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 04:58:03 PM

Smackledorfer: Karac: If you're sitting in a bar and somebody on the other side of the establishment pulls out a knife and says they're gonna kill you, then I'd say you have a reasonable fear for your life, even if you're right next to the exit.

Yes. Of course you would. That was exactly why I used that example. Now, since nobody can make you leave, you have the legal option to not leave, and you take it because you're a badass cowboy.

Now you are a position where leaving is a perfectly reasonable option but you've taken it off the table. Should you shoot him from across the room, or should you wait? How long should you wait? 10 feet? 20 feet? is 50 feet too close, too far? 100 feet?

And, if no one is around to hear that he is saying he is going to kill you, maybe he pulls the knife to clean his finger nails, and you are just a paranoid idiot with a gun wetting himself in fear while jizzing himself in excitement over having his day made. So you shoot him.

And THATS why this law is farking stupid. Lead pipe in the hand, leash that looks like a lead pipe, sheer paranoia making you see things that aren't there, it really doesn't matter. Once we put into law that the prosecution must prove you couldn't possibly have been defending yourself, there's plenty of leeway for shooting folks and getting away with it, and that's stupid.


Don't get me wrong, even in that bar scenario, the proper and sane response is to run for your life and call the cops. I'm just saying that somebody holding a knife and clearly stating their intent to open you up is grounds to reasonably fear for your life. Especially as opposed to some random guy walking past your vehicle on their way home from the 7/11 or Taco Bell. These stand your ground laws include the clause that you have to reasonably fear for your safety, which most likely was not present in Zimmerman's case (or the fear was at least cause by his own actions), and not present at all in the Taco Bell case given the facts in the article.
 
2012-04-30 05:02:29 PM

EWreckedSean: Man tries to rob group outside restaurant and shot by would be victim

Mugger shot dead by would be victim

Mugger shot by would be victim in parking lot

Want me to keep going....


Three examples

EWreckedSean: But just for your sake:

Man tries to rob group outside restaurant and shot by would be victim

Mugger shot dead by would be victim

Mugger shot by would be victim in parking lot

Want me to keep going....


To be fair - you do look less stupid with these examples. Well done. Now one person is dead and two people were shot. How many lives did that save?

"He demanded money"
"demanded money"
"a man who tried to rob him in a restaurant parking lot in St. Petersburg."

Robbery is bad. Taking someone's money is bad. It is not punishable by death, nor should it be.
 
2012-04-30 05:05:47 PM

lennavan: EWreckedSean: Man tries to rob group outside restaurant and shot by would be victim

Mugger shot dead by would be victim

Mugger shot by would be victim in parking lot

Want me to keep going....

Three examples EWreckedSean: But just for your sake:

Man tries to rob group outside restaurant and shot by would be victim

Mugger shot dead by would be victim

Mugger shot by would be victim in parking lot

Want me to keep going....

To be fair - you do look less stupid with these examples. Well done. Now one person is dead and two people were shot. How many lives did that save?

"He demanded money"
"demanded money"
"a man who tried to rob him in a restaurant parking lot in St. Petersburg."

Robbery is bad. Taking someone's money is bad. It is not punishable by death, nor should it be.


I look less stupid by proving you are full of shiat? So now let's move the goalpost and say how many lives were saved? Who knows. You don't know if any of those would have ended in one of the victim's being shot. Somebody I knew was shot dead outside a local bar six farking months ago during a mugging gone wrong. I posted the link before. But typically, you feel bad for the mugger, not for the victims.
 
2012-04-30 05:09:14 PM

Bontesla:
You cannot claim it's a silly assumption to make in one breath while clinging to it in the next.


Not to nit pick, but that's exactly what he does.

This is why I spend most my time either laughing at his posts or in utter awe of the fireworks display of ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
 
2012-04-30 05:12:35 PM

Smackledorfer: relcec: technicolor-misfit: oh wait, I bet the shooter was white and his father is a cop or da.
god I hate these people

the victim was white.

[www.oddonion.com image 640x360]

It's pretty clear the victim was Hispanic. Even the picture shows a Hispanic-looking guy, with a Hispanic sister (named Marina) a Hispanic mother (named Antonia) and a white father. Just because his last name was Adkins doesn't make him white. (particularly in the mind of a gun nut in the Taco Bell drive-thru)

I finally figured out the rules you people use to categorize people by race.

if the the SHOOTER has a latino mother and a white father, just like George Zimmerman, then he is a WHITE MAN who murdered someone who will no be arrested because of his race.

if the SHOOTING VICTIM has a latino mother and a white father, just like Daniel Adkins Jr., then he was a HISPANIC whose murder has not been addressed because of his race.

you liberals really ought to be ashamed.

The US border patrol marks all hispanics they catch as "white" on their paperwork so they aren't racist. That's so people like you who are in constant fear of immigrants can pretend you aren't racist. Just a little FYI.


I've liked all the illegal immigrant mexicans I've run into. they are hard workers and are polite.

I just don't like that I have to help pay for people like you to get the earned income tax credit because of the dilution of your labor pool that they cause. trust that if I could trade you one for one with them, I'd send no talent f*cks like you over the wall in a heartbeat.
 
2012-04-30 05:26:32 PM

EWreckedSean: I look less stupid by proving you are full of shiat? So now let's move the goalpost and say how many lives were saved?


My goalposts are firmly planted. Just because you didn't read my posts doesn't mean they moved.

EWreckedSean: Somebody I knew was shot dead outside a local bar six farking months ago during a mugging gone wrong. I posted the link before. But typically, you feel bad for the mugger, not for the victims.


He/she would have died even if they were carrying. But typically you think guns solve everything.
 
2012-04-30 05:36:31 PM
There's some degree of misunderstanding about the law here. SYG does not mean you can shoot a guy just because he scares you and is somewhere in the neighborhood. In Virginia, if a guy breaks into your home with a machete, is 30 feet away from you and takes a step towards you, and you shoot him...

...congratulations, you're going to jail. And we're a stand your ground state with strong castle doctrine laws.

Last I checked, the law as something like 25 feet. The former cop teaching the concealed-carry course said the police might fudge a couple of feet if the guy had a machete, but not 5.
 
2012-04-30 05:38:34 PM
What a farking coward. He's in his car, safe from having any contact, he won't run over the damned dog, but shooting him in the chest was a better option. God damn it, this is really pissing me off. Where the fark are the responsible gun owners?

Guess what, if you don't step up and condemn this shiat, you're just looking at more laws later on.
 
2012-04-30 05:39:32 PM
apparently just go around and never talk or look at anyone ever...

or invest in body armor.
 
2012-04-30 05:42:16 PM

EbolaNYC: What a farking coward. He's in his car, safe from having any contact, he won't run over the damned dog, but shooting him in the chest was a better option. God damn it, this is really pissing me off. Where the fark are the responsible gun owners?

Guess what, if you don't step up and condemn this shiat, you're just looking at more laws later on.


I own a gun, and what little we have here seems like the shooter is a tool.

/Few things irks me as a responsible gun owner than irresponsible gun owners
 
2012-04-30 05:42:39 PM

eraser8: But, tell me: you seemed awfully confident Zimmerman was the one screaming on the 911 tapes. How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?


Why do you think it matters who was screaming?
 
2012-04-30 05:45:08 PM
I am pretty sure if you gave me $1M I could have this law overturned everywhere almost immediately.

Step 1: Get $1M
Step 2: Offer $50K to the first 20 people who commit a totally legal killing protected by a SYG law.
Step 3: Watch hilarity ensue

Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?
 
2012-04-30 05:47:18 PM

balloot: I am pretty sure if you gave me $1M I could have this law overturned everywhere almost immediately.

Step 1: Get $1M
Step 2: Offer $50K to the first 20 people who commit a totally legal killing protected by a SYG law.
Step 3: Watch hilarity ensue

Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?


Sounds great, Ozy!
 
2012-04-30 05:48:09 PM

relcec: I just don't like that I have to help pay for people like you to get the earned income tax credit because of the dilution of your labor pool that they cause. trust that if I could trade you one for one with them, I'd send no talent f*cks like you over the wall in a heartbeat.


roflmao.
 
2012-04-30 05:48:42 PM

balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?


Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.
 
2012-04-30 05:56:32 PM

vygramul: balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.


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

Paying two people to have sex is completely legal. It's called porn. That would be the relevant analogue to my idea.
 
2012-04-30 05:57:21 PM

vygramul: Last I checked, the law as something like 25 feet. The former cop teaching the concealed-carry course said the police might fudge a couple of feet if the guy had a machete, but not 5.


So if I'm in Virginia shoot a guy swinging a machete 30 feet from me, I should lie about where I was standing. Good to know.
 
2012-04-30 05:57:24 PM

s2s2s2: balloot: I am pretty sure if you gave me $1M I could have this law overturned everywhere almost immediately.

Step 1: Get $1M
Step 2: Offer $50K to the first 20 people who commit a totally legal killing protected by a SYG law.
Step 3: Watch hilarity ensue

Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Sounds great, Ozy!


Don't know the reference.
 
2012-04-30 05:59:06 PM

balloot: Don't know the reference.


gwcpoetry.edublogs.org
"Welcome...to...fark?:("
 
2012-04-30 06:02:09 PM

relcec:

I've liked all the illegal immigrant mexicans I've run into. they are hard workers and are polite.

I just don't like that I have to help pay for people like you to get the earned income tax credit because of the dilution of your labor pool that they cause. trust that if I could trade you one for one with them, I'd send no talent f*cks like you over the wall in a heartbeat.


LOL, You and Mr. Wuncler. Fast forward to about 1:20
 
2012-04-30 06:08:33 PM

vygramul: balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.


Right, BUUUT prostitution is illegal because there is a law making illegal. So lets edit his statement to:

Unless otherwise specified via law, there is nothing illegal about paying people to do things that they can legally do on their own.
 
2012-04-30 06:14:34 PM

Smackledorfer: vygramul: balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.

Right, BUUUT prostitution is illegal because there is a law making illegal. So lets edit his statement to:

Unless otherwise specified via law, there is nothing illegal about paying people to do things that they can legally do on their own.


Buuut prostitution is legal in certain counties of Nevada, just as his plan would apparently be legal in Florida and Arizona.
 
2012-04-30 06:17:23 PM

Karac: Smackledorfer: vygramul: balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.

Right, BUUUT prostitution is illegal because there is a law making illegal. So lets edit his statement to:

Unless otherwise specified via law, there is nothing illegal about paying people to do things that they can legally do on their own.

Buuut prostitution is legal in certain counties of Nevada, just as his plan would apparently be legal in Florida and Arizona.


exactly
 
2012-04-30 06:25:54 PM

Karac: Smackledorfer: vygramul: balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.

Right, BUUUT prostitution is illegal because there is a law making illegal. So lets edit his statement to:

Unless otherwise specified via law, there is nothing illegal about paying people to do things that they can legally do on their own.

Buuut prostitution is legal in certain counties of Nevada, just as his plan would apparently be legal in Florida and Arizona.


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

I have no doubt it would be totally legal. Prostitution is illegal because it is specifically made illegal. Otherwise, it is totally legal to compensate someone for any legal action. Yes, it is horribly distasteful, but that's the fault of retarded laws that make it legal to murder people, not because I would pay people who take advantage of the law.
 
2012-04-30 06:30:02 PM

lennavan: You missed part of the point - I have no idea what was in your head when you fired, sure. But what's more, different people are going to react differently. There is no societal wide minimum standard before firing. I might not fire until someone pulls a gun on me, you might fire if the dude is brown lookin with a tattoo swearing at you from 50 yards away. Both of us, in that moment, might be equally afraid for our lives. I contend this is a bad thing.


Of course, different people are going to react differently and everyone isn't going to perceive the same level of threat. It seems to me that the minimum societal standard before firing is that you reasonably believed your life was in immediate danger and you didn't reasonably see a less extreme alternative to protect yourself from harm. For this reason, two people could experience a very similar situation and react in almost identical ways but one not meet that standard while the other does. If the authorities don't see it as clear cut whether or not you acted reasonably in the use of deadly force, then it would be up to a jury of your peers to decide if they believe that under the circumstances you reasonably believed your life was in immediate danger. I wouldn't imagine that a brown looking guy swearing from 50 yards away would be something that most people would say a reasonable person would see as immediate and life threatening, whereas someone pulling a gun on you is probably something that would make a person reasonably believe they are in immediate and life threatening danger.

lennavan: Often enough to warrant allowing everyone to carry guns and "Stand Their Ground?" I'd contend - no. In Florida alone, there have been about 91 deaths from SYG cases in the last 7 years.


