|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:43 am Post subject: D.G.U.: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE |
 |
|
| Dox47 wrote: | Just for Simon_Says, I'm reposting this from the other thread for his perusing convenience, as it answers many of the questions he keeps asking me and puts to rest a lot of misinterpretations and such. You're welcome.
David Kopel takes a more in depth look at Florida's self defense laws and their applicability to this case:
http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/#more-57774 |
Hi Dox47,
Ditto to double.....
IMO, David Kopel makes fundamental errors of assumptions & errors in logic & law here.
Also, the very short shrift given to Martin's own coverage of the "Stand Your Ground" Laws invalidates "equal protection under law", as the victim had better foundation for "reasonable" fear of deadly threat (so reasonable and real, that it was actualized by the potential defendant into the victim's death).
When neither of two people were beforehand engaged in a forceful felony, each one are covered by the gamut of the self-defense laws when reasonable threats are mutually detected triggering mutual actions of self defense. Shooting a person engaged in self defense under the statues does not clearly indicate to the person engaged in the legal self defense against the person reasonably perceived as posing a deadly threat, that the shooter desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force!!!
Also, especially since the "duty to retreat" was superseded by the new law into the right to "Stand Your Ground", the victim had no duty to retreat without clear perceivable indication that the person posing the perceived threat wished to retreat without further displayed/perceived threats of violence. Discharging a firearm into the body of the person making a reasonably founded physical defense, is not a clear indication of a desire to retreat without violence.
Tadzio
As a side-note, as it will probably come up soon, in Joseph Heller's "Catch-22", calling "Help, Help, Police!!!" was an indication of two possibilities that reasonable witnesses could not discern between, in that the person calling may have wanted protection from the police through others, or may have wanted protection from others through the police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: Dox47 Just Having Fun With His Changeable Sense of Reality? |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | simon_says wrote: | | The NRA is behind a lot these pushes. They arent shy about it. Maybe you feel that if you line up enough words you can change reality. Good luck with that. |
Did I say the NRA was not behind anything? What I said was "what does it matter?". See, I tend to evaluate ideas independently of their source and partisan alignment; I don't care who came up with the idea, only whether or not it's a good one. You on the other hand, seem to think that the mere presence of the NRA somehow "taints" the idea, though the exact mechanism you seem to be imagining is illusive to me.
Also, I can change reality with my words; it's called persuasion, lobbying and activism. Here though, I'm just having fun.
| simon_says wrote: | | For reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. You choose to ignore it. Again, good luck. |
Can you not tell the difference between ignoring something and disputing it? For a guy who keeps insisting that none of this means anything, you're sure being stubborn about playing out your (willful?) misunderstanding of self defense law (see my handy posts explaining it all in both TM threads).
| simon_says wrote: | | Gun users and self-defense invokers should not get special rights. |
Who said anything about "special rights"? I asked you if you thought that people wrongfully prosecuted over self defense incidents should have to pay their own legal fees or be reimbursed by the state, and you said yes. I asked if you really meant that using plainer language, and you deflect with this "special rights" distraction. SYG and other self defense shield laws are universally applicable, no one is getting anything anyone else isn't and that kind of kills your idea of "special" right there.
Hmm, "special rights" that apply to everyone? Sounds an awful lot like the conservative objection to gay marriage, doesn't it?
| simon_says wrote: | | Again we come back to the different views of justice. And the NRA was behind this law. That's just a fact. I'm sorry if you find it upsetting in some way. |
Indeed, and apparently yours really does include a rush to satisfy emotions before the facts are in, as I've given you multiple chances to clarify and all. And (yet) again, I've never disputed that the NRA has been involved in pushing for liberalized gun laws and self defense related legislation, it's sorta what they do. The point is that I. Don't. Care. CATO could propose some stupid idea tomorrow and it would still be a stupid idea even though it came from people I tend to like and agree with, while the KKK could come up with a great idea that wouldn't be made any less great by it's odious originator. Maybe in your world an idea's merit is partially derived from who came up with it, but it isn't in mine.
| simon_says wrote: | | What are you doing with your guns if not playing with them? You are a hobbyist mate, not Paul Revere . Have fun. I just don't see why you need special rights to use them on others and get away with it. |
*sighs* Where to start... Now if I said I was "playing with my guns" I'd have people down my throat about how I'm not treating deadly weapons seriously, but when I take them seriously I get the likes of you telling me I've got some sort of Rambo complex. Maybe you should accept that you clearly know nothing about guns and that you know less than nothing about me personally and what I happen to do with them.
