's hellish, it's the consequences that could result.


Which are, again, avoidable by death.

If you say something is "worse than death" and you have the option of picking death and you don't, then you are lying to yourself or others about whether you'd rather be dead than go through that something.
 
2012-04-30 12:29:25 PM

lennavan: technicolor-misfit: farking CNN is on his doorstep to ask about his son, and he's crapping his pants, warning about how he's brandishing a weapon.

I don't know that you're using the right example. It's his house, I got no beef with him not wanting to back down at his own house. People should back down when they are out and about, you can always retreat to your house. But at your house, where are you going to retreat to?

It's fully possible the dude has been crapping his pants since the story came out because a lot of people are really upset his kid killed someone. It's not beyond reason to imagine people have been threatening him and calling and whatnot.



I'm not suggesting he needs to back down, or questioning his right to brandish a weapon inside his own home. I'm just pointing out what a blubbering terrified mouse he is.

If you're behind a locked door talking to a news crew from one of the largest networks in the world, and STILL feel you need to shout "I've got a gun!!!!" You are engaging in hysteria, I don't care how many threats you may have received. You can be reasonably certain the CNN reporter isn't going to kick down your door, pull out a 9mm and perforate your innards.
 
2012-04-30 12:29:31 PM

qorkfiend: Tman144: What the fark? "I didn't want to run over the dog, so instead I SHOT THE GUY IN THE CHEST?!?" WTF is wrong with people?

Dim bulb + gun + pregnant fiancee + "stand your ground"


Clevon's and people like him breeding... gotta love what the future holds for us.

/eagerly waiting for the zombie apocalypse
 
2012-04-30 12:30:14 PM

qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?


or even elucidate how what has been described is supposed to be a bad thing.
 
2012-04-30 12:30:55 PM

heap: yes, it does - in the direction of being even more similar. it'd be tangential as balls to bring this conversation back to where it started, but if you're as affected from your legal standpoint as you are, you can't see how a prosecutor and their decisions would be affected by laws such as this?


First, no, it leads me in quite the opposite direction of a prosecutor. And second, I've stated from the beginning that the reason these laws could be considered bad is not due to substance, but due to prosecutors laziness.

heap: then your fight/flight reflex has got to be one of the most non-reflexive and semi-equation-like situations i've ever even conceived of.

that's the nice way of saying 'yah, i get that you believe that, but i'm still not buying it'. or the really really really nice way of saying 'bullshiat'.


I know how horrific prison is. It is hell on earth. My fight or flight definitely takes that into account, and if you find that to be non-reflexive, I doubt you've had any experience with it.
 
2012-04-30 12:31:18 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: There are different levels of retreating to hypothetically consider too. Fleeing straight away on foot from a guy pointing a gun and shooting at you is stupid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was ever forced to do that prior to the SYG laws.

This absolutely happened all the time, cases where the prosecution successfully argued that you could've fled down the alley. And there is nothing wrong with making the prosecution actually prove that you were unreasonable, rather than forcing you to prove you weren't.


Citation please for someone being actively shot at and being told it wasn't self defense to shoot back.
 
2012-04-30 12:31:34 PM

EWreckedSean:

As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.


OK. So name ONE specific, actual instance of "past victims of crimes charged with murdering their attackers." Because I can name two very concrete instances of innocent people dying due to SYG laws just in the first few months of 2012 alone.
 
2012-04-30 12:31:55 PM
This guy should get life in prison.

People should NOT have the right to use deadly force when they feel moderately threatened. F*ck anyone who disagrees...move to f*cking Somalia or something.
 
2012-04-30 12:32:10 PM

Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim,

Bull. farking. shiat.

If you feared trial more than death, you could shoot the guy, and then commit suicide to avoid the trial.

It's not trial itself, though that's hellish, it's the consequences that could result.

Which are, again, avoidable by death.

If you say something is "worse than death" and you have the option of picking death and you don't, then you are lying to yourself or others about whether you'd rather be dead than go through that something.


When did I say I wouldn't choose death?
 
2012-04-30 12:33:46 PM

lennavan: I just don't find the world as scary as you do dude.


I never said it was because the world was scary, stop projecting. It's for myriad uses, not the least of which is food.
 
2012-04-30 12:34:46 PM
If the shooter in this case had been a police officer, he'd be in prison right now and the family of the victim would have recovered millions from the city.

So apparently the message we're sending is that untrained joes on the street have greater autonomy than the police to use violent force. That is scary.
 
2012-04-30 12:35:12 PM

Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: There are different levels of retreating to hypothetically consider too. Fleeing straight away on foot from a guy pointing a gun and shooting at you is stupid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was ever forced to do that prior to the SYG laws.

This absolutely happened all the time, cases where the prosecution successfully argued that you could've fled down the alley. And there is nothing wrong with making the prosecution actually prove that you were unreasonable, rather than forcing you to prove you weren't.

Citation please for someone being actively shot at and being told it wasn't self defense to shoot back.


You think someone has to have actually been shot at for self defense to kick in? And do you want me to google that for you?
 
2012-04-30 12:37:23 PM

Salt Lick Steady: First, no, it leads me in quite the opposite direction of a prosecutor.


i said it affected you. thus, maybe you'd see how it was also affecting prosecutors.

i didn't say the affect was identical, or the same direction, or anything even close to that. just that the letter of the law has affected your decision making process, yet to say that the letter of the law affecting prosecutors decisions is, to you, a giant leap.

i don't know, maybe you're responding to too many people to keep a conversation straight, i can dig that. all the same, there comes a point where conversation is less about responding to what's actually said than it is just saying what you want to say....and i think we've passed that point about 3 responses ago.

you aren't picking up what i'm putting down - that's either because i suck and made it too slippery to pick up, it's being muddled with other conversations, or you just don't want to pick it up. either way, the result looks the same from here.
 
2012-04-30 12:37:40 PM

lennavan:

I dunno, the Zimmerman case for me is a poor example to hang our hat on. At the end of the day, best I can tell, no one has any idea of what really went on that day. My best guess - we should burn the dude at the stake. But I also don't think we should run our courts based on our best guess and it's supposed to be a good thing people like me aren't running the courts/prosecutors office. I'm really farking disappointed in the prosecutor here and I'll only be upset at the decision if he's guilty. There's just no way there's enough evidence to convict unless Zimmerman actually admits it. This has Duke Lacrosse written all over it.


--------------------------------

Actually, we have a pretty good basic understanding of what happened that day. A guy was killed, and the killer is recorded on the phone announcing his intention to follow and confront the now-dead person. The killer has also confessed to having killed the victim. Absent some very clear evidence that Trayvon Martin was committing some terrible crime, that is textbook murder as far as I'm concerned.
 
2012-04-30 12:40:47 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Smackledorfer: Salt Lick Steady: Yeah, I do. I've had to go through a bad trial as a victim,

Bull. farking. shiat.

If you feared trial more than death, you could shoot the guy, and then commit suicide to avoid the trial.

It's not trial itself, though that's hellish, it's the consequences that could result.

Which are, again, avoidable by death.

If you say something is "worse than death" and you have the option of picking death and you don't, then you are lying to yourself or others about whether you'd rather be dead than go through that something.

When did I say I wouldn't choose death?



When did you say you wouldn't choose death? How about when you keep insisting that SYG laws are necessary because otherwise people won't shoot to defend themselves in life and death situations for fear of trial.

You would ALWAYS shoot the aggressor over letting yourself die. Then, if you truly prefered death to trial, you would kill yourself pre-trial. You have been arguing that people wouldn't kill the aggressor in a life or death situation without these stupid SYG laws, because they'd prefer to die in the life and death situation than go to trial. That argument is stupid, and falls apart the second you apply the most basic of logic to it.
 
2012-04-30 12:43:41 PM

Smackledorfer: That argument is stupid, and falls apart the second you apply the most basic of logic to it.


pretty much.

altho, i've gotta admit if logic was the price of admission for this topic, it'd be a 20 comment thread, not 500.
 
2012-04-30 12:43:45 PM

lennavan: When liberals look at 2nd amendment rights advocates, this is what they see. They see this sentence, personified. They see 2nd amendment rights advocates as so farking derped up on their power trip they aren't willing to walk away before someone ends up dead. You might be the most right person on earth and have every right to be standing there but at some point, you have to be the bigger person and just walk away because it ain't worth it man. shoot the farkhead because you were right.

By the way, you know how you all see cops derped up on power abusing it? That's exactly how we see people who propose these laws.


Well, I can't speak for all second amendment rights activists but, in my experience, the vast majority of gun owners are very responsible and reasonable people, and I think that virtually none of them walk around hoping for a chance that they can stand their ground and be a cowboy or whatever and shoot someone. I support those type of laws even though I think that most times a person should make an attempt to retreat, if at all possible, but I can't get behind the idea of REQUIRING them to retreat before they are able to make a claim to self defense. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a person who believes their life is in danger to take time to search for a way to retreat. Even if they admitted that they realized there was a possible escape route but they chose not to take it because they thought it was possible it wouldn't work and they would be killed, I don't really expect someone to do something that they think could possibly put their life at risk for the sake of the attacker. I think there should have to be a burden to prove that you, knowingly, could have safely avoided the situation but chose to let it happen or that you shot them after the immediate threat to your life had passed, something along those lines.

