"I'm locked and loaded and going outside to secure my neighborhood"...Zimmerman has a soulmate

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.

**Prestor Jon**

nkelsch wrote:
Being a Jury of his peers, all it takes is one 'peer' who thinks like he does where his gun rights matter, his house matters, his neighborhood matters and the victim probably deserved it in some way and this guy will never be convicted.

In North Carolina, It will be fairly easy to find at least one juror who will see reasonable doubt or believe some sort of justification.

The DA is confident enough to charge the guy with first degree murder. It's a rather strong case. Barring the introduction of new evidence that hasn't been reported in yet the guy will get convicted. This case has nothing to do with gun rights. It would a big shock to the community if a Wake County jury let this guy off for specious reasons that are wholly detached from the actual laws governing the incident.

**nkelsch**

Prestor Jon wrote:

The DA is confident enough to charge the guy with first degree murder. It's a rather strong case. Barring the introduction of new evidence that hasn't been reported in yet the guy will get convicted. This case has nothing to do with gun rights. It would a big shock to the community if a Wake County jury let this guy off for specious reasons that are wholly detached from the actual laws governing the incident.

I will believe it when I see it.

**Prestor Jon**

nkelsch wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

The DA is confident enough to charge the guy with first degree murder. It's a rather strong case. Barring the introduction of new evidence that hasn't been reported in yet the guy will get convicted. This case has nothing to do with gun rights. It would a big shock to the community if a Wake County jury let this guy off for specious reasons that are wholly detached from the actual laws governing the incident.

I will believe it when I see it.

Ok.

Not sure why you think Wake county is full of people that acquit murderers because of misconceptions about gun laws.

**Frazzled**

I am guessing he's a Yankee. Its ok, they can't help themselves.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
I am guessing he's a Yankee. Its ok, they can't help themselves.

Did you really call out "elitism" in one post, then engage in it in the very next one?!

**jmurph**

nkelsch wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

The DA is confident enough to charge the guy with first degree murder. It's a rather strong case. Barring the introduction of new evidence that hasn't been reported in yet the guy will get convicted. This case has nothing to do with gun rights. It would a big shock to the community if a Wake County jury let this guy off for specious reasons that are wholly detached from the actual laws governing the incident.

I will believe it when I see it.

Fortunately, there is this thing called "voir dire" where the judge and attorneys get to kick out people who won't follow the law. Also fortunate is that people usually don't like murderers, even if said people like guns.

But my guess is this never goes to trial and he pleads to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Frazzled wrote:
I like the casual disparagement of an entire state. No elitism there...

We all know you only believe in disparaging an entire state when it's California.

**Frazzled**

feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I am guessing he's a Yankee. Its ok, they can't help themselves.

Did you really call out "elitism" in one post, then engage in it in the very next one?!

We all know you only believe in disparaging an entire state when it's California.

And the radioactive mutie zone that is New Mexico!

**d-usa**

What about the windy flatlands of Oklahoma?

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:

And the radioactive mutie zone that is New Mexico!

Everything I know about New Mexico comes from The Hills Have Eyes and Breaking Bad.

I assume they are documentaries.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
What about the windy flatlands of Oklahoma?

Oklahoma is flat, like plate glass fact. Thats not a criticism though.

Everything I know about New Mexico comes from The Hills Have Eyes and Breaking Bad.

I assume they are documentaries.

Those are marketing pieces by their tourism board to get you to come. When even hardened Deathworld defiant Australians run screaming, you know something is amiss.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: I should add why that is stupid.
1. often in a self defense situation you are reacting not acting.
2. If you are not reacting and there is an imminent threat then that imminent threat is, well imminent. Its not Hollywood. You have no plot armor here. If someone is trying to kill you they are trying to kill you and may well succeed.

Not every immanent threat is "they are lunging at you with a knife right now!" Or indeed a deadly threat. If someone comes at you threateningly, and don't have a gun of their own, your first response shouldn't be to shoot them. Point it at them and tell them to back off. If they are actively trying to kill you, sure I'd call that a justified response, but that's a pretty specific thing

Its not about the stuff in the house. Its about the people in the house. The castle doctrine essentially says-based on horrific actual NY court cases-that you have no duty to retreat from your own home.

And I think that's stupid. As long as all the people are safe, get the feth out of there. Your crap isn't worth a human life.

And therein is the problem- the "just" part is the problem.

And if they aren't out yet, than stay. I'm not arguing against that. But don't try and confront them.

**Frazzled**

ot every immanent threat is "they are lunging at you with a knife right now!" Or indeed a deadly threat. If someone comes at you threateningly, and don't have a gun of their own, your first response shouldn't be to shoot them. Point it at them and tell them to back off. If they are actively trying to kill you, sure I'd call that a justified response, but that's a pretty specific thing

YOU SAID EVERY TIME. If our old stalker appeared we would have consider him a threat and stop as fast as we could draw or else we would have been dead.

Its not about the stuff in the house. Its about the people in the house. The castle doctrine essentially says-based on horrific actual NY court cases-that you have no duty to retreat from your own home.