I'm a gunsmith, friendo, Colorado School of Trades class of 2004, which makes me a professional when it comes to firearms and their handling, and much of what I do with them is fix and tune them, in addition to my own sport shooting and habitual carry.
I don't harbor any ideas about the British monarchy getting in my face, but I do take responsibility for my own security and that of my family, a responsibility I take very seriously. I don't roam the neighborhood looking for trouble, I don't try and put myself in dangerous situations, but I do know that if one of those situations should find me that I'm equipped and prepared to give myself the best chance of coming out OK.
I think I adequately addressed your "special rights" red herring above, but feel free to peruse the excellent David Kopel piece I'm posting to this and the other thread, *just for you*.
| simon_says wrote: | | What possible research could I do that would convince you of anything? Zimmermans' lawyer is planning on using SYG. Said so in an interview. The state attorney has said that SYG is a problem and may be a bar to prosecution. Maybe they are both crazy. Maybe youve successfully typed enough words on your keyboard and a genie came out and changed all that. Alakazam! |
Evidently *you* aren't likely to do any productive research period, so I guess I should just lower my expectations when "debating" with you and think of it more as a Larry King softball questions sort of experience.
As to the rest, you seem to be missing the entire "is there actually something to prosecute here?" boat. If there is something to prosecute, the law will not get in the way (read that David Kopel), and if there's nothing there, then I'm glad they can't try to slap a charge on someone just to please the media and the horde.
Also, if you're going to employ the "why are you typing so much/it won't change anything" tactic, you need to shut up yourself or it doesn't have the same impact. Don't worry, we've got the thread covered without your... contributions. |
Hi Dox47,
Your mumbo jumbo of:
"See, I tend to evaluate ideas independently of their source and partisan alignment; I don't care who came up with the idea, only whether or not it's a good one," sounds like you might trust fortune cookies more than your doctor
And your criticizing solid referencing, followed by repeated mumbo jumbo of:
"Evidently *you* aren't likely to do any productive research period, so I guess I should just lower my expectations when "debating" with you and think of it more as a Larry King softball questions sort of experience," coupled with your not caring for sources of research, sounds like......
With the other blather, makes for sources of arrogance like you got yourself covered in something not of skills & knowledge, while you are self-contradicting your own legend in your own mind of harboring fleeting ideas worthy of repeated expressions. You don't care were an idea originated from, with the implied foundation of related knowledge in any non-fiction??? You certainly make Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" sound like a work of non-fiction compared to your proclamations about your words & ideas here. You are presently sober (March 28, 2012, 2:15 AM PDT, USA)???
Your contention of "SYG and other self defense shield laws are universally applicable", indicates you are mis-perceiving much.
The bad weather interrupting continuous internet connection, so sorry for poor editing
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not much information here. I am still inclined to believe that Zimmerman is guilty until there is more convincing evidence. I mean one guy is dead, one guy is alive, I would like to see more evidence other than an eyewitness account.
Also how do we know that Treyvon didn't feel threatened himself by having some follow him?
Not too sure about this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | As to the rest, you seem to be missing the entire "is there actually something to prosecute here?" boat. If there is something to prosecute, the law will not get in the way (read that David Kopel), and if there's nothing there, then I'm glad they can't try to slap a charge on someone just to please the media and the horde. |
A) That's a blog post written by an NRA member and attorney (practicing?) who is a gun rights advocate. He's entitled to his opinion but it doesnt jibe with what working prosecutors within the state of Florida have said about the bar to prosecution and it's various problems. I assume his motive is your own, He's concerned that SYG will be repealed or modififed and so he's downplaying it's practical effects.
B) The law has gotten in the way of previous prosecutions and let people that cops and prosecutors wanted to charge escape the net. Several of those cases have been posted here. Whether it will prevent prosecution here remains unknown.
C) it goes without saying that this is an internet forum, not a courtroom. I'm not sure that anyone was confused about that. All we can do is discuss available information.
What we know is that Zimmerman was previously charged with battery on a cop and resisting arrest. It was pled down and finally expunged from his record. We know he was accused of domestic violence by a girlfriend and that he had a restraining order taken out against him. We know he patrolled the neighborhood with a gun and finally pursued and killed Martin. We don't know who started the fight but only one of the two had a paper trail of violence. And we know that the detective didnt believe his story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John_Browning
ON A LIST SOMEWHERE
Joined: Mar 23, 2009
Posts: 4456
Location: The shooting range
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: DGU: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE |
|
|
| Tadzio wrote: | | In your projected gun trigger-happy school lessons, has anyone hinted to you that when when two people happen to encounter each other, that doesn't make one of them a felonious criminal, even if both of the individuals happen to be paranoid schizophrenics carrying heat??? |
That's a straw-man argument. Paranoid schizophrenics can legally own guns and, get a concealed handgun license, federal firearms license, and even own NFA items if they do not fall into any of the prohibited categories. It would be very hard for a paranoid schizophrenic to avoid being prohibited from having firearms UNLESS they had a very effective treatment regimen and adhered to it religiously. Properly treated schizophrenics are less likely than the average person to start a violent confrontation, and the odds of 2 armed but treated schizophrenic strangers running into a conflict with each other is unlikely to the point of absurdity. You need to lay off the local news and slasher movies.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5344
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: Dox47 Just Having Fun With His Changeable Sense of Reali |
|
|
| Tadzio wrote: | Hi Dox47,
Your mumbo jumbo of:
"See, I tend to evaluate ideas independently of their source and partisan alignment; I don't care who came up with the idea, only whether or not it's a good one," sounds like you might trust fortune cookies more than your doctor
And your criticizing solid referencing, followed by repeated mumbo jumbo of:
"Evidently *you* aren't likely to do any productive research period, so I guess I should just lower my expectations when "debating" with you and think of it more as a Larry King softball questions sort of experience," coupled with your not caring for sources of research, sounds like......
With the other blather, makes for sources of arrogance like you got yourself covered in something not of skills & knowledge, while you are self-contradicting your own legend in your own mind of harboring fleeting ideas worthy of repeated expressions. You don't care were an idea originated from, with the implied foundation of related knowledge in any non-fiction??? You certainly make Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" sound like a work of non-fiction compared to your proclamations about your words & ideas here. You are presently sober (March 28, 2012, 2:15 AM PDT, USA)???
Your contention of "SYG and other self defense shield laws are universally applicable", indicates you are mis-perceiving much.
The bad weather interrupting continuous internet connection, so sorry for poor editing
Tadzio |
You know what? "Mumbo Jumbo" coming from you is like getting fact checked by Stephen Glass, if Stephen Glass were also slightly dyslexic. If what you do write is intelligible, it's larded up with lame attacks ("Dangerous Gun Usage", how long did that one take you to think up?), misconstrued, irrelevant or inaccurate facts, dripping in condescension and conveys nothing useful among the many abstractions. I think you're projecting quite a bit here, as there is someone in this thread who overvalues their own intellect and opinions while simultaneously repeatedly contradicting them self, and it's not me. I don't show up with some google links and some inscrutable references and call it genius, that's your gig. I'm a credentialed expert in my field; as far as I can tell you're a google lawyer who's been suing the state of California over a $20,000 a year job for the last 10 years who now has a lot of time on their hands.
I can't even speak for your reading comprehension as you seem to be confusing the terms "facts" and "ideas" with each other. I'll trust my doctor on the facts about my health, but I won't rule out a good idea because of it's source, even a fortune cookie. Simon_Says seemingly would base his opinion on whether it was an NRA fortune cookie or a CAP fortune cookie, while you seem to go whichever way lets you be the most insulting to whoever has got your dander up at the moment. Consistently inconstant, except for the unpleasant personality and unearned superiority of course.
