User Tag List

First 303839404142 Last

Results 391 to 400 of 473

  1. #391
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It's telling that you would wish for an abortion of justice just to make you feel better and superior to the residents of Florida.
    I don't need this to feel better and superior than residents of Florida. Neither does anyone else.

    I wonder why you've come down so strong against Dunn when you don't even know all of the facts of the case. It's ironic given your tone in this thread about Zimmerman. It's possible that the Dunn shooting could be 100% justified under Florida law.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #392
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Pretty good analysis, but in the end you fall a little short.

    Zimmerman didn't just need to feel threatened, he needed to be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or fear for his life. While they were still standing Zimmerman had neither of these.

    Once he fell and Martin continued to attack him while he was on his back, Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of both GBH and his life.

    If Martin had been content to just break his nose and not ground and pound him, Zimmerman would be guilty of (probably at the most) manslaughter.

    But Martin did follow him to the ground, straddle his torso and continue to punch him. That was the fatal mistake in this instance.
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The media is the only reason you know anything about these statutes in the first place.

    I'm not gonna dispute the letter with you, Disco. No more than Coates did in his article. What is controversial here is what can be inferred about the spirit of self-defense statutes in your state, and furthermore its implications about where we stand as a society.

    You may roll your eyes at that, but it appears to be why there's so much counterproductive crosstalk about this case. Whether what Zimmerman did was lawful or not, the fact that an armed man can fear for his life in the face of an unarmed one is a bit ridiculous. All the defense was tasked with was proving that Zimmerman had something to be afraid about, not who provoked what, not even whether or not he killed Martin. Just whether or not he was afraid. That's incredible to me.

    Self-defense laws ought to be purely defensive. They should allow the resistance of force. Weighing in things like perceived intent introduces a pre-emptory element that makes these laws permissive of those that would seek to "take the law into their own hands". I frankly don't trust people enough to make lethal force so very contingent on individual subjectivity. The reality of that contingency is that fear and the "right" to act on it could bring out the worst in anyone, and with a law that makes the "worst" besides the fact of the letter, you've effectively divorced what is legal with what is just.

    The reason that I linked an article to the Dunn case is that symptomatic of what I've just described. Regardless of what the outcome of the trial is, the incident in and of itself is further evidence of what happens when a legal system so thoroughly corrupts the freedom of reason from passion. That kind of precedent is fuckin' bad news bears for everyone regardless of who they are. It should bother you that there are Americans who at the discretion of anyone with a gun and a backwards attitude could find themselves dead in the streets. And the mere possibility that the institutions under whom all Americans should find equal protection could essentially sanction that kind of brutality should be flat out enraging.

    I love my country. I know for a fact that the self-defense laws that allowed Zimmerman's acquittal don't speak to what's best about it. I'm not sure what you could say to me that would change my mind about that.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  3. #393
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't need this to feel better and superior than residents of Florida. Neither does anyone else.

    I wonder why you've come down so strong against Dunn when you don't even know all of the facts of the case. It's ironic given your tone in this thread about Zimmerman. It's possible that the Dunn shooting could be 100% justified under Florida law.
    There was no shotgun in the truck.

    Dunn did not reasonably fear for his life.

    When I say the law is what matters to me I mean it.

  4. #394
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I'm not gonna dispute the letter with you, Disco. No more than Coates did in his article. What is controversial here is what can be inferred about the spirit of self-defense statutes in your state, and furthermore its implications about where we stand as a society.

