How Trayvon Martin shooting is relevant to AS rights

Page 5 of 5 [ 78 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Apr 2012, 2:56 pm

simon_says wrote:

Yes, I do hope that SYG is modified or repealed. I have doubts it will be. Yes, I would also like tighter regulations on guns. I'd like universal background checks so that private sales were also subject to a background check and, if required to make that work better, gun registration as well.

It wouldnt be easy to get done but if we had that system today, we'd be safer. The only real argument against it is that NRA types believe that the government will then come to your door and take your weapons. From a safety standpoint, it's clearly better to physically bar dangerous people from most gun sources and not just make it an additional charge later if we happen to catch them with it. If they are all forced into an untraceable black market then prices will rise at least.

And when these controlls fail to yield the expected results, and they will fail, what's the next step and the next after that?
I'd say more but I'm on my iPhone at the shooting range for real trying out my new S&W .45.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Apr 2012, 5:17 pm

Raptor wrote:

So I guess it's just my imagination that the Trayvon Martin case is being played as justification for repealing SYG. Seems like every time someone is unfortunate enough to be at the receiving end of a bullet, occasioned by some freedom or other, that they become the poster child for more gun control. It sure didn't take The Brady Campaign long to capitalize on this. Within the space of about a day or so Trayvon Martin was the battle cry for more "reasonable gun control" and George Zimmerman was portrayed as the typical NRA member. I went to their website so i know what I'm talking about. Gotta milk the emotional effect for all it's worth no matter what. This is not the first time that the Brady bunch has gone after gun rights under the guise of public safety and used some misforunate victim as a poster boy.

SYG is not about "gun control". I have no issue with people owning and/or carrying a weapon. I have issue with a law giving people a license to kill and escape charges via "self-defense".

Quote:

I actually have a liberal/libertarian stance regarding the second amendment. I'm not a "OMG guns are bad! ban them all" type. I could care less what weapons people choose to own.

Sure, as long as there are reasonable common sense gun laws, eh? As if we don't already have too many of them.

Nope, I don't give a rats ass what guns you want to own, as long as you don't use them on people. :facepalm:

Quote:

I have a problem with people thinking they have the right to use them to play cop or otherwise go looking for trouble. I would even be okay with the SYG law if there were exemptions from immunity to prosecution and presumption of innocence in the case of mutually provoked altercations and people who've gone around looking for trouble. I also have a problem with people who think they have the right to appoint themselves, under the guise of "self-defense", to the role of judge, jury, and executioner, and do target practice on fleeing unarmed thieves.

People pretending to be cops is a rare scenario. But hey, lets change the law anyways. And next time someone uses poor discretion, yet within the current traffic laws, and gets someone killed let's reduce the speed limit to 35 mph on ALL the freeways.

So you think people should have the right to go around harassing and intimidating people that "look suspicious" and then use their weapon in "self-defense" if their obnoxious behavior provokes someone to snap and take a swing at them. I'm sure the number of people who go around with a gun picking fights is comparable to the number of people who drive over 35 on the freeway. :roll:

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Apr 2012, 8:46 pm

marshall wrote:

Raptor wrote:

SYG is not about "gun control". I have no issue with people owning and/or carrying a weapon. I have issue with a law giving people a license to kill and escape charges via "self-defense".

Quote:

I actually have a liberal/libertarian stance regarding the second amendment. I'm not a "OMG guns are bad! ban them all" type. I could care less what weapons people choose to own.

Sure, as long as there are reasonable common sense gun laws, eh? As if we don't already have too many of them.

Nope, I don't give a rats ass what guns you want to own, as long as you don't use them on people. :facepalm:

Quote:

I think you missed my point but whatever............. :roll:

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

06 Apr 2012, 9:02 pm

simon_says wrote:

The issue with making it harder for people to get guns, is that then they will not have guns while the criminals who don't care about legality *do* have guns.

That doesn't usually lead to safety. I'm not sure why so many people can't understand that. Even up here in Canada (far safer than the U.S. overall) there is a thriving illegal market for handguns (because they are hard to get up here). I could have a handgun and several thousand rounds in a few hours without much trouble without the law ever knowing about it. Not such a big problem in my area, but in major cities gang violence is a very real daily occurrence.... with illegally purchased handguns.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Apr 2012, 9:24 pm

abacacus wrote:

simon_says wrote:

If they arent felons or mentally unstable they would still be able to get guns. As it stands they can just buy guns privately. The restrictions don't mean much.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

06 Apr 2012, 9:25 pm

Yes, but it will be harder. The harder you make it, the more people will be willing to buy the guns they want illegally (like has happened in Canada).

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Apr 2012, 9:28 pm

abacacus wrote:

Yes, but it will be harder. The harder you make it, the more people will be willing to buy the guns they want illegally (like has happened in Canada).

By that logic we shouldnt do background checks at all and just sell guns to anyone. Not many people will agree with that.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

06 Apr 2012, 9:31 pm

simon_says wrote:

abacacus wrote:

Yes, but it will be harder. The harder you make it, the more people will be willing to buy the guns they want illegally (like has happened in Canada).