I did actually look up your claimed disorder you know, Geschwind syndrome. It explains the rambling and some of the personality flaws, especially cirumstantiality and hyper-religiosity/hyper-morality, but the rest is all you. As a rule I don't like to club baby seals, it's unseemly and tiring on the wrists, but if you insist on nipping at my heels all the time I might just indulge you. In plain English: Keep insulting me personally and I will return the favor.
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: DGU: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE |
|
|
| John_Browning wrote: | | Tadzio wrote: | | In your projected gun trigger-happy school lessons, has anyone hinted to you that when when two people happen to encounter each other, that doesn't make one of them a felonious criminal, even if both of the individuals happen to be paranoid schizophrenics carrying heat??? |
That's a straw-man argument. Paranoid schizophrenics can legally own guns and, get a concealed handgun license, federal firearms license, and even own NFA items if they do not fall into any of the prohibited categories. It would be very hard for a paranoid schizophrenic to avoid being prohibited from having firearms UNLESS they had a very effective treatment regimen and adhered to it religiously. Properly treated schizophrenics are less likely than the average person to start a violent confrontation, and the odds of 2 armed but treated schizophrenic strangers running into a conflict with each other is unlikely to the point of absurdity. You need to lay off the local news and slasher movies. |
Hi John_Browning,
People distinguished by MMPI scores indicating paranoia and schizophrenia coincidentally are very frequent. You have added the word "conflict" that happens to bias the notion of "encounter". That is often characterized as the practice of "baiting" the subject.
Overall, "paranoid schizophrenics" are less likely than the "average" person to START a violent confrontation, but, the "average" person is MUCH MORE likely to initiate violent actions against an encountered "paranoid schizophrenic" than against an encountered "average" person. Most all individuals with any known mental disorders are assumed by the biased general population as being threatening to other individuals.
The chances of two "paranoid schizophrenics" encountering each other are much greater than a person encountering someone else during a day that has the same birthday (the "Birthday Paradox"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Your views of absurdity tend more to be what's absurd, as are biased views of what is "Law Abiding":
| John_Browning wrote: | | Law abiding citizens are in bed or getting ready for woek when 1/3 of shootings happen and another 22% while they are at work. They have some free time in the afternoon, but even without detailed records it can be inferred that the law abiding citizens aren't doing the shootings in the afternoon either since they still have obligations and there is nothing preventing the people that are doing the shooting from shooting in the afternoon as well! Someone who spent their life in a all white town getting startled by a black person being the cause of a shooting is an isolated incident. Someone getting shot over a drug deal gone bad is well documented. Gang members getting singled out and shot is well documented. Attempted robbers and rapists, with clear intentions, getting shot in self-defense is well documented. The overwhelming majority of both illegal and justified shootings alike fall into well-defined categories. Percentage wise, lawful gun owners misidentifying someone or getting trigger happy amounts to an isolated incident. |
The overall bias of the general population against individuals identifiable on the spectrum of autism tend to leads to a high level of violent actions against the autistic individuals. Even extremely highly trained and professional law enforcement officers have a significant increased tendency to needlessly shoot to death autistic individuals, while trigger happy private citizens can deny the contention of illegal "needless shootings" by claiming "reasonable expectation of threats" that are intensely biased, but supported as "reasonable" by the general population, since the general population shares the intense bias.
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5344
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | | A) That's a blog post written by an NRA member and attorney (practicing?) who is a gun rights advocate. He's entitled to his opinion but it doesnt jibe with what working prosecutors within the state of Florida have said about the bar to prosecution and it's various problems. I assume his motive is your own, He's concerned that SYG will be repealed or modififed and so he's downplaying it's practical effects. |
So cite your own legal expert, as I already know what your personal legal opinion is good for. Or at least attack mine on an actual point and not *gasp!* his NRA membership.
| simon_says wrote: | | B) The law has gotten in the way of previous prosecutions and let people that cops and prosecutors wanted to charge escape the net. Several of those cases have been posted here. Whether it will prevent prosecution here remains unknown. |
Do you always trust/believe cops and prosecutors? The point of the law was in fact to protect people from overzealous cops and prosecutors, so hearing that it's thwarting some of them does not in and of itself mean anything.