    You may roll your eyes at that, but it appears to be why there's so much counterproductive crosstalk about this case. Whether what Zimmerman did was lawful or not, the fact that an armed man can fear for his life in the face of an unarmed one is a bit ridiculous. All the defense was tasked with was proving that Zimmerman had something to be afraid about, not who provoked what, not even whether or not he killed Martin. Just whether or not he was afraid. That's incredible to me.
    It is the excess of philosophical legalism. The details of the law and whether or not an event conformed with them becomes the only thing that matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    Self-defense laws ought to be purely defensive. They should allow the resistance of force. Weighing in things like perceived intent introduces a pre-emptory element that makes these laws permissive of those that would seek to "take the law into their own hands". I frankly don't trust people enough to make lethal force so very contingent on individual subjectivity. The reality of that contingency is that fear and the "right" to act on it could bring out the worst in anyone, and with a law that makes the "worst" besides the fact of the letter, you've effectively divorced what is legal with what is just.
    I too get this sense that the laws are almost instigation laws as much or more than self-defense. The results are pretty strange if you can use any amount of force in response to a vague quantity of threat in a situation you initiated. It encourages dangerous irresponsibility.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #395
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    the fact that an armed man can fear for his life in the face of an unarmed one is a bit ridiculous.
    People in my state get their CCW permit to protect themselves. Self defense is the entire purpose of CCW.

    In your opinion (if you are ok with concealed carry) when can someone who's armed defend themselves with deadly force?

    Do you think regardless of one's physical abilities that they should be expected to only respond with their hands and feet if they are attacked with the same? What if it's a larger man attacking a smaller woman?

    Should citizens have no recourse to someone beating the ever-loving-fuck out them?

    In my opinion the law needs to be cleared up so that one can't engineer a situation wherein they can start a fight with the intention of losing the physical confrontation so that they can justifiably kill their opponent.

    That being said, I find that that situation occurs much less frequently than one in which one should be allowed to defend themselves with deadly force without having to endanger themselves by retreating.

    The weakness in the law marginally highlighted by the Zimmerman case doesn't supersede the reasons we instituted our self defense laws in the first place. Does the law need to be amended to keep people from starting fights they intend to lose so they can kill someone, surely. But the law should not be repealed.

  6. #396
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    There was no shotgun in the truck.

    Dunn did not reasonably fear for his life.

    When I say the law is what matters to me I mean it.
    It does not matter whether or not there was a gun in the truck for Dunn to reasonably fear for his life. He could have been mistaken and the fear could still be genuine. That's the problem with trying to understand someone's intent. There is no objectivity.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #397
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    It should bother you that there are Americans who at the discretion of anyone with a gun and a backwards attitude could find themselves dead in the streets.
    Regular crime given its prevalence, and the scarcity of questionable self defense cases, bothers me much more.

    What occurs more frequently, robberies, muggings, car jackings, murders, home invasions etc... or cases where a CCW holder purposely starts a fight with someone they don't like in an effort to kill them?

  8. #398
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    It does not matter whether or not there was a gun in the truck for Dunn to reasonably fear for his life. He could have been mistaken and the fear could still be genuine. That's the problem with trying to understand someone's intent. There is no objectivity.
    The fear might still have been genuine, but it sure as fucking hell isn't still reasonable.

    You should understand that.

  9. #399
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Regular crime given its prevalence, and the scarcity of questionable self defense cases, bothers me much more.

    What occurs more frequently, robberies, muggings, car jackings, murders, home invasions etc... or cases where a CCW holder purposely starts a fight with someone they don't like in an effort to kill them?
    But are the two things you're comparing mutually exclusive in anyway? We'd have to determine how often self-defense laws actually stop any of the things you consider more common.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #400
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Part of the issue IMO is that they DON'T feel sufficiently afraid when they should (e.g. when they're about to bluster headlong into a possibly dangerous situation, or one they can make dangerous by frightening someone who wasn't doing anything wrong). What could happen? I've got a gun, I'll be fine. Oops, that 17-year-old kid I scared the fuck out of is trying to get me to leave him alone with his fists, time to use that gun I brought for just such an occasion. Whew, good thing I had that.

    When a gun becomes a substitute for common sense and caution, something's wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. New York is going to be destroyed by fire
    By draon9 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2016, 10:38 AM
  2. Looks like we are going to Syria
    By The Great One in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 09-19-2013, 10:31 AM
  3. It's looking like we might be able to break up the malicious super-banks after all!
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 09:30 AM
  4. So it's going to be 75 degrees on Christmas
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-22-2008, 01:44 AM
  5. Obama is going to face international crisis PROMISES Biden
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 04:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO