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!!
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.
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.
If I had more faith in humanity I could agree. But I don't. In fact, my faith in our species is decreasing by the hour. People are too stupid and selfish to police themselves. What do you do when two little toddlers keep whacking each other with some toy? You take away the toy.
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?
Serious answer, that's the way it works in this country. Ordinary citizens vote on laws, get elected and draft laws, occasionally become prosecuting attorneys and choose or not choose to go after the death penalty and lastly, serve as jurors and actually sentence, or not, other citizens to death. In the more specific instance that I think you are referring to it's not so much that an "ordinary citizen" gets to choose how a crime is punished, they just have the personal freedom to defend their life and property.
Serious question, why should we allow ordinary citizens to decide what crimes are punishable by death?
Serious answer, that's the way it works in this country. Ordinary citizens vote on laws, get elected and draft laws, occasionally become prosecuting attorneys and choose or not choose to go after the death penalty and lastly, serve as jurors and actually sentence, or not, other citizens to death. In the more specific instance that I think you are referring to it's not so much that an "ordinary citizen" gets to choose how a crime is punished, they just have the personal freedom to defend their life and property.
I don't think any human should have the right to use deadly force to protect their property.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 13:04:19 GMT -5
Fair. It is legal in many states however. In some states it's even legal to use deadly force defending your neighbors property. I'd recommend you and other like minded people work on changing the laws in your state to better represent your values.
Fair. It is legal in many states however. In some states it's even legal to use deadly force defending your neighbors property. I'd recommend you and other like minded people work on changing the laws in your state to better represent your values.
I don't think any human should have the right to use deadly force to protect their property.
I'm not taking any sides here.. just playing devil's advocate, plus I love the topic of ethics and morality so this is all really interesting. But what about using deadly force to protect their life?
Serious question, why should we allow ordinary citizens to decide what crimes are punishable by death?
Serious answer, that's the way it works in this country. Ordinary citizens vote on laws, get elected and draft laws, occasionally become prosecuting attorneys and choose or not choose to go after the death penalty and lastly, serve as jurors and actually sentence, or not, other citizens to death. In the more specific instance that I think you are referring to it's not so much that an "ordinary citizen" gets to choose how a crime is punished, they just have the personal freedom to defend their life and property.
"That's the way we've always done it" was part of the reasoning to keep slavery, segregation, prevent women's suffrage etc. etc.
I don't think any human should have the right to use deadly force to protect their property.
I'm not taking any sides here.. just playing devil's advocate, plus I love the topic of ethics and morality so this is all really interesting. But what about using deadly force to protect their life?
Yes, but what constitutes protecting your own life needs to be rationally defined.
Edit: By this I mean, I don't think it's rational to presume that anyone who enters your car, RV, tent, or place of business illegally is a threat to your life.
Also this, to further de rail and then analyze: www.politicususa.com/2012/07/18/george-zimmerman-african-americans-apologize.html "The real kicker came when Zimmerman accused African-Americans of rushing to judgement and asked everyone who he claims rushed to judgement to apologize to him. Zimmerman said, “I can’t guess to what their motives are. I would just ask for an apology. I mean if I did something that was wrong. I would apologize.” -Zimmerman
My response to so much of this all. Honestly, I don't know what the fuck I would ever tell my kids -- I never ever wanted to be like my parents and tell them to be afraid. But they might have been right, and it's a great reason to NOT make babies. so, maybe I have some passion about this that means more than property and this assumed rights to gun ownership.
Yes, but what constitutes protecting your own life needs to be rationally defined.
I agree. However, it can be difficult to rationally define what type of force is necessary in the heat of the moment. If someone breaks in your home and you do happen to shoot and kill them, only to find out they were an unarmed petty thief with no intention of bringing any harm (let's hypothetically assume this), how is that justified as either right or wrong? The argument can be made that your life was never truly in danger so the killing was unjust, but at the same time you had no way of knowing that ahead of time. Just the other day I read an article about a man who tried to rob a store with a BB gun. The clerk pulled out a real gun and shot him. Was the clerk in the right to assume that his life was in danger? Sure. However after discovering it was a BB gun does that assumption change?
