User Tag List

First 354344454647 Last

Results 441 to 450 of 473

  1. #441
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Then the verdict will surprise you. Gun's are more dangerous than fists, but only if they are used aggressively against you.

    There was no action against Dunn, or even any extant firearm to make his fear reasonable.

    There was action against Zimmerman to make his fear reasonable.

    How do you feel about CCW?
    I don't believe either of them had reasonable fears, but if Zimmerman's was reasonable, then Dunn's must also have been reasonable. Do we know what was said to Dunn? Surely something was said to make him believe his life was in danger. What was Dunn supposed to do, just stand there and let them shoot him first (keep in mind, Dunn believed they had a gun)?

    As for CCW, I guess you could call me indifferent. I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion on it either way. It's #37139 on my list of important issues.
    "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. #442
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't believe either of them had reasonable fears, but if Zimmerman's was reasonable, then Dunn's must also have been reasonable. Do we know what was said to Dunn? Surely something was said to make him believe his life was in danger. What was Dunn supposed to do, just stand there and let them shoot him first (keep in mind, Dunn believed they had a gun)?

    As for CCW, I guess you could call me indifferent. I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion on it either way. It's #37139 on my list of important issues.
    Dunn was not physically attacked, and there was no shotgun. It was unreasonable to assume there was one if he did not see it.

    The difference between a fight and a verbal altercation is huge. You can't fear for your life if you haven't been physically attacked or threatened with a weapon.

    I don't know what it is you're not getting here.

  3. #443
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Dunn was not physically attacked, and there was no shotgun. It was unreasonable to assume there was one if he did not see it.

    The difference between a fight and a verbal altercation is huge. You can't fear for your live if you haven't been physically attacked or threatened with a weapon.

    I don't know what it is you're not getting here.
    You can't fear for your life if you haven't been physically attacked or threatened with a weapon?
    1. This is wrong.
    2. What evidence do you have that Dunn wasn't threatened?
    "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."

  4. #444
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I guess the two sides of the national debate are at an impasse, because many people are actually proud of the fact that in this country (at least in some places) the laws ensure that a person has the right and, so far as reasonably possible, the practical capacity to defend themselves and their homes without substantial risk of unwarranted state persecution. I would never want to live in a country where that is not the case.
    Regarding CCW, my father has collected guns since I was a kid. In addition to shooting recreationally, he holds a CHL (Texas’ equivalent of the CCW). I haven’t gone shooting much myself, but I know enough to know that, by and large, legal gun-owners have more sense and education about their weapons than the average population.

    I’m also going to be upfront about the fact that my knowledge of the law around this area is pretty superficial. I do have a fairly solid education in military strategy/history, however, and am gonna let that guide my response to what you’ve posted.

    Proportionality is a major consideration in the theory of just war. Not only in just conduct during a conflict, but in determining whether it is right to go to war in the first place and in the treatment of enemy combatants after the fact. I believe that if you draw that notion into a discussion of self-defense law then you have a much greater alignment between what’s legal and what’s actually fair.

    Presently, I feel that the discussion of proportionality within the context of self-defense hinges more on whether it is reasonable to exercise one’s right to self-defense, without placing limits or sensible definition on the right itself. I see the conservatives in this thread shy away from that concept, but I don’t see incompatibility between reasonable force and 2nd amendment rights. No more than I see a conflict between our 8th amendment rights and prosecution to the full extent of the law.

