Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.

Your whole post is correct except for this part, which underlies the rest of your post.

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.

If Zimmerman had just driven home at that point he would be fine, Martin would have been picked up by the police and let go after a brief questioning, and no-one would have been hurt.

Thats a question of fact actually. Zimmerman says he turned around once the 911 operator said they didn't need him to do that. The fact the incident occurred in front of Zimmerna's truck supports his statement.

It also has nothing to do with enforcing a valid self defense claim. If Zimmernan was attacked there, at the truck, or at Taco Bell, he then has the right to self defense. As long as Zimmerman was not completing an illegal act he's good.

Again no god damn difference.

EDIT: thats not correct, just being in Taco Bell gives you the right of self defense. A person should be presumed automatically to have a reasonable fear of his life from Taco Bell's menu. NOW WITH MORE CAT!

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.

All you are really saying here is "don't talk to the cops." how many 911 calls do we hear on the news? You'd think people would learn.

Frazzled wrote:

It also has nothing to do with enforcing a valid self defense claim. If Zimmernan was attacked there, at the truck, or at Taco Bell, he then has the right to self defense. As long as Zimmerman was not completing an illegal act he's good.

That would usually be true. The direction I assume this will take is that him following Martin constituted a provocation which removes the ability to claim self defense; then it will be a trial about murder. Even in gun toting, Tom Brokaw scaring, Wild West AZ you can't egg someone into a fight and then shoot him in self defense.

AustonT wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.

All you are really saying here is "don't talk to the cops." how many 911 calls do we hear on the news? You'd think people would learn.

Frazzled wrote:

It also has nothing to do with enforcing a valid self defense claim. If Zimmernan was attacked there, at the truck, or at Taco Bell, he then has the right to self defense. As long as Zimmerman was not completing an illegal act he's good.

That would usually be true. The direction I assume this will take is that him following Martin constituted a provocation which removes the ability to claim self defense; then it will be a trial about murder. Even in gun toting, Tom Brokaw scaring, Wild West AZ you can't egg someone into a fight and then shoot him in self defense.

Actually you can. I can stand there and give you a 5 year old's hienie dance, NY salute, and even the dreaded macarena. under the law, unless I am otherwise violating the law you cannot then attack me.

I'm just wondering if it would make sense, that if you are going to organize a neighborhood watch, that you might want to have a buddy system, instead of playing lone ranger?

GG

I think that common sense would have prevented many of the events in this particular case.

generalgrog wrote:I'm just wondering if it would make sense, that if you are going to organize a neighborhood watch, that you might want to have a buddy system, instead of playing lone ranger?

So Lone Ranger and Tanto?

It's a good suggestion as long as one of the buddies is a reasonable person.

Troy wrote:Actually you can. I can stand there and give you a 5 year old's hienie dance, NY salute, and even the dreaded macarena. under the law, unless I am otherwise violating the law you cannot then attack me.

Provocation has a specific meaning. The things you're describing don't constitute provocation.

Provocative speech isn't always unlawful speech.

Seaward wrote:
I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

There's also evidence to support the absence of said effect.

Pretending its somehow a clean cut issue is just nonsense.

Seaward wrote:
What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.

Zimmerman?

But, trolling aside, that a contentious issue is viewed as contentious, or that people are taking sides regarding it, is shocking to you speaks pretty clearly to your inability to remove yourself from the consideration of said issue.

biccat wrote:

Troy wrote:Actually you can. I can stand there and give you a 5 year old's hienie dance, NY salute, and even the dreaded macarena. under the law, unless I am otherwise violating the law you cannot then attack me.

Provocation has a specific meaning. The things you're describing don't constitute provocation.

Provocative speech isn't always unlawful speech.

The New star wars movies are better than the original movies.

Me: *Shoots *

Judge: Completely justified. Case dismissed.

The thing that really bothers me about this is the whole "felt threatened" issue. I might get into an argument with someone, it gets heated, he shoves me, I stumble back, now pissed, I glare at him looking like a murderous psycopath(its just my angry face), he gets scared, shoots me before I can do anything, I'm dead, the only witnesses see two men in a scuffle, he claims self-defense, gets off scott-free. These "stand-your-ground" laws are too vague and cheapen human life, the act of taking a human life is the most heinous of crimes for a reason, and should only be legal if there is imminant danger to you or another person, where no other choice to survive exists.

So don't get into an argument with somebody and control your emotions enough not to give people glares of death.

Your right, clearly I should be a doormat because anyone I disagree with can shoot me because they felt threatened, oh wait, how about about I buy a gun and anytime someone gives me lip I show off my .45 and if thye get within 10ft of me I shoot them dead. Problem solved.

Well, seeing how you are already showing a temper, talking about felony branding, and shooting people for no good reason...

It sounds like you are exactly the kind of person you are afraid off.

Alternately, he is employing rhetoric.

Seaward wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Seaward wrote:
There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.

America must have the lowest crime rate in the developed world then, especially violent crime.

What makes you say that? The percentage of the population that concealed carries is quite low.

Compared to the average in the rest of the developed world? It's much higher. In most countries it's not even an option for the average citizen.