Nothing is necessary or needed to warrant allowing everyone to carry a gun, the 2nd amendment protects that right, and they don't need to give a reason to exercise it. As for standing their ground, when a person believes that their life is in immediate danger from another person, and it is reasonable that they would believe this under the circumstances, I expect them to withhold the use of deadly force only until they believe that it's necessary to ensure their protection. Even if I don't believe that the use of force was appropriate or necessary, if I think that, under the circumstances at the time, a reasonable person could have believed it was necessary, then I think it meets that standard.

lennavan: That doesn't make any sense. Why would you kill someone AFTER you rob them? It would be so much easier to kill them before. I mean, I've seen a lot of movies with safes and secret codes and whatnot where you gotta keep the guy alive to open it but those are MOVIES.


I don't know why someone would do that, perhaps they are wanted for something else or just don't want anyone who saw their face left alive. I realize that it isn't usual at all, but it does happen and not just in the movies. From what little google search I did it seems that in the US for the past several years anywhere from a little over 1,000 to a little over 2,500 people a year are murdered after/during robberies. This may sound callous but, if a person is being robbed and especially if it's at gunpoint, and they believe that their life is in immediate danger and they see an opportunity to draw a weapon, I don't expect them to ignore that opportunity because there is a 99% chance they'll be released afterward. I would expect that they wouldn't consider the life of the person assaulting/robbing them or whatever as worth even a small chance that they might lose their own. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

lennavan: That's a great example. Let me walk you through an alternative example, while merging some details from the Gabby Giffords shooting.

You're sitting in a class at VT in 2007. You hear gunshots from another class room. You have a gun, so you get up from your seat and go running to help stop that situation. You sneak into the class room where the shots were fired. You see a guy with a gun. What do you do? Do you shoot him? Is he the shooter or is he another student who has a gun who is trying to kill the actual shooter? Did you shoot him already? Is he turning towards you because he heard someone come in the door? Do you shoot him now? What do you do?

It happened with Gabby Giffords, a guy with a concealed weapon came running and fortunately did not shoot the first guy he saw with a gun. Turned out the person with the gun had wrestled it away. I don't think random citizens making these split second life or death decisions is a good situation.


What I would do in that situation, as much as anyone can say what they would do in such a situation when they've never experienced anything like it, is go to the classroom and when I saw a guy with a gun in hand I would take aim at him and order him to stop and put the gun slowly on the ground and then lay down on the ground. Then I would stand there with my gun pointed at him until the police got there to sort out what happened. If he had his back turned and turned around to face me I don't believe that would be a problem, unless the gun was pointed at me as he turned, in which case I would shoot. If he started raising the gun in my direction then I would shoot him before I let him point the gun at myself or anyone else. If it turned out that it did happen to be a kid who just picked up the dropped gun and in the panic and rush ignored me and raised the gun even though he meant me no harm then it would be very unfortunate, but I wouldn't blame myself for it. It would be the fault of the original shooter. And honestly, if I was in that building at the time, I would much rather accidentally be killed as an armed student hit me while trying to take down the shooter than for let him go on killing people indiscriminately until the police were able to break in. I would imagine that the 32 dead and 17 wounded would have gladly taken the chance that a fellow student might kill them while going after Cho in exchange for the chance that he might have been stopped in the beginning.

Even in your example, the armed man acted responsibly, despite how scary and shocking it all must have been. Most gun owners are responsible in this way. These life or death decisions that you don't think citizens should be making have to be made by someone and they have to be made then. Should the gentleman with the concealed weapon at the Gabby Giffords incident have simply kept his weapon holstered and just waited on the police to get there and let the person with the gun, who he would have assumed was the murderer, do as they pleased until then? Should he have not made that life or death decision to point his weapon at someone who was holding a gun in the middle of a shooting scene to ensure that they weren't able to shoot anyone else? What if it wasn't a person who had picked it up after wrestling it away and it actually had been the shooter. Should he have not made the life and death decision and let the shooter keep making those decisions until the police got there? I don't think so.
 
2012-04-30 07:38:14 PM

MurphyMurphy: bugontherug: iq_in_binary: Warning shots are a bad idea for two reasons, first being that you have to aim away from the threat to pull them off, and second that if the threat isn't deterred by the fact you're pointing a gun at them they're likely not to be deterred by you firing a warning shot either. And that's before you take into account the possibility of collateral damage.