| simon_says wrote: | | C) it goes without saying that this is an internet forum, not a courtroom. I'm not sure that anyone was confused about that. All we can do is discuss available information. |
And? I'm discussing available information; you're projecting your own morality onto the law and bemoaning the disparity. What has nearly every post I've made in this thread said? "Not enough information available to draw a conclusion". I'm not the one shooting from the hip on this.
| simon_says wrote: | | What we know is that Zimmerman was previously charged with battery on a cop and resisting arrest. It was pled down and finally expunged from his record. We know he was accused of domestic violence by a girlfriend and that he had a restraining order taken out against him. We know he patrolled the neighborhood with a gun and finally pursued and killed Martin. We don't know who started the fight but only one of the two had a paper trail of violence. And we know that the detective didnt believe his story. |
You don't get to throw someone in jail on that little information, it's just not how the system is supposed to work. Jesus, I feel like all we need here is Nancy Grace and I'll get full fledged deja vu with the trial in the media and *everyone* so sure of someone's guilt.
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So cite your own legal expert, as I already know what your personal legal opinion is good for. Or at least attack mine on an actual point and not *gasp!* his NRA membership. |
Ive already discussed it and linked to many articles. Why would I do it again? I honestly don't believe that you'll accept any view that isnt 100% pro-gun. It will just be the word of an "overzealous prosecutor" or some other comment like that . So honestly why would I bother?
| Quote: | | Do you always trust/believe cops and prosecutors? The point of the law was in fact to protect people from overzealous cops and prosecutors, so hearing that it's thwarting some of them does not in and of itself mean anything. |
Overzealous cops and prosecutors. Is that like saying "NRA". Are you trying to evoke emotion by demonizing cops? Shame on you.  They have a different take on these cases and after reading news accounts, so do I. But you'll just say that they are overzealous and the media is lying. So.... there is nothing to say.
| Quote: | | And? I'm discussing available information; you're projecting your own morality onto the law and bemoaning the disparity. What has nearly every post I've made in this thread said? "Not enough information available to draw a conclusion". I'm not the one shooting from the hip on this. |
I agree that you believe that.
| Quote: | | You don't get to throw someone in jail on that little information, it's just not how the system is supposed to work. Jesus, I feel like all we need here is Nancy Grace and I'll get full fledged deja vu with the trial in the media and *everyone* so sure of someone's guilt. |
I'm not throwing anyone in jail. But that you don't seem to find this case remotely troubling is interesting. And we are certainly free to discuss the facts as we know them.
Last edited by simon_says on Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:23 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: Dox47 Just Having Fun With His Changeable Sense of Reali |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | Tadzio wrote: | Hi Dox47,
Your mumbo jumbo of:
"See, I tend to evaluate ideas independently of their source and partisan alignment; I don't care who came up with the idea, only whether or not it's a good one," sounds like you might trust fortune cookies more than your doctor
And your criticizing solid referencing, followed by repeated mumbo jumbo of:
"Evidently *you* aren't likely to do any productive research period, so I guess I should just lower my expectations when "debating" with you and think of it more as a Larry King softball questions sort of experience," coupled with your not caring for sources of research, sounds like......
With the other blather, makes for sources of arrogance like you got yourself covered in something not of skills & knowledge, while you are self-contradicting your own legend in your own mind of harboring fleeting ideas worthy of repeated expressions. You don't care were an idea originated from, with the implied foundation of related knowledge in any non-fiction??? You certainly make Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" sound like a work of non-fiction compared to your proclamations about your words & ideas here. You are presently sober (March 28, 2012, 2:15 AM PDT, USA)???
Your contention of "SYG and other self defense shield laws are universally applicable", indicates you are mis-perceiving much.