I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian. And what's worse, there are people that are not only defending it, but that actually seem to be quite smug about it. It's an awful, paranoid, middle-ages law.

I'll take restrictions on hate-speech and verbal harrassment over turning the streets into the fething wild-west any day of the week. You can keep your idealism, I'll keep my life.

The problem is that is appears that most people think that simply saying "I felt threatened" is a free pass kill anybody you like.

If you shoot somebody in self defense, you will usually be a subject until the police or DA is satisfied that the facts back up your claim of self defense.

Statistics will show that the vast majority of wild-west type shootings are conducted by people who are carrying unlawfully anyway.

d-usa wrote:The problem is that is appears that most people think that simply saying "I felt threatened" is a free pass kill anybody you like.

Including you? You just implied that giving someone a 'glare of death' would be enough to seal the deal.

^That's the point though, people aren't stable creatures, we are slaves to our emotions, on Monday a guy might be in a great mood while buying gas, so he doesn't mind that someone cut him off at the pump, on Friday he might not have slept well, might be under-threat of being laid-off at work etc so when someone cuts him off at the gas pump, he gets mad and shouts at them for cutting him off an approaches them.

The person feels scared, now, under stand your ground, he can shoot the man because he feels scared, he'd heard about the law passing months earlier and so has his gun on him incase something happens, he reacts and now a man is dead. Meanwhile, without stand you ground, the man isn't as careless with his firearm, he could go to jail, so he hesitates, the pissed man yells, some more, then goes back to his car. Incident over. Now, if the pissed guy was swinging an axe in his hand, approaching the scared guy, then he'd be able to claim self-defense. See the difference?

Evidence seems to suggest that a legal situation like they have in Florida results in a lot more killings being considered "justifiable homicide".

In principle I actually agree with Seaward that a person should be able to employ deadly force when necessary without resulting in automatic jail time or severe financial repercussions. But it does seem like Florida's law and/or their specific implementation of that law has taken the idea a bit too far.

Exalted is right - this law basically amounts to killing another person over what MIGHT happen. That's paranoid.

And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".

I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.

I'm getting a "pretty girls shouldn't walk on streets downtown" vibe from this thread.

Manchu wrote:I'm getting a "pretty girls shouldn't walk on streets downtown" vibe from this thread.

But then it'll be a sausage fest :(

d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".

That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.

I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.

Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?

d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".

I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.

I'm not saying you can't defend yourself D, but you also have a responsibility as a human being to do as much as possible to not end a life. To not act on pride, on anger or impulse. For every story about someone sucessfully defending themselves with a gun, there are dozens more where it only made things worse, not to mention accident, mis-fires and children killing themselves or their friends, a self-defense art like Krav Maga is MUCH more effective in the real-world.

Albatross wrote:

d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".

That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.

People can use anything as a murder defense, that doesn't mean that it will be a successful defense though.

I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.

Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?

As soon as you can recommend an area where I am 100% risk free of ever being attacked, then I will gladly turn over my weapons.

I live in a pretty nice part of Oklahoma City. But even houses in nice areas get broken into. I work in a rough area downtown, and much can happen on my way to and from work.

Do you always wear your seatbelt to keep you safe? You must be a pretty horrible driver if you do. Have you considered taking a cab with a better driver?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Exalted Pariah wrote:

d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".

I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.

I'm not saying you can't defend yourself D, but you also have a responsibility as a human being to do as much as possible to not end a life. To not act on pride, on anger or impulse.

And anybody who shoots somebody based on pride, anger, or impulse deserves to rot in jail. None of these emotions have anything to do with self defense. People can act on these same emotions and use a car to run somebody over.

Exalted Pariah wrote:

d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".

I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.

I'm not saying you can't defend yourself D, but you also have a responsibility as a human being to do as much as possible to not end a life. To not act on pride, on anger or impulse. For every story about someone sucessfully defending themselves with a gun, there are dozens more where it only made things worse, not to mention accident, mis-fires and children killing themselves or their friends, a self-defense art like Krav Maga is MUCH more effective in the real-world.

Justifiable Homicide is governed on a reasonable person standard. No reasonable person feels thier life is threatened by a look. Niether are pride, anger, or impulse reasonable justification for self deffence: that's called motive not justification. But by all means continue to rant on about how easy it is to kill someone under SYG without bothering to check how it works. In fact there's actually a clause in SYG that says if you are white and own a firearm you can shoot anyone else with impunity, especially if you don't like thier face.

d-usa wrote:

As soon as you can recommend an area where I am 100% risk free of ever being attacked, then I will gladly turn over my weapons.

Do you have any idea how cranky and paranoid that sounds? I can't imagine what it must be like to be that fearful of my fellow human beings.

Do you always wear your seatbelt to keep you safe? You must be a pretty horrible driver if you do. Have you considered taking a cab with a better driver?

That's a horrible analogy. You don't carry a gun in case someone accidentally shoots you. Do you wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go?

And all of a sudden we're not talking about 'Stand Your Ground' (or 'Stand and Fight', as it probably should be more accurately titled...) any more. Why?