Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on Jul 16, 2013 9:51:14 GMT -5
Someone who is a TN lawyer confirm this, but my reading of the law leads me to believe that if you're in your tent and a wook comes in looking to steal your beer, you are legally allowed to shoot them. Of course, guns are not allowed at Bonnaroo, but I know how we all feel about security enforcing those rules.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jul 16, 2013 10:26:01 GMT -5
We'll see if this holds true (not playing in any state with that law). I know sometimes artists claim something and then go back on it. Not sure Stevie would do that but ya never know.
We'll see if this holds true (not playing in any state with that law). I know sometimes artists claim something and then go back on it. Not sure Stevie would do that but ya never know.
Stevie isn't hurting for money, fame or adoration. Fans of a guy who has sung about peace and love for 5 decades will respect this as his way of saying he doesn't approve of laws that justify violence.
Post by theshining on Jul 16, 2013 10:30:09 GMT -5
I never saw Stevie as a returning artist anyhow. I loved his 2010 set but I thought when that was over that we would likely never see a return from him
Florida's law is a little more lenient than Tennessee's, but it is the same with respect to the aspects of the Zimmerman case. Both allow the use of deadly force with a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, with no duty to retreat. Both allow presumptions of reasonableness if the perpetrator broke into a dwelling, business, residence or vehicle. Tennessee also goes a little further with the reasonable belief, requiring a reasonable belief in imminent danger, that the danger creating the belief is real or honestly believed to be real at the time, and that the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds (probably eliminates an argument related to hallucinogens).
Florida also allows deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Tennessee's statutory definition of "dwelling" is as follows: “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people; Tenn. Code Ann. 39-11-611(5).
Wooks beware. Deadly force is not necessarily limited to a firearm.
Someone who is a TN lawyer confirm this, but my reading of the law leads me to believe that if you're in your tent and a wook comes in looking to steal your beer, you are legally allowed to shoot them. Of course, guns are not allowed at Bonnaroo, but I know how we all feel about security enforcing those rules.
You wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. Just soap, deodorant or a hair brush.
Welcome back Bonz, but I do not find it strange that your presence being requested in the Orgy thread and then you showing up, like it was the quacking Bonzai Bat Signal.
Someone who is a TN lawyer confirm this, but my reading of the law leads me to believe that if you're in your tent and a wook comes in looking to steal your beer, you are legally allowed to shoot them. Of course, guns are not allowed at Bonnaroo, but I know how we all feel about security enforcing those rules.
You wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself. Just soap, deodorant or a hair brush.
I have an alarm on my keys that plays Kanye West very loud.
reasonable belief, requiring a reasonable belief in imminent danger, that the danger creating the belief is real or honestly believed to be real at the time, and that the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds
The two phrases above, scare the living daylights out of me.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 12:09:24 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to turn normal citizens into victims? I don't care if I ever see Stevie or anyone else again over my right to defend myself from harm. I wouldn't care what the law was, if someone was trying to severely injure or kill me and I had the ability to injure or kill them rather than being the victim I'd be the aggressor every single time. For the life of me I can't understand the mindset that everyone should be legally required to run from criminals. Bye, bye Stevie. Glad I got to see you before you lost your mind, I guess he can just go back to singing the praises of dead pedophiles.
Funky Munky woah dude. Having a principled stance on a vague law that has let multiple people free to go - when they had the ability to not enter the situation or escalate it; is in no way tantamount to what you just spewed. Self-defense laws were already in practice -- these laws are made to over confirm the "rights" of gun carriers in these states to use them rashly without impunity.
This isn't war, your first choice should not be to shoot. Christ.
Why would anyone want to turn normal citizens into victims? I don't care if I ever see Stevie or anyone else again over my right to defend myself from harm. I wouldn't care what the law was, if someone was trying to severely injure or kill me and I had the ability to injure or kill them rather than being the victim I'd be the aggressor every single time. For the life of me I can't understand the mindset that everyone should be legally required to run from criminals. Bye, bye Stevie. Glad I got to see you before you lost your mind, I guess he can just go back to singing the praises of dead pedophiles.
The issue is with the law(s), not with your ability to defend yourself. George Zimmerman doesn't follow Trayvon Martin if he's unarmed. If he isn't empowered by the subconscious understanding that he is legally allowed to use that fire arm at his discretion as long as he feel threatened, he doesn't shoot a hole through the heart of a teenager.
And for the record, I've been attacked, robbed, and I've been held at gun-and-knifepoint. I am not alive and typing this response if I entered all four of those situations with the mindset you have. I'm either alive and in jail or dead.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 12:22:36 GMT -5
The "stand your ground law" is an expansion of self defense rights that simply removes the requirement to retreat. I'm OK with people not liking the law, but requiring people to run from aggression is ridiculous. There is nothing in the law as I understand it that gives people the right of gun owners/carriers to use them rashly or without impunity. My first choice certainly wouldn't be to shoot but it wouldn't be to take a bullet in the ass while I'm running either. It certainly isn't war but if your are on the receiving end of a violent attack it might as well be, it's pretty scary if you'be never been in that position.
The "stand your ground law" is an expansion of self defense rights that simply removes the requirement to retreat. I'm OK with people not liking the law, but requiring people to run from aggression is ridiculous. There is nothing in the law as I understand it that gives people the right of gun owners/carriers to use them rashly or without impunity. My first choice certainly wouldn't be to shoot but it wouldn't be to take a bullet in the ass while I'm running either. It certainly isn't war but if your are on the receiving end of a violent attack it might as well be, it's pretty scary if you'be never been in that position.
To be very clear, the term "retreat" in law doesn't mean what you think it means.
The term legally means what just like a cop, if you have control of the situation, you have(had, in these states) and obligation to stand down and wait for law enforcement. In the instance of Zimmerman, he already called it in and chose to pursue.
To put this together more concisely, If I. a Black American. get followed or provoked aggressively by someone with a gun (any goddang color); and they start a fight with me without anyone else around (no one to corroborate the story) - and I get the upperhand... Do they have the right to shoot my ass because they see me as a greater threat?
Last Edit: Jul 16, 2013 12:34:16 GMT -5 by Deleted: Don't let me type when I'm passionate, words get displaced - Back to Top
Why would anyone want to turn normal citizens into victims? I don't care if I ever see Stevie or anyone else again over my right to defend myself from harm. I wouldn't care what the law was, if someone was trying to severely injure or kill me and I had the ability to injure or kill them rather than being the victim I'd be the aggressor every single time. For the life of me I can't understand the mindset that everyone should be legally required to run from criminals. Bye, bye Stevie. Glad I got to see you before you lost your mind, I guess he can just go back to singing the praises of dead pedophiles.
The issue is with the law(s), not with your ability to defend yourself. George Zimmerman doesn't follow Trayvon Martin if he's unarmed. If he isn't empowered by the subconscious understanding that he is legally allowed to use that fire arm at his discretion as long as he feel threatened, he doesn't shoot a hole through the heart of a teenager.
And for the record, I've been attacked, robbed, and I've been held at gun-and-knifepoint. I am not alive and typing this response if I entered all four of those situations with the mindset you have. I'm either alive and in jail or dead.
Everyone is a bit different, I'm glad you made it out of those situations alive and in good shape. I think your making a lot of assumptions about Dummy Zimmerman in any case, you have access to his subconscious? I'm not defending the bonehead for his decisions, I'm simply suggesting that for those of us that aren't boneheads there should be no legal requirement to retreat. This case specifically has let a bad apple spoil the barrel. Just because one individual has questionable judgement or improperly exercises his legal rights doesn't mean that right should be taken away from the rest of us.