    What is provided by this principle should be laws that don’t defy intuition. Regardless of specifics their altercation, the basic facts of the Martin case were that an armed man stalks and provokes a fight with an unarmed one, kills him, and was allowed to go free for it because he was the victim under the law. There would have been less of an uproar if the burden of proof on the defense had been whether the force used was justified, rather than justifying the use of force itself. Yeah, obviously, someone’s beating your ass you’re within rights to fight back, but to kill them? There should be more compelling thresholds for innocence than the ones used in this trial.
    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

  5. #445
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    So going with the assumption Zimmerman started the fight, but then started to lose, once the imminent threat was over you can't legally continue to beat someone. That's not self-defense. That's assault and battery.** I'd say that if you got the guy on the ground and he's screaming for help - the imminent threat is over. If you continue to fight, the other guy can defend themselves.
    What you seemed to have passed over here—somewhat facilely, I might add—is the fact that something in the interaction Martin had with Zimmerman drove him to believe that his life was at stake as well. This is assuming, of course, that Martin’s intent was to actually kill Zimmerman, which we only have Zimmerman’s word for. If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, it’s entirely possible that he felt that killing Zimmerman was the only way to prevent himself from getting shot. And what if he had killed Zimmerman? Would he have been acquitted as well?

    It’s impossible to prove a negative, but what we do have instances like that of Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old African American mom with a Master's degree, who claimed similarly that her life was in danger in her defense against an abusive husband. Alexander fires a warning shot near her husband’s head and is now serving 20 years in prison under Florida state law. I have serious doubts that had Martin killed Zimmerman he would have fared much better.
    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

  6. #446
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    What you seemed to have passed over here—somewhat facilely, I might add—is the fact that something in the interaction Martin had with Zimmerman drove him to believe that his life was at stake as well.
    I almost question if you're intentionally misquoting me...I specifically mentioned that possibility in my post. (!?)

    Here's my post in full, emphasis added.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I don't know if he did in fact initiate, but it seems suspect.

    But let's say Zimmerman really did start the conflict. He grabbed or tackled Martin.*

    I feel that based on the available evidence it seems like you can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Martin was in fact beating Zimmerman down. Martin had no injuries, meanwhile Zimmerman is getting his head knocked down onto pavement. Not just pushing him off, but on top of him, beating his head down. I'd feel pretty confident in saying that while this was happening Zimmerman was screaming "help help help" (I say this based on the audio recording background noise of 911 call where you can hear the screaming and the gunshot, and his own testimony - I feel it's unlikely someone would come up with the lie that the other guy was screaming help). If someone is screaming help, they're probably losing the fight and given the chance would yield to whoever he's getting beat by.

    So going with the assumption Zimmerman started the fight, but then started to lose, once the imminent threat was over you can't legally continue to beat someone. That's not self-defense. That's assault and battery.** I'd say that if you got the guy on the ground and he's screaming for help - the imminent threat is over. If you continue to fight, the other guy can defend themselves.

    *As stated in another post of mine, it seems extremely unlikely that Zimmerman had his weapon out and was waving it around - if he had he would have shot Martin as soon as the conflict began. While I wasn't there, I'm inclined to guess he had his weapon holstered.

    It's possible that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun while Martin was on top of him, thus meeting the requirements that Zimmerman was an imminent threat to Martin (who would be legally allowed to beat Zimmerman unconscious or possibly even to death at risk of manslaughter). But I'm less inclined to believe that someone who is screaming help repeatably, not just once, but continuously, to get other people to help him, is really focused on getting his own weapon. I'd imagine that if you're focused on grabbing your own gun then you're not screaming for help - you're grunting, clawing, scratching, and blocking punches.

    **For instance, if someone puts a knife in your face on the street and says give me your money you can defend yourself because you think your life is in danger. If you drop your wallet, he picks it up and turns, and you shoot him in the back that no longer qualifies as self defense and you will be charged.

    I wasn't there, and I can't say for sure. But that's my read on what happened.



    I haven't seen a lot of people go through the evidence step by step and try and theorize what happened, it seems like people are just saying their conclusions.




    audio clips:
    http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=9924394

    (gunshot and screaming heard in 3rd link)





    I also find it amazing that for as long as there was screaming nobody did anything. Nobody went outside.

    This is assuming, of course, that Martin’s intent was to actually kill Zimmerman, which we only have Zimmerman’s word for. If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, it’s entirely possible that he felt that killing Zimmerman was the only way to prevent himself from getting shot. And what if he had killed Zimmerman? Would he have been acquitted as well?
    Unless I'm missing something here, I specifically mentioned that possibility. I also gave a reason why I don't think it's an adequate explanation, but I will state that we don't know what happened.