And I think that's stupid. As long as all the people are safe, get the feth out of there. Your crap isn't worth a human life.

You’re missing the entire point. ALL THE PEOPLE AREN’T SAFE, and you’re exposing them all by trying to get them out of there. That’s why the law is there now. You’re again equating it with things. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with mere things.

And if they aren't out yet, than stay. I'm not arguing against that. But don't try and confront them.

And I’ve not advocated –nor do I think anyone has on this thread-confronting people. I have no desire to clean up the after effects of empty a tube of buckshot shells into a person. Set them on fire with a flamethrower sure, but who hasn’t…erp did I say too much…

**Kilkrazy**

There is no duty to retreat from one's house in the UK. I'm not sure there are any countries at all where a person in their own house has a legal duty to retreat from a trespasser/burglar/intruder.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no duty to retreat from one's house in the UK. I'm not sure there are any countries at all where a person in their own house has a legal duty to retreat from a trespasser/burglar/intruder.

NYC

**Ouze**

New York City does not have a duty to retreat from your home.

**Frazzled**

It did. I read cases about it in criminal law. Thats why the doctrine was started in other locations.

EDIT: correction-NY state
http://volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#States_with_weak_or_no_specific_castle_law

**Ouze**

Sure, I'm just saying it does not currently.

I bet I can find a venue where you do have a duty to retreat even from your own home when I get home and I'm not on my phone.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
It did. I read cases about it in criminal law. Thats why the doctrine was started in other locations

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.20_35.20.html

eh... looks like defacto Castle Doctrine to me:

1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.

2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.

So, for arson and burglary, deadly force can be used...

Looks like you cannot use deadly force for trespass or other property damage though.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no duty to retreat from one's house in the UK. I'm not sure there are any countries at all where a person in their own house has a legal duty to retreat from a trespasser/burglar/intruder.

In the US, each state is different, and some did have 'duty to retreat' until relatively recently. Sometimes the 'duty to retreat' was case law instead of legislated. A handful still do not have solid castle doctrine laws and rely on case law precedence for which there are variable results. And to be clear, by 'duty to retreat' I mean one cannot use force if one has the ability to retreat. Doing so opens you up to criminal and civil liability.

**Frazzled**

Indeed. The laws changed in many states some time ago, and it was in reference to cases that occurred.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
I read

I don't believe you!

**cuda1179**

feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I am guessing he's a Yankee. Its ok, they can't help themselves.

Did you really call out "elitism" in one post, then engage in it in the very next one?!

Don't you know? Reverse elitism doesn't exist and isn't a really thing.....or so the logic goes.

**Frazzled**

cuda1179 wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I am guessing he's a Yankee. Its ok, they can't help themselves.

Did you really call out "elitism" in one post, then engage in it in the very next one?!

Don't you know? Reverse elitism doesn't exist and isn't a really thing.....or so the logic goes.

Where I come from, Yankee was a term of endearment. It meant you weren't going to disappear later in a bayou.

Its ok. I married a Yankee, although she's made absolutely no promises about me not disappearing in a bayou. in fact she reminds me with "keep it up old man..."

**cuda1179**

As far as the Castle doctrine goes, If there is some shady guy breaking into my home I don't know what he wants: If I clearly see he has no weapon and isn't near my kids, yeah, I'd just call the cops. That's pretty low on the chances of happening though. If a guy pops up within 15 feet of me and is even slightly aggressive, it's self defense time. If he makes a move towards my kids' room, self defense. Has a weapon out (regardless of if he knows I'm there or not), self defense. Considering that the majority of home invasions in the US had two or more intruders this makes it even more likely that I'm either in actual danger or feel like I am.

I'm also a follower of "if you feel the need to shoot once, you best be shooting twice". I'm there to survive, not be merciful. If I feel someone just tried to attack me with enough force to justify deadly force, then that force WILL be deadly.

**Kilkrazy**

Here are some stats on "home invasion".

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

There are many interesting facts.

**cuda1179**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Here are some stats on "home invasion".

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

There are many interesting facts.

Wow, that was an interesting read. From what I gather, if you are a poor single mother, under 19, are Native American, and live in a rented mobile home with between 2 and 10 other trailers around you, then you should just expect a few guys stealing your stuff every year.

**Kilkrazy**

I was interested by the fact that 2/3rds of home invaders are known to the victim (i.e. friends, family or neighbours.) Also that only 12% of home invaders are armed with guns.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I was interested by the fact that 2/3rds of home invaders are known to the victim (i.e. friends, family or neighbours.)

Probably in most cases its angry ex-partners.

**Peregrine**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I was interested by the fact that 2/3rds of home invaders are known to the victim (i.e. friends, family or neighbours.)

Edit: let's try this again.

You're making a bit of a mistake here. The victim knows the attacker in 65% of the cases where a violent crime (in addition to the home invasion itself) was committed. In non-violent burglaries it's only 30%. I suspect the answer here is that the situation is more likely to escalate to violence when the victim and attacker know each other because it's personal and someone needs to be hurt for this, while a random stranger's highest priority when confronted mid-burglary by an angry home owner is much more likely to be "get out asap without being identified".