As for the cases from the article, I don't see how anyone could think the old gentleman who killed the intruder in his trailer in the middle of the night did anything wrong, and I don't see how anyone could buy into the SUV driver's claim of self defense from the vanishing bat/metal pipe. I don't see how anyone can look at the situation and believe that a reasonable person would actually think that their life was in immediate danger. I can understand how someone could see him as a danger and maybe even draw their weapon to have ready in-case he attacked, but I don't believe that a reasonable person setting inside an SUV with a gun believed that a man yelling and waving his arms was an immediate threat to their life.
 
2012-04-30 12:48:59 PM

balloot: Actually, we have a pretty good basic understanding of what happened that day. A guy was killed, and the killer is recorded on the phone announcing his intention to follow and confront the now-dead person. THEN SOME STUFF HAPPENED IN THE CONFRONTATION. The killer has also confessed to having killed the victim.


You left out the bolded part. We have no idea what happened in the confrontation. It's either self defense or murder. I have no idea what, nor do you, nor does anyone it seems.

balloot: Absent some very clear evidence that Trayvon Martin was committing some terrible crime, that is textbook murder as far as I'm concerned.


That's not the way the justice system works, nor should it. Innocent until proven guilty. Absent some very clear evidence that Zimmerman was not defending himself, that is textbook self defense.
 
2012-04-30 12:49:35 PM

Smackledorfer: When did you say you wouldn't choose death? How about when you keep insisting that SYG laws are necessary because otherwise people won't shoot to defend themselves in life and death situations for fear of trial.

You would ALWAYS shoot the aggressor over letting yourself die. Then, if you truly prefered death to trial, you would kill yourself pre-trial. You have been arguing that people wouldn't kill the aggressor in a life or death situation without these stupid SYG laws, because they'd prefer to die in the life and death situation than go to trial. That argument is stupid, and falls apart the second you apply the most basic of logic to it.


I said I was probably unique in factoring in the possibility of incarceration in a life or death situation because of my experience with corrections. Moreover, I noted that the laws are not stupid because they shift the burden of proof to the prosecutor. The laws aren't stupid, they make the prosecutor do his or her jerb, rather than leaving the person who shot in self defense have to convince a jury that they weren't being reasonable.

Additionally, if my case actually involved such a scenario and I got out on bond, I'd likely flee, but if the cops caught up with me, yes, I'd kill myself.

You completely misunderstand my position. I am not saying the SYG laws are necessary when it comes to a person's thought process during a self defense scenario. I'm saying that they make sense because the prosecutor should have the burden of proving unreasonableness rather than the other way around.
 
2012-04-30 12:50:57 PM

Salt Lick Steady: lennavan: I just don't find the world as scary as you do dude.

I never said it was because the world was scary, stop projecting. It's for myriad uses, not the least of which is food.


Stop being a douche. I said I was perfectly fine with people carrying guns for hunting purposes. If the world is not scary, why do you need a gun? What is one reason you need a gun outside your home? List them all off, by all means. I'm okay with probably every single thing on your list except one - self defense. When you go out in public it's up to the police to protect you. If you're too scared by that, go back home.
 
2012-04-30 12:53:17 PM

lennavan: When you go out in public it's up to the police to protect you. If you're too scared by that, go back home.


some values for 'public' include a +1 hour response time.

if the police actually protected and served in a perfect capacity, i'd agree with you - that not being the situation, i've got to leave hypotheticalville behind and live with reality.
 
2012-04-30 12:55:39 PM

Skarekrough: vudukungfu: Is this the gun nut thread?
Anyone got any pop corn?
Oh, that's right no popcorn, no sudden noises.
*Backs slowly away. *
Backing away is so last week....just open fire!


If he's backing up, he's looking right at me and could conceivably be reaching for his gun to take a shot at me. I find it suspicious that the person retreating doesn't have his hands high in the air, since he's carrying no popcorn. I need to remove the threat.
 
2012-04-30 12:56:37 PM

lennavan: Salt Lick Steady: lennavan: I just don't find the world as scary as you do dude.

I never said it was because the world was scary, stop projecting. It's for myriad uses, not the least of which is food.

Stop being a douche. I said I was perfectly fine with people carrying guns for hunting purposes. If the world is not scary, why do you need a gun? What is one reason you need a gun outside your home? List them all off, by all means. I'm okay with probably every single thing on your list except one - self defense. When you go out in public it's up to the police to protect you. If you're too scared by that, go back home.


How are you going to enforce such a distinction? Frankly, when I'm in bumfark nowhere Nevada, the primary purpose of keeping my weapon is food as well as protection from food and potential human threats. You seem to have a disconnect between how you'd like the world to be and how it could actually function (e.g., how you'd write a law like that).
 
2012-04-30 12:56:50 PM

heap: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?

or even elucidate how what has been described is supposed to be a bad thing.


It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.
 