Warning shots are a good or bad idea depending on all the surrounding circumstances. Real life just doesn't work in the sort of black and white generalizations you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to knock you down or anything, but he is completely correct.

You pull a firearm out for one reason. If it's not the reason you are pulling it out, don't be surprised when things go tits up.

At the very least, just one hypothetical (and not an uncommon one) pulling that gun lets your assailant know you are armed, and the time you wasted firing a warning shot and looking for his reaction may be all the time he needs to draw and put one between your eyes.

Another (and I'm not suggesting this is you), people that fire a warning shot usually spook themselves into a hesitation they can (due to their actions) no longer afford.

A gun, the moment it appears, escalates a situation. It's easy to think you can use one to deescalate, and sure sometimes you might get lucky. These aren't the types of situations where you want to play your luck.

I understand what you are saying and why you think it makes sense, but reality really is that black and white. People that don't understand this are why statistics show most people with firearms in their home either end up hurting a loved on on mistake or (in the case of our hypotheticals) end up being killed with their own firearm vs saving the day with it.


I respect your point of view, but what you are saying is there are no circumstances, whatsoever, under which a warning shot is a good idea. By contrast, I'm saying "there are at least a few circumstances in which they are."
 
2012-04-30 07:55:03 PM

bugontherug: MurphyMurphy: bugontherug: iq_in_binary: Warning shots are a bad idea for two reasons, first being that you have to aim away from the threat to pull them off, and second that if the threat isn't deterred by the fact you're pointing a gun at them they're likely not to be deterred by you firing a warning shot either. And that's before you take into account the possibility of collateral damage.

Warning shots are a good or bad idea depending on all the surrounding circumstances. Real life just doesn't work in the sort of black and white generalizations you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to knock you down or anything, but he is completely correct.

You pull a firearm out for one reason. If it's not the reason you are pulling it out, don't be surprised when things go tits up.

At the very least, just one hypothetical (and not an uncommon one) pulling that gun lets your assailant know you are armed, and the time you wasted firing a warning shot and looking for his reaction may be all the time he needs to draw and put one between your eyes.

Another (and I'm not suggesting this is you), people that fire a warning shot usually spook themselves into a hesitation they can (due to their actions) no longer afford.

A gun, the moment it appears, escalates a situation. It's easy to think you can use one to deescalate, and sure sometimes you might get lucky. These aren't the types of situations where you want to play your luck.

I understand what you are saying and why you think it makes sense, but reality really is that black and white. People that don't understand this are why statistics show most people with firearms in their home either end up hurting a loved on on mistake or (in the case of our hypotheticals) end up being killed with their own firearm vs saving the day with it.

I respect your point of view, but what you are saying is there are no circumstances, whatsoever, under which a warning shot is a good idea. By contrast, I'm saying "there are at least a few circumstances in which they are."


It's not that there aren't any situations for warning shots, logically speaking, but legally speaking it's very risky. Best case scenario would be a low population area, and you fire into the dirt (not concrete or anything hard). Still, even when you're lowering the chances of the bullets going into an unintended target, you're still employing a firearm in a situation that apparently isn't immediately life threatening. We're just saying it's better not to ever fire a warning shot, because it's almost never a good idea, and you're gambling on a sympathetic cop showing up and not one that want's to charge you with anything possible. You're leaving something up to their discretion when you don't have to, and it could cost you a lot in legal fees and even your freedom.

This reminds me of some posts a few days ago (one of the Zimmerman threads I think) regarding firearms handling, and never pointing the gun at anything you want to destroy. There are some exceptions to that rule, like when it's disassembled, but it's easier to give people black and white rules to follow rather than a list of exceptions. I think the same thing applies here, it's better to say 'never fire a warning/disabling shot', rather than try to explain the very few times, if any, where it might be applicable.
 
2012-04-30 08:04:42 PM

bugontherug: I respect your point of view, but what you are saying is there are no circumstances, whatsoever, under which a warning shot is a good idea. By contrast, I'm saying "there are at least a few circumstances in which they are."


No.

"Never point your weapon at anything you do not want to destroy."

The only time you pull the trigger in a crisis is when the issue is life or death. If the issue is life or death, the only safe direction to point the muzzle of your weapon is directly at the center mass of the threat. Anything else puts everyone in range at risk.

"Know your target and what is beyond it."