The bad weather interrupting continuous internet connection, so sorry for poor editing
Tadzio |
You know what? "Mumbo Jumbo" coming from you is like getting fact checked by Stephen Glass, if Stephen Glass were also slightly dyslexic. If what you do write is intelligible, it's larded up with lame attacks ("Dangerous Gun Usage", how long did that one take you to think up?), misconstrued, irrelevant or inaccurate facts, dripping in condescension and conveys nothing useful among the many abstractions. I think you're projecting quite a bit here, as there is someone in this thread who overvalues their own intellect and opinions while simultaneously repeatedly contradicting them self, and it's not me. I don't show up with some google links and some inscrutable references and call it genius, that's your gig. I'm a credentialed expert in my field; as far as I can tell you're a google lawyer who's been suing the state of California over a $20,000 a year job for the last 10 years who now has a lot of time on their hands.
I can't even speak for your reading comprehension as you seem to be confusing the terms "facts" and "ideas" with each other. I'll trust my doctor on the facts about my health, but I won't rule out a good idea because of it's source, even a fortune cookie. Simon_Says seemingly would base his opinion on whether it was an NRA fortune cookie or a CAP fortune cookie, while you seem to go whichever way lets you be the most insulting to whoever has got your dander up at the moment. Consistently inconstant, except for the unpleasant personality and unearned superiority of course.
I did actually look up your claimed disorder you know, Geschwind syndrome. It explains the rambling and some of the personality flaws, especially cirumstantiality and hyper-religiosity/hyper-morality, but the rest is all you. As a rule I don't like to club baby seals, it's unseemly and tiring on the wrists, but if you insist on nipping at my heels all the time I might just indulge you. In plain English: Keep insulting me personally and I will return the favor. |
Quoted for verification 03/28/2012 02:19 PM PDT |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5344
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
Yep, you finally irritated me to the point of drawing return fire. Congratulations, you must be proud.
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cornflake
Rattles when shaken
Joined: Oct 31, 2010
Posts: 31602
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tadzio - you're getting too personal and snippy, and I'm inclined to believe it's intentionally provocative.
Knock it off please.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Raptor
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 4730
Location: Southeast U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: DGU: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE |
|
|
| Tadzio wrote: | | Raptor wrote: | Tadzio wrote:
| Quote: | | It certainly makes Florida look idiotic, |
You live in California but call anything about Florida idiotic.
Says a lot but whatev…..
| Quote: | | Then, paradoxically, the "duty to retreat to the wall" (that has been in all practicality neutralized as a duty by the new "right to stand your ground"), pops back up as if it is still available as a defense for committing the final act of deadly force, and as if the dead victim never equally had the same "right to stand your ground" that initiated the circle of events. |
When the type of event occurs where you would invoke SYG you rarely have time to dig into the law books for case history, assemble a panel of experts, or use an iPhone app to chart a course of action that is both legally and tactically sound.
It can be about the same as deciding whether to swerve or brake to avoid a car accident; split second decisions that have to be lived with.
The law was written to favor the law abiding citizen in surviving a potentially lethal encounter both physically and legally intact instead of giving his assailant a hand up.
It will not always work out for the best, this case being an example if Zimmerman is proven in court to be at fault, and laws cannot be written for each and every possible eventuality.
The more I think about this version of the SYG law the more I approve of it and reading some of the personal and political agenda driven arguments against it is helping me arrive at that conclusion.
I’m sure (read that KNOW) that since this incident last month that lots and lots of other people were murdered in much more certain terms but I don’t see those cases being examined to death in this forum. |
Hi Raptor,
With your | Raptor wrote: | Hey, you have the Brady Campaign and we have the NRA……
I think I can honestly say that the NRA has done more to positively curb gun violence and accidents than those Brady idiots could ever hope to..... |
| Raptor wrote: | You live in California but call anything about Florida idiotic.
Says a lot but whatev….. |
ergo: RAPTOR!!!
| Raptor wrote: | When the type of event occurs where you would invoke SYG you rarely have time to dig into the law books for case history, assemble a panel of experts, or use an iPhone app to chart a course of action that is both legally and tactically sound.
It can be about the same as deciding whether to swerve or brake to avoid a car accident; split second decisions that have to be lived with.