By that logic we shouldnt do background checks at all and just sell guns to anyone. Not many people will agree with that.

It's a matter of balance. Make it too easy, people who shouldn't have guns will have them. Make it too hard, and people will buy them illegally whether they should have them or not.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

06 Apr 2012, 9:44 pm

abacacus wrote:

simon_says wrote:

abacacus wrote:

Yes, but it will be harder. The harder you make it, the more people will be willing to buy the guns they want illegally (like has happened in Canada).

By that logic we shouldnt do background checks at all and just sell guns to anyone. Not many people will agree with that.

It's a matter of balance. Make it too easy, people who shouldn't have guns will have them. Make it too hard, and people will buy them illegally whether they should have them or not.

I agreewith Abacacus on this one.

Ztrain
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 147
Location: Rockford, IL

07 Apr 2012, 6:50 am

Luckily have very little trouble with cops and theres no community watch in my neighborhood. Since its in the hood (West Side of Rockford!) they usually target black people rather than crazy looking white guys.Still people given authority have been hostile to me in the past. rincipals like to force me to sit down when have nervous breakdowns in the cafeteria and need to walk around a bit to collect my thoughts.

erhaps we should capture Zimmerman and turn him over to the new Black panther arty

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

11 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm

Zimmerman was just charged with 2cd degree murder. No grand jury after all.

His lawyers quit yesterday after they complained that he wasnt talking to them and that they didnt know where he was located. He's also not following their advice. Silly. He needs to cling to his lawyers for dear life right now.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Apr 2012, 6:02 pm

simon_says wrote:

Mr. Z is not the brightest bulb on the Xmas tree.

ruveyn

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

12 Apr 2012, 12:54 am

That Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree Murder is not surprising considering that Florida Statute 775.087 (a.k.a. "10-20-Life") automatically elevates the charge of manslaughter to the next level due to the fact that a firearm was used to kill Martin.

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

13 Apr 2012, 7:05 pm

Tadzio wrote:

CoMF wrote:

NeantHumain wrote:

If Zimmerman's perception of threat were irrational—driven by prejudice and an inflated ego—the defense would not be applicable.

The defense isn't applicable. Section 776.012 of Florida's laws, and one of SYG's cornerstones, clearly states:

Quote:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. [Home Protection]

[Emphasis Mine]

Given the circumstances, I doubt there's a judge or jury in existence who would acquit Zimmerman via SYG. The sloppy and woefully inadequate police investigation of the matter certainly won't help his case either.

Tadzio wrote:

Hi CoMF,

[Previously,] I cited the particular official response for the public involving the present interest stating that SYG WAS THE LAW BEING APPLIED & BEING FOLLOWED:

Tadzio wrote:

From: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... ooting.pdf

City Manager wrote:

In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what information it can publicly release.
..............
Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes ARRESTING, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and.......................

VERSUS:

Dox47 wrote:

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-s ... more-57774

David Kopel wrote:

.......................
In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.

DOUBLE GEE WHIZ!! ! "By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time" by that "According to Florida Statute 776.032", and that is NOT being "protected" from being arrested according to a ""reliable"" source of balderdash cited by Dox47 (protected by the VERY BIG little word "if" to make the saying of nothing sound like saying something very important and decisive, but actually, the more possible unlawfulness is determined much later, with the Florida Statute Law 776.032 providing the immediate protection with PROHIBITION from arrest)! !!

Then, as follow up, the City cited followed & practiced Laws that "didn't" have anything with what's lawful by the double-talking VERY BIG little if'ers.

Tadzio

So, it seems, the SYG law is now what's being politically/publicly defended by many of the law's continuing political/legal/public backers & defenders, while the potential defendant is (WAS, by most SYG promoters) under the SYG new version, which if SYG is then federally challenged as the new SYG law giving the potential defendant immunity, the new SYG law itself will probably fall in higher federal courts.

The Florida Supreme Court stands mainly with the immunity granted by Florida's SYG, overriding lower state courts:

Govoni v. State, writ of prohibition of denial of motion asserting statutory imunity:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 83559.html

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, PER CURIAM. Govoni v. State of Florida:
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Aug%202011 ... 371.op.pdf

With many of the legal arguments of the laws' application (they lost motion on IMO seeming "facts" not in criteria of the "laws", but the points in current potential defendant's case is the criteria of the laws (so I foresee possible irrelevant side-tracts to protect SYG laws instead of the following of the new SYG laws from the new SYG laws supporters with current "case"! !!)):
Florida v. Justin Campos, Motion To Dismiss & For Statutory Immunity From Prosecution:
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... motion.pdf

Campos denial: http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... ng_PDF.pdf

Judge denies Stand Your Ground motion in Fort Myers strip club homicide case, (with sample video):
http://www.news-press.com/article/20120 ... -homicides
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2 ... -in-prison

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STATUTORY IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... 150108.pdf

IMO, Florida's new SYG laws are illegal, but for for victims of the victims falling for the illegal laws, and these victims of the layers of the other victims..... , anyone believing the nonsense of the new SYG, and acted under the belief the laws were legal to the point of exploitation, will be in the lurch or "justice" of different (but the "same") Double Jeopardy & Guilt & Not & Immunity & Not, but mentioning these parts of "established" law & order will get...............................