When you pull the trigger, you will put a hole in something. The only acceptable somethings to put holes in are targets at the firing range or center mass of a bad guy. That bullet is going downrange and does not care what it hits.

"Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot."

If you have time for a "warning shot", then the issue is not life or death. If the issue is not life or death, keep the weapon in its holster. If the issue is life or death, warning shots are a luxury you cannot afford. At the point of a life or death decision, the only thing you should be thinking about is how best to put the bullet in center mass of the threat.

There is never a valid reason to fire a warning shot. Period. Full stop.
 
2012-04-30 08:06:50 PM

bugontherug: I respect your point of view, but what you are saying is there are no circumstances, whatsoever, under which a warning shot is a good idea. By contrast, I'm saying "there are at least a few circumstances in which they are."


This lazy defense? You go through all this time debating the value of warning shots, and you fall back with 'some incomprehensible rare amount of the time a warning shot could prove a good idea, therefore I'm right'?

Warning shots are stupid.

Of course, I'm arguing with someone who thinks they are going take out their opponent with a bullet to the knee in a life or death situation.
 
2012-04-30 08:07:54 PM

s2s2s2: vygramul: Last I checked, the law as something like 25 feet. The former cop teaching the concealed-carry course said the police might fudge a couple of feet if the guy had a machete, but not 5.

So if I'm in Virginia shoot a guy swinging a machete 30 feet from me, I should lie about where I was standing. Good to know.


Hope you remembered to police your brass. Or use a revolver.
 
2012-04-30 08:08:39 PM

balloot: Paying two people to have sex is completely legal. It's called porn. That would be the relevant analogue to my idea.


Only in some localities. Which happen not to strongly overlap with SYG states.
 
2012-04-30 08:11:31 PM

balloot: Karac: Smackledorfer: vygramul: balloot: Nothing illegal against giving people who have committed no crime whatsoever some money, right?

Selling stuff is legal - generally a good thing.

Having sex is legal - you can give it away all you want.

Selling sex is illegal.

In other words, your plan requires a little more complexity to get away with.

Right, BUUUT prostitution is illegal because there is a law making illegal. So lets edit his statement to:

Unless otherwise specified via law, there is nothing illegal about paying people to do things that they can legally do on their own.

Buuut prostitution is legal in certain counties of Nevada, just as his plan would apparently be legal in Florida and Arizona.

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

I have no doubt it would be totally legal. Prostitution is illegal because it is specifically made illegal. Otherwise, it is totally legal to compensate someone for any legal action. Yes, it is horribly distasteful, but that's the fault of retarded laws that make it legal to murder people, not because I would pay people who take advantage of the law.


Note that in common law, they don't need explicit laws.

Remember: there was no law against genocide but they tried Nazis at Nuremberg for it. The reason: "It's illegal to kill one person, how can the defendants be surprised it's illegal to kill millions?" Something analogous might put one in peril here. "It's illegal to explicitly hire someone to kill another person. How can the defendant be surprised it's illegal to incentivize 100 people to kill 100 people?"

In short, I hope you win the $5m.
 
2012-04-30 08:14:58 PM

vygramul: Note that in common law, they don't need explicit laws.

Remember: there was no law against genocide but they tried Nazis at Nuremberg for it. The reason: "It's illegal to kill one person, how can the defendants be surprised it's illegal to kill millions?" Something analogous might put one in peril here. "It's illegal to explicitly hire someone to kill another person. How can the defendant be surprised it's illegal to incentivize 100 people to kill 100 people?"

In short, I hope you win the $5m.


You're grasping hard here chief.

Genocide? Really?
 
2012-04-30 08:39:14 PM

vygramul: police your brass


wut?
 
2012-04-30 08:42:37 PM
Someone has a facebook page up.....
 
2012-04-30 08:44:54 PM

bugontherug: MurphyMurphy: bugontherug: iq_in_binary: Warning shots are a bad idea for two reasons, first being that you have to aim away from the threat to pull them off, and second that if the threat isn't deterred by the fact you're pointing a gun at them they're likely not to be deterred by you firing a warning shot either. And that's before you take into account the possibility of collateral damage.

Warning shots are a good or bad idea depending on all the surrounding circumstances. Real life just doesn't work in the sort of black and white generalizations you're trying to make.

I'm not trying to knock you down or anything, but he is completely correct.