Why would anyone want to turn normal citizens into victims? I don't care if I ever see Stevie or anyone else again over my right to defend myself from harm. I wouldn't care what the law was, if someone was trying to severely injure or kill me and I had the ability to injure or kill them rather than being the victim I'd be the aggressor every single time. For the life of me I can't understand the mindset that everyone should be legally required to run from criminals. Bye, bye Stevie. Glad I got to see you before you lost your mind, I guess he can just go back to singing the praises of dead pedophiles.
And for the record, I've been attacked, robbed, and I've been held at gun-and-knifepoint. I am not alive and typing this response if I entered all four of those situations with the mindset you have. I'm either alive and in jail or dead.
Same on all three.. assumption of a gun in the car. So this isn't coming from nowhere. Not escalating the situation and giving the police the correct information put that guy in jail for a long time (robbed and extorted multiple college students -- I knew i was going to get robbed so I dealt with it. Once the extortion attempt happened I let him fry himself up like an egg)
The "stand your ground law" is an expansion of self defense rights that simply removes the requirement to retreat. I'm OK with people not liking the law, but requiring people to run from aggression is ridiculous. There is nothing in the law as I understand it that gives people the right of gun owners/carriers to use them rashly or without impunity. My first choice certainly wouldn't be to shoot but it wouldn't be to take a bullet in the ass while I'm running either. It certainly isn't war but if your are on the receiving end of a violent attack it might as well be, it's pretty scary if you'be never been in that position.
The issue is, there doesn't need to be a violent attack. Based on TN's law, if anyone enters into your car, tent, RV, or place of business, for any inappropriate reason, like to steal your beer, the legal presumption is that you have the right to kill them. That's different from saying you have the right to defend yourself from a violent attack, which is something I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree with.
The "stand your ground law" is an expansion of self defense rights that simply removes the requirement to retreat. I'm OK with people not liking the law, but requiring people to run from aggression is ridiculous. There is nothing in the law as I understand it that gives people the right of gun owners/carriers to use them rashly or without impunity. My first choice certainly wouldn't be to shoot but it wouldn't be to take a bullet in the ass while I'm running either. It certainly isn't war but if your are on the receiving end of a violent attack it might as well be, it's pretty scary if you'be never been in that position.
To be very clear, the term "retreat" in law doesn't mean what it think you mean.
The term legally means what just like a cop, if you have control of the situation, you have(had, in these states) and obligation to stand down and wait for law enforcement. In the instance of Zimmerman, he already called it in and chose to pursue.
To put this together more concisely, If I. a Black American. get followed or provoked aggressively by someone with a gun (any goddang color); and they start a fight with me without anyone else around (no one to corroborate the story) - and I get the upperhand... Do they have the right to shoot my ass because they see me as a greater threat?
I'm not a lawyer but I believe you are wrong regarding what retreat actually means. The Castle Doctrine is what the previous law in Florida was based on, most other states as well. It simply stated that you had no responsibility to retreat in your home before exercising deadly force in defense. The stand your ground law just extended that right to public space. No I don't think you as a black American, or American of any race, should be followed, provoked or murdered. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be able to defend myself without retreating first if there is no witness present? It's a shame that there wasn't someone closer who could actually relay what happened in the events of this case, I wish that were different. The idea that legal gun owners/carriers are walking around looking for a reason to shoot someone is ridiculous. Most of the people looking for that kind of trouble wouldn't bother to legally own or carry a firearm.
To put this together more concisely, If I. a Black American. get followed or provoked aggressively by someone with a gun (any goddang color); and they start a fight with me without anyone else around (no one to corroborate the story) - and I get the upperhand... Do they have the right to shoot my ass because they see me as a greater threat?
From the perspective of Tennessee law, while this is probably true in reality, it technically is not true from a legal perspective.
"(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:...
(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and (B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person;"
The "stand your ground law" is an expansion of self defense rights that simply removes the requirement to retreat. I'm OK with people not liking the law, but requiring people to run from aggression is ridiculous. There is nothing in the law as I understand it that gives people the right of gun owners/carriers to use them rashly or without impunity. My first choice certainly wouldn't be to shoot but it wouldn't be to take a bullet in the ass while I'm running either. It certainly isn't war but if your are on the receiving end of a violent attack it might as well be, it's pretty scary if you'be never been in that position.
The issue is, there doesn't need to be a violent attack. Based on TN's law, if anyone enters into your car, tent, RV, or place of business, for any inappropriate reason, like to steal your beer, the legal presumption is that you have the right to kill them. That's different from saying you have the right to defend yourself from a violent attack, which is something I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree with.
That sounds more like the Castle Doctrine than Stand Your Ground and that's been around forever in a great many states.
To be very clear, the term "retreat" in law doesn't mean what it think you mean.
The term legally means what just like a cop, if you have control of the situation, you have(had, in these states) and obligation to stand down and wait for law enforcement. In the instance of Zimmerman, he already called it in and chose to pursue.
To put this together more concisely, If I. a Black American. get followed or provoked aggressively by someone with a gun (any goddang color); and they start a fight with me without anyone else around (no one to corroborate the story) - and I get the upperhand... Do they have the right to shoot my ass because they see me as a greater threat?
The idea that legal gun owners/carriers are walking around looking for a reason to shoot someone is ridiculous.
This statement I find ridiculous on it's face. and I'm sorry if you have issues with that.
There are plenty of registered gun owners in the largest extremists groups in our nation; with complete acknowledgement that they are looking to keep their nation "pure". The point isn't to say that there are people going around looking for trouble, but when trouble presents itself should someone have to die from someone's quick decision?
Or how about the fact that this said law; doesn't protect the person if they don't shoot to kill or disable? If you set off a warning shot, the law doesn't apply -- which makes zero sense because a warning shot does more than enough in most instances.
The issue is, there doesn't need to be a violent attack. Based on TN's law, if anyone enters into your car, tent, RV, or place of business, for any inappropriate reason, like to steal your beer, the legal presumption is that you have the right to kill them. That's different from saying you have the right to defend yourself from a violent attack, which is something I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree with.
That sounds more like the Castle Doctrine than Stand Your Ground and that's been around forever in a great many states.
The Tennessee law essentially combines both doctrines. The default is Stand Your Ground, and if the conduct involves a person unlawfully breaking into a residence, dwelling, business or vehicle, then you get a legal presumption that killing that person was reasonable. The state would have to rebut that presumption if prosecuting you. In many cases, the only witness is dead, so that would be very difficult.
Everyone is a bit different, I'm glad you made it out of those situations alive and in good shape. I think your making a lot of assumptions about Dummy Zimmerman in any case, you have access to his subconscious? I'm not defending the bonehead for his decisions, I'm simply suggesting that for those of us that aren't boneheads there should be no legal requirement to retreat. This case specifically has let a bad apple spoil the barrel. Just because one individual has questionable judgement or improperly exercises his legal rights doesn't mean that right should be taken away from the rest of us.
So, you think Zimmerman (who is small both in height and girth) follows Trayvon if he's unarmed? Zimmerman is a meek human being (based on observing the guy in the court room and on tape), what makes you think he's going to feel he can handle that sort of situation by himself without a trump card like a gun? No, if he is unarmed and the dispatcher advises him to wait, he likely waits. Because he's a soft man only empowered because he has a portable life-taker on his hip. These laws leave way too much opportunity for human error, which is prevalent in every shooting that's either accidental or a "grey area" situation like this. Have you ever watched a normal person handle a crisis? People wilt and become irrational in like...half a second. Assuming people in similar situations will be calm enough to make the right decision there is laughable.
I know the logic that's used, too. "Hey, if some guy kills a little kid with a car while driving drunk, should everyone have to give up their cars?" Or something along those lines. And that's irrational nonsense, imo, because a car serves a purpose besides taking the life from another living entity.