Then, with endless pamphlets ensuring immunity involving deadly force in any "reasonable threat", is there an element of "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" with immunity only remaining for promoting groups pushing bogus "laws", under the seeming guise of the 2nd amendment, but actually the only possibility being the 1st?

(Will there be a maddening future career in mud-wrestling with only poor-to- mediocre "justice" for the killer perhaps offered to soon semi-playing "patsy" roles with lost immunity in order of only to save the new SYG Law, and no true justice at all for others???).

Tadzio

The "Stand Your Ground" Laws neutralize equal protection for individuals on the autistic spectrum whenever their displayed autistic traits make anyone feel "threatened":

Tadzio wrote:

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

Tadzio wrote:

Individuals with autism are 50 times more likely to be shot by a private citizen than shot by a police officer.

When a "legal gun carrier" uses the gun in the commission of a crime, the "gun carrier" has just lost the rubric of "legal gun carrier", so a deceptive polemic is stating that no "legal gun carrier" has committed any criminal gun act.

Dox47 wrote:

Tadzio wrote:

Individuals with autism are 50 times more likely to be shot by a private citizen than shot by a police officer.

Evidence please?

(not holding breath)

Tadzio wrote:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

I agree with Stand Your Ground laws. It's about time somebody recognized that people should not be punished for defending themselves and fighting back. If someone comes up to you and wants to beat the crap out of you, you can fight back and not have to go to jail. Sounds like an awesome law to me. It protects the vulnerable and maybe bullies will think twice about coming up with their fists if they know such a law exists and they can get seriously injured or killed and the person defending themself will not face any penalties. It should be like that in schools, too. The person who tries to avoid the fight at all costs should never face punishment for simply standing their ground when under a threat.

Hi ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo,

Under the law before the new 2005 "Stand Your Ground" Law, any "person who tries to avoid the fight at all costs" would have already been protected from facing punishment. The 2005 "Stand Your Ground Law" removed ANY AND ALL duty to "try to avoid the fight". For instance, in the 2011 SAAVEDRA case, the judge noted (page 8 ): "Under current Florida law, the Defendant had no duty to retreat, but, even so, the evidence clearly shows that the Defendant did, in fact, retreat in several ways and was legally entitled to meet force with force, even deadly force."
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... 150108.pdf

Individuals with autism are 50 times more likely to be shot by a private citizen than shot by a police officer.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths ... elease.pdf
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_15.html
Calling such homicides by private citizens as "Stand Your Ground" Self-Defense shootings with complete Immunity is outrageous.

When a "legal gun carrier" uses the gun in the commission of a crime, the "gun carrier" has just lost the rubric of "legal gun carrier", so a deceptive polemic is stating that no "legal gun carrier" has committed any criminal gun act.

Some "pseudo" would-be SYG'ers go as far as to make claims like:

"I can change reality with my words; it's called persuasion, lobbying and activism",

as during when they try every tool of verbal prevarication they think will might work in twisting the truth to fit to their point of view. When I noted in one response that the manipulation of words had tended to result in incorrect facts, to absurdities, I received the response:

"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,"
Mod. edit to correct misquote and restore omitted text: "In plain English: Keep insulting me personally and I will return the favor."

and, a majority of people at a local university I asked about the intensity of the remark, took it as a threat of deadly violence.

No SYG from wrists concerns then, but any SYG with free speech & right to political opinions, etc., leads to third-party involvement desired suddenly by the bully with the tendency to indulge in clubbing baby seals.

Tadzio

Tadzio wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

Here you go Tadzio, since your selective understanding of idioms seems to still be troubling you so much, go ahead and fill this out and submit it:

[img][800:1129]http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9dcm5xqreo5xnf4/images/1-01ece685d9.jpg[/img]

I'm sure people will take your claims far more seriously if put into this form.

references

Dox47 wrote:

Tadzio wrote:

references

Going to try and get me in trouble again? Maybe threaten another lolsuit?

Good luck with that.

Informal resolutions of discrimination & retaliation concerns have a seemingly strong tendency to be retroactively revoked, though many things certainly are not legally revocable. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws and its relationship to other States, all including many individuals on the Spectrum of Autistism, was the subject here that proved too burdensome for any of such site's goals and objectives to be sustained beyond the whims of players following Iago in frustrating moderation.

Tadzio

Page 5 of 5 [ 78 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Jump to:

How Trayvon Martin shooting is relevant to AS rights Post Reply New Topic

How Trayvon Martin shooting is relevant to AS rights