2012-04-30 12:56:51 PM

lennavan: balloot: Actually, we have a pretty good basic understanding of what happened that day. A guy was killed, and the killer is recorded on the phone announcing his intention to follow and confront the now-dead person. THEN SOME STUFF HAPPENED IN THE CONFRONTATION. The killer has also confessed to having killed the victim.

You left out the bolded part. We have no idea what happened in the confrontation. It's either self defense or murder. I have no idea what, nor do you, nor does anyone it seems.

balloot: Absent some very clear evidence that Trayvon Martin was committing some terrible crime, that is textbook murder as far as I'm concerned.

That's not the way the justice system works, nor should it. Innocent until proven guilty. Absent some very clear evidence that Zimmerman was not defending himself, that is textbook self defense.


What if Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin defending himself from the perceived threat of Zimmerman?
Look at this from Martin's POV-
Martin is walking home from the store and chatting on his cell phone. he notices someone following him around in a car. He tries to lose the person following him but the car guy finds him, gets out of his car and confronts him. I don't know about you, but if someone did this to me, I would fell threatened. And under the Florida SYG law, would Martin have been clear if he had shot first?
 
2012-04-30 12:59:59 PM

runin800m: I support those type of laws even though I think that most times a person should make an attempt to retreat, if at all possible, but I can't get behind the idea of REQUIRING them to retreat before they are able to make a claim to self defense.


I can't think of a single instance in the history of the world where someone may have ever been required to retreat before making a self defense claim. But you suggest they exist, so by all means, let me know. The way I've heard it phrased, your gun should be your last resort. If you can retreat, you must. If you cannot, fire away.

I'm not religious, there is no heaven. This is all we get. Killing someone is kinda a big deal, you took away their existence. They have ceased to exist and will never exist again. So if you're suggesting "someone should only kill another person as a last resort" is too far, I think that's pretty ridiculous.
 
2012-04-30 01:00:42 PM

EWreckedSean: heap: qorkfiend: EWreckedSean: As to SYG laws, they were passed because in the past victims of crimes were often charged with murdering their attackers, because after the fact it was determined their lives weren't threatened.

Can you provide any sort of reference to any single event where this happened?

or even elucidate how what has been described is supposed to be a bad thing.

It is a bad thing because it puts the victim of a crime in the position of having to guess the intention of his attacker, and if he or she guesses wrongly, as the victim, facing prosecution for guessing wrong (or death or bodily harm). As to references, I'll google around some.


again, i'm trying to see the 'bad thing' here. if it's found that the person you killed was not threatening your life, you *did* commit a crime by my reckoning. i'm not seeing the 'bad thing' here.
 
2012-04-30 01:00:59 PM

syzygy whizz: I can't help wondering if the presence of pregnant fiancee might have had something to do with the response.

Was he being protective of them, or was he bein' a MAN?

People have a tendency to go overboard (read: "do really stupid shiat they would not done otherwise") if there is a member of the opposite watching...


Or does he have issues because a brown man knocked-up his fiancee?
 
2012-04-30 01:01:13 PM

heap: lennavan: When you go out in public it's up to the police to protect you. If you're too scared by that, go back home.

some values for 'public' include a +1 hour response time.

if the police actually protected and served in a perfect capacity, i'd agree with you - that not being the situation, i've got to leave hypotheticalville behind and live with reality.


By all means, post that example away. When it turns out to be a domestic issue, we'll both go back to where I said I was perfectly fine with guns at your own home.

I live in realityville, apparently you live in TVville.
 
2012-04-30 01:02:52 PM

Salt Lick Steady: Frankly, when I'm in bumfark nowhere Nevada, the primary purpose of keeping my weapon is food as well as protection from food and potential human threats.


So you just take out a gun and shoot anything you want for food? You know, you might think it's the wild lawless west and everything, but there are hunting seasons, laws and regulations, just like in your civilized world. I also don't know of anyone who uses a handgun to shoot food. You sound like some kind of dipshiat who takes guns to national parks because the big scary outside world might attack him in his 40-foot RV. Fark you probably ARE that guy.
 
2012-04-30 01:03:15 PM

badLogic: What if Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin defending himself from the perceived threat of Zimmerman?
Look at this from Martin's POV-
Martin is walking home from the store and chatting on his cell phone. he notices someone following him around in a car. He tries to lose the person following him but the car guy finds him, gets out of his car and confronts him. I don't know about you, but if someone did this to me, I would fell threatened. And under the Florida SYG law, would Martin have been clear if he had shot first?



I completely agree with you but look at your first two words. "What if" That's why he should be called "not guilty." We have no idea what happened. My best guess is no doubt the same as yours and we should burn Zimmerman away. But there's a reason our courts require a higher burden of proof.
 
Displayed 50 of 751 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report