You want to hunt? Use a bow and arrow. You want to defend your family? Buy a shotgun and store it in your house. Guns shouldn't be a recreational activity and no one anywhere should have a carrying permit unless you also carry a badge.
Also, "retreat" in the way it is used here means you take a step back. You are at least trying to diffuse the situation by removing yourself from it, if the person continues pursuing, you no longer have to retreat. So, if someone attacks me, I push them off and yell "STOP!" and they lunge at me again, I've retreated and are now subject to self defense laws. At least, I'm fairly certain that's the case in NY.
The issue is, there doesn't need to be a violent attack. Based on TN's law, if anyone enters into your car, tent, RV, or place of business, for any inappropriate reason, like to steal your beer, the legal presumption is that you have the right to kill them. That's different from saying you have the right to defend yourself from a violent attack, which is something I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree with.
That sounds more like the Castle Doctrine than Stand Your Ground and that's been around forever in a great many states.
Serious question, why should we allow ordinary citizens to decide what crimes are punishable by death?
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 12:52:49 GMT -5
Yes. There are somewhere around 270 million guns in America, admittedly there are many gun owners that own more that one gun. Let's say that the average gun owner actually owns three firearms. That's somewhere around 80 million gun owners in the US. There are about 300 million people in the us meaning that even using the most conservative estimates about 1/4 to 1/3 off the households in America own a gun. One third of the people I know are not looking to shoot someone or harm people in any way. That seems pretty conclusive. On the other hand crimes committed using firearms, generally handguns, are overwhelmingly obtained illegally. www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
Everyone is a bit different, I'm glad you made it out of those situations alive and in good shape. I think your making a lot of assumptions about Dummy Zimmerman in any case, you have access to his subconscious? I'm not defending the bonehead for his decisions, I'm simply suggesting that for those of us that aren't boneheads there should be no legal requirement to retreat. This case specifically has let a bad apple spoil the barrel. Just because one individual has questionable judgement or improperly exercises his legal rights doesn't mean that right should be taken away from the rest of us.
Zimmerman is a meek human being (based on observing the guy in the court room and on tape)
Guns shouldn't be a recreational activity and no one anywhere should have a carrying permit unless you also carry a badge.
You are at least trying to diffuse the situation by removing yourself from it, if the person continues pursuing, you no longer have to retreat. So, if someone attacks me, I push them off and yell "STOP!" and they lunge at me again, I've retreated and are now subject to self defense laws. At least, I'm fairly certain that's the case in NY.
1. He literally ran on the "I'm a little b*tch platform" Even more despicable than starting the fight
2. Disagree, but we should have smarter laws on gun ownership. Jay on this board was telling me about doing a gun license type program where you have to confirm your ability to continue buying or legally shooting weapons. Makes the most sense, your guns don't get taken away just like your car doesn't get impounded unless you drive it illegally.
3. This is also true. But don't let anyone know, because we haven't had an ever decreasing crime and death rate in NY/NYC. Shhh..all crime all the time.
Yes. There are somewhere around 270 million guns in America, admittedly there are many gun owners that own more that one gun. Let's say that the average gun owner actually owns three firearms. That's somewhere around 80 million gun owners in the US. There are about 300 million people in the us meaning that even using the most conservative estimates about 1/4 to 1/3 off the households in America own a gun. One third of the people I know are not looking to shoot someone or harm people in any way. That seems pretty conclusive. On the other hand crimes committed using firearms, generally handguns, are overwhelmingly obtained illegally. www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
Gun ownership does not = legal gun ownership. Are you confident that 1/3 of the people you know who own fire arms have them properly registered? Did they buy them legally in one state then reregister when they moved to another? Did the properly register the firearm that was a gift or inheritance? Do they carry them in full compliance with local carry ordinances?
I think the assumption you're making this that gun crimes are committed by people who buy them illegally from shady black markets, but that website certainly doesn't support that.
but I do not find it strange that your presence being requested in the Orgy thread and then you showing up, like it was the quacking Bonzai Bat Signal. 