You pull a firearm out for one reason. If it's not the reason you are pulling it out, don't be surprised when things go tits up.

At the very least, just one hypothetical (and not an uncommon one) pulling that gun lets your assailant know you are armed, and the time you wasted firing a warning shot and looking for his reaction may be all the time he needs to draw and put one between your eyes.

Another (and I'm not suggesting this is you), people that fire a warning shot usually spook themselves into a hesitation they can (due to their actions) no longer afford.

A gun, the moment it appears, escalates a situation. It's easy to think you can use one to deescalate, and sure sometimes you might get lucky. These aren't the types of situations where you want to play your luck.

I understand what you are saying and why you think it makes sense, but reality really is that black and white. People that don't understand this are why statistics show most people with firearms in their home either end up hurting a loved on on mistake or (in the case of our hypotheticals) end up being killed with their own firearm vs saving the day with it.

I respect your point of view, but what you are saying is there are no circumstances, whatsoever, under which a warning shot is a good idea. By contrast, I'm saying "there are at least a few circum ...


And you're trying to say that we are 60-gun Galleons hailing to port every time we get into an altercation. That is literally the only time a warning shot is acceptable, when you're a god damned cannon wielding vessel in the middle of the farking ocean.

As a civilian, carrying a firearm, and employing that firearm in a legal manner in states that allow for it, THERE IS NO TIME WHERE A WARNING SHOT IS APPROPRIATE OR A GOOD IDEA. You are either recklessly endangering your neighbors, or illegally discharging a firearm. There is no middle ground. There is no "level of dangerousness," there is no situation where a "warning" or "wounding" shot is appropriate or a good idea. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. I'm not just some random ITG, ok, I'm the guy that gets your ass out of the fire when you end up in a self defense shooting, either by investigating it myself or testifying to the validity of the information I'm trying to pound into your incessant little skull as we speak. There are lawyers that pay me their own rate to pick my brains about cases involving guns or self defense. Ever hear of Miller V Scalia? Doc Miller is a buddy of mine.

You're farking wrong dude, and you're being told so by as close to an authority on the subject as you're going to get unless you pay Massad Ayoob to come in here and educate the thread.
 
2012-04-30 09:01:41 PM

Smackledorfer: vygramul: Note that in common law, they don't need explicit laws.

Remember: there was no law against genocide but they tried Nazis at Nuremberg for it. The reason: "It's illegal to kill one person, how can the defendants be surprised it's illegal to kill millions?" Something analogous might put one in peril here. "It's illegal to explicitly hire someone to kill another person. How can the defendant be surprised it's illegal to incentivize 100 people to kill 100 people?"

In short, I hope you win the $5m.

You're grasping hard here chief.

Genocide? Really?


It was an example of the common law system - which the US uses. I'm not saying you're genocidal. Calm down.
 
2012-04-30 09:04:45 PM
If only the dog had been armed.
 
2012-04-30 09:06:14 PM

s2s2s2: vygramul: police your brass

wut?


Don't litter by not picking up your spent shells.
 
2012-04-30 09:44:33 PM

vygramul: It was an example of the common law system - which the US uses


Which means absolutely nothing in this context. If I said, its legal to pay someone to eat an apple, would your response be to first point out the difference between legal sex and illegal prostitution, and then a fallback to "well, commonlaw can make anything illegal, just look at the Nuremberg trials"

So ya, you're really stretching on this one.
 
2012-04-30 10:44:02 PM

2wolves: s2s2s2: vygramul: police your brass

wut?

Don't litter by not picking up your spent shells.


Glad I didn't assume that was a typo for "polish".
 
2012-04-30 10:50:14 PM

Lunaville: MurphyMurphy: I say this as a veteran, a gun owner and a reasonably intelligent man with a Christian upbringing:

God damn America.

/we are getting everything our war mongering hypocritical society deserves.
//It's heartbreaking that young men like this victim have to pay the cost for the world that created cowards like the shooter

You're upset. You don't mean that. You don't really want America to be damned and you know it.

If you believe in a higher power, hold America in the light; pray that America may be granted healing and wisdom.


Oh fark off Christf@g.
 
2012-04-30 10:58:45 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.


God damn are you an autistic piece of shiat. Having the same problem myself, I can state that definitively.
 