    In terms of evidence, if you listen to the link, you'll hear someone screaming help for a long period of time, over and over, and then finally a gunshot. The person screaming is clearly in distress. Evidence afterward is Martin - without any injury except the gunshot and scrapes on his knuckles, and Zimmerman with facial injuries, injuries to the back of his head (consistent with his story about being hit against concrete). You also have witnesses saying they saw someone on top of the other man, straddling him, hitting him.

    It’s impossible to prove a negative, but what we do have instances like that of Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old African American mom with a Master's degree, who claimed similarly that her life was in danger in her defense against an abusive husband. Alexander fires a warning shot near her husband’s head and is now serving 20 years in prison under Florida state law. I have serious doubts that had Martin killed Zimmerman he would have fared much better.
    I don't know the details of this other case.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  7. #447
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    I see the conservatives in this thread shy away from that concept, but I don’t see incompatibility between reasonable force and 2nd amendment rights.

    Yeah, obviously, someone’s beating your ass you’re within rights to fight back, but to kill them? There should be more compelling thresholds for innocence than the ones used in this trial.
    I do not believe that someone who is attacked to the point that they have reasonable cause to believe they are at risk of death or great bodily harm should be under any obligation to 'pull their punches' in their attempts to save themselves, so long as such conditions exist. Otherwise, the right to self-defense is severely compromised, and at times practically non-existent.

  8. #448
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I almost question if you're intentionally misquoting me...I specifically mentioned that possibility in my post. (!?)
    You're right. I missed it, but seeing it now still feel you're being facile about it. If Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun, whether he reached for it or not, depending on what was said Martin may have felt his life was at stake. You're also forgetting that immediately leading up to the altercation itself, Martin actually ran away from Zimmerman, leading Zimmerman to chase him down despite the 911 dispatcher telling him not to.

    So taking into consideration that Martin was cornered, at night, by an armed, hostile stranger--what was he supposed to do? What would you have done? Maybe you're right, though. Maybe he should have just been more poised about his life being in jeopardy. But if that's what you believe, then apply the same principle equitably. If Trayvon should have been able to withstand imminent threat passively, then Zimmerman ought to be as well. By your own logic, Zimmerman's actions were no more justifiable, he just had the gun.


    I don't know the details of this other case.
    I included a link to an article regarding it.
    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

  9. #449
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    And what if he had killed Zimmerman? Would he have been acquitted as well?
    No, because the physical evidence clearly points to Martin initiating the fight (which would make Zimmerman's death occurring during the commission of a crime by Martin), though I would say he should receive a drastically reduced sentence on a 'manslaughter' charge, based on the circumstances and his state of mind.

  10. #450
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I do not believe that someone who is attacked to the point that they have reasonable cause to believe they are at risk of death or great bodily harm should be under any obligation to 'pull their punches' in their attempts to save themselves, so long as such conditions exist. Otherwise, the right to self-defense is severely compromised, and at times practically non-existent.
    First of all, what you've said in the above sounds to someone on the left what "well, why not just ban all the guns, then?" to someone on the right: it just demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what's valued by the other side, and what they view to be at stake.

    Having said that, I'm alright with self-defense laws being "severely compromised", actually. I think as long as we live in a world where what constitutes "reasonable cause" for some may not be equally true for others, then we can at least spell out the nature of what constitutes reasonable force.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No, because the physical evidence clearly points to Martin initiating the fight (which would make Zimmerman's death occurring during the commission of a crime by Martin), though I would say he should receive a drastically reduced sentence on a 'manslaughter' charge, based on the circumstances and his state of mind.
    So Zimmerman can 1) stalk, 2) harass, and 3) threaten Martin in his father's fiancee's neighborhood while armed with a gun, but it's Martin who provoked the fight.

    Gotcha.
    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

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