The law was written to favor the law abiding citizen in surviving a potentially lethal encounter both physically and legally intact instead of giving his assailant a hand up. |
YOU JUST ATTACKED THE NRA's ARGUMENT TRYING TO COVER THEIR BIG HOLE IN THEIR PROTO-LAW!!!!!!
Don't know which end is which, again with the safety off, but you will probably kiss it soon as the NRA kitty-litter logo is there!!!
Also, you have again exemplified Roger Shattuck's doctrine of "Irish Bulls":
| Raptor wrote: | | I’m sure (read that KNOW) that since this incident last month that lots and lots of other people were murdered in much more certain terms but I don’t see those cases being examined to death in this forum. |
To you, every event is an "isolated event" detracting from the horrendous flood of other "isolated" events with the same type of weapon!!!
| Raptor wrote: | | abacacus wrote: | Best way to restrain gun violence=educate about guns. Basic gun safety is something every person should know.
Put it as a required class in high school, in five years gun incidents will be down. |
It would certainly curb accidental firearm related deaths immensely and generally teach respect for the potential power of firearms and the ramifications of misuse.
I'm for teaching it t at all levels of public K12 education. The wall that keeps this from happening is people that actually think that they can prevent firearm accidents by totally shielding kids from any exposure to firearms.
It's a parents prerogative to raise their kids as they see fit but at the same time it is naive and irresponsible to attempt to bar them from something they will likely encounter at some or several times in their lives. |
In your projected gun trigger-happy school lessons, has anyone hinted to you that when when two people happen to encounter each other, that doesn't make one of them a felonious criminal, even if both of the individuals happen to be paranoid schizophrenics carrying heat???
Experts giving lessons:
Or, are you proposing that the paranoid heat packers give "the real lessons"???
Do you regard a one-to-one isomorphic correspondence between your labeled "Brady Idiots" and your labeled "NRA Pimps" in backroom politics entering the public arena through things like A L.E.C.???
Tadzio |
All other diatribe aside, the two videos speak volumes. One of your allies in this thread (maybe you too) fiercely believes that only "highly trained" law enforcement personnel should be trusted to carry a firearm in public but here you have two of those highly trained individuals, a narc and a deputy, having accidental discharges (AD's). One let a round loose in a classroom full of kids and the other nearly capped a suspect, Hmmmmm........
You also clearly indicate that you do not believe in firearms safety training which is clearly the best thing going to prevent accidental firearm related death and injury. That being the case you have no grounds to complain about firearms related accidents since you advocate enabling them....
Nuff said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: D.G.U.: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE |
|
|
| Cornflake wrote: | Tadzio - you're getting too personal and snippy, and I'm inclined to believe it's intentionally provocative.
Knock it off please. |
Hi Cornflake,
I was just in the process of verifying the source of what of a majority of observers I asked if I had just received another death threat from a person(s) identifying themselves as a member of WrongPlanet and stalking my personal information involving my disabilities, race, religion, etc. retained by WrongPlanet.
Please advise me through the inbox here for me at WrongPlanet of best procedure to follow to maintain my protection under the law and WrongPlanet's policies.
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5344
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | | But that you don't seem to find this case remotely troubling is interesting. |
I'm going to ignore the rest because it's just you trying to deflect everything without answering anything... again. I'll extend the offer again: If you find this thread so pointless, the rest of us have it handled just fine.
Anyway, why I quoted that section is that you're putting words in my mouth in another attempt to smear me as some kind of knuckle dragging knee-jerk gun fanatic. Read back through my quotes, one of the first things I said about the case was "it sounds like manslaughter to me", hardly the words of someone who doesn't find an incident troubling. As more information has emerged, like the witness reports and wounds on Zimmerman, my opinion has evolved to better reflect the facts as we know them, unlike yours, which is seemingly static. Why would I defend Zimmerman if gun rights were my only concern? He's clearly been cast as the villain here and if political point scoring was my goal I wouldn't touch him. My better move would have been to throw his ass under the bus as an idiotic outlier who constitutes a rare example of a bad apple with a CCW and move on. What I'm doing is applying my knowledge and experience to the known information and giving an honest opinion, I don't know what it is that you're doing.
_________________
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H L Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