2012-04-30 11:02:08 PM
You're in a METAL BOX! Trigger happy farks.
 
2012-04-30 11:19:40 PM

2wolves: If only the dog had been armed.


It's a good thing for the shooter that it wasn't. If he had shot a dog that wasn't attacking him he might have gotten arrested for animal cruelty.
 
2012-04-30 11:33:00 PM

mrshowrules: EWreckedSean: 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.

So these States want to err on the side of an innocent person getting killed rather than an innocent person challenged in court?


Which one strains their budget more?

Thought so.
 
2012-04-30 11:59:34 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: 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.


i.qkme.me
 
2012-05-01 01:29:15 AM

Smackledorfer: vygramul: It was an example of the common law system - which the US uses

Which means absolutely nothing in this context. If I said, its legal to pay someone to eat an apple, would your response be to first point out the difference between legal sex and illegal prostitution, and then a fallback to "well, commonlaw can make anything illegal, just look at the Nuremberg trials"

So ya, you're really stretching on this one.


You're right. There's absolutely no reason to think offering people $50k to shoot someone as a demonstration that the SYG laws might be illegal. None whatsoever. Sounds reasonable.
 
2012-05-01 02:33:25 AM
Having now read the entire thread, I found it interesting that several people mentioned the old guy in Florida was in the right, to support how these SYG are reasonable.

I find this interesting because, while the man was justified in the use of force in that (unfortunate) situation, he was not protected because of SYG because 1) he was in his home and thus covered under Castle doctrine, and 2) SYG Hadn't been written yet.

I have appreciated all of the reasonable discussion in this thread, but it seems to me that most of the rational support of SYG type laws is actually instead support for improved prosecutorial oversite, which would resolve the evidently very few situations of people defending themselves being charged with murder by overzealous DAs, without requiring legislation completely removing the obligation to avoid a dangerous situation if doing so is safely possible.

I also wholeheartedly support private gun ownership, even CCW, provided there exists prerequisite training in firearms safety and appropriate usage, so while anybody might be carrying, anyone who IS is doing so safely and correctly.
 
2012-05-01 10:31:08 AM

runin800m: It seems to me that the minimum societal standard before firing is that you reasonably believed your life


Again, that's the thing, "reasonably" is quite different between people. To some, a dark skinned dude wearing a hoodie in a white neighborhood might be a reasonable reason to believe your life is in danger. I have no faith in others ability to be reasonable when it comes to life and death decisions.

runin800m: As for standing their ground, when a person believes that their life is in immediate danger from another person, and it is reasonable that they would believe this under the circumstances, I expect them to withhold the use of deadly force only until they believe that it's necessary to ensure their protection.


You expect that but the law and the courts do not. That's the whole point of my disagreement. I completely agree with you but the law does not.

runin800m: It would be the fault of the original shooter.


I agree with your assessment. But your assertion was we are safer with people carrying guns around. In the scenario described, you killed the innocent person holding the shooter at bay. Not only is one more innocent person dead but the original shooter is now freed. In the scenario described, you having a gun made things worse.

runin800m: Even in your example, the armed man acted responsibly, despite how scary and shocking it all must have been.


He absolutely did. He is the poster child for why we should allow concealed carry. I'm contending not very many people would have the restraint he did. I'm contending if you take that scenario population wide, you'll get a lot of people making the wrong choice and another innocent person dead. Thus my whole - only people trained appropriately should be carrying guns for protection out in public.

runin800m: Should the gentleman with the concealed weapon at the Gabby Giffords incident have simply kept his weapon holstered and just waited on the police to get there and let the person with the gun, who he would have assumed was the murderer, do as they pleased until then?


So you think a gun is the only way to defend yourself? That's silly.

runin800m: Should he have not made the life and death decision and let the shooter keep making those decisions until the police got there? I don't think so.


You know how the shooter was finally stopped? He had to reload. These shooters do not have unlimited ammunition and firepower. There are ways to stop them that do not require a gun. Letting people carry guns on a University campus does not make it safer. You know why VTech was such a tragedy? Because that stuff happening is relatively rare. You want to stop VTech from happening again? Hire more campus security, people trained to make life/death decisions. Because I agree with you, having a properly trained person with a gun nearby would definitely be the best solution to reducing the magnitude of these tragedies. But having people with no training whatsoever carrying guns around on campus doesn't make it any safer.
 
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