I agree with your edit. You can't assume everyone entering your "domicile" or whatever term you want to use, is a threat to your life. But the sad reality is humans are imperfect, and this is only made worse in situations such as this. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Yes, but what constitutes protecting your own life needs to be rationally defined.
I agree. However, it can be difficult to rationally define what type of force is necessary in the heat of the moment. If someone breaks in your home and you do happen to shoot and kill them, only to find out they were an unarmed petty thief with no intention of bringing any harm (let's hypothetically assume this), how is that justified as either right or wrong? The argument can be made that your life was never truly in danger so the killing was unjust, but at the same time you had no way of knowing that ahead of time. Just the other day I read an article about a man who tried to rob a store with a BB gun. The clerk pulled out a real gun and shot him. Was the clerk in the right to assume that his life was in danger? Sure. However after discovering it was a BB gun does that assumption change?
I agree with your edit. You can't assume everyone entering your "domicile" or whatever term you want to use, is a threat to your life. But the sad reality is humans are imperfect, and this is only made worse in situations such as this. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Hindsight is 20/20 but that's why involuntary manslaughter exists (which they should have went with instead of 1st degree).
Also the previous case you note involves the other creating clear intention for harm (b/c the main reason we started banning play guns that look like real guns is literally this issue). The problem most have about the Stand Your Ground laws isn't the self-defense portion, but rather the lack of limits on what is "reasonable danger" and the precedent that proceeds from it. People sincerely forget how much an idea of what is legally viable can alter the standing of a current case.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 13:30:35 GMT -5
In a civilized society crime is frowned upon. Defending yourself is legal and only frowned upon by those that apparently value other peoples lives above their own. Your choice, by all means run, there is no crime against that either.
Just the other day I read an article about a man who tried to rob a store with a BB gun. The clerk pulled out a real gun and shot him. Was the clerk in the right to assume that his life was in danger? Sure. However after discovering it was a BB gun does that assumption change?
Just to address this one part - the assumption at the time of incident is what matters, so it's irrelevant what's determined later. At least from the legal standpoint.
Last Edit: Jul 16, 2013 13:32:47 GMT -5 by Pops - Back to Top
In a civilized society crime is frowned upon. Defending yourself is legal and only frowned upon by those that apparently value other peoples lives above their own. Your choice, by all means run, there is no crime against that either.
Dude, you have to separate "defending oneself" and "using a gun to defend oneself." Shooting someone isn't the only way to protect yourself and your family.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 13:38:32 GMT -5
I already have. I'm a gun owner, carry a gun often, served in the military and have defended myself more times than I've cared to without a firearm. When and if I ever need to exercise that right I will. Is that enough separation for you? FWIW, if you were in legal possesion of a firearm and someone was attacking you with a baseball bat what would you do? Let them hit you until you were sure the next blow would be fatal? Hope you are faster? I'd probably shoot them in the leg and then briskly jog away, I'd do what I could to not shoot them but I wouldn't run and I wouldn't let them hit me with the bat if I could help it.
I already have. I'm a gun owner, carry a gun often, served in the military and have defended myself more times than I've cared to without a firearm. When and if I ever need to exercise that right I will. Is that enough separation for you? FWIW, if you were in legal possesion of a firearm and someone was attacking you with a baseball bat what would you do? Let them hit you until you were sure the next blow would be fatal? Hope you are faster? I'd probably shoot them in the leg and then briskly jog away, I'd do what I could to not shoot them but I wouldn't run and I wouldn't let them hit me with the bat if I could help it.
First issue is this idea you're putting forth where running from a dangerous situation is a negative. It's not. It's not cowardice, it's intelligence.
Second issue is the idea that your only options in your hypothetical are "get beat with bat until you fight back" or "shoot them." You've already eliminated the easiest solution (run) and you're ignoring that there are many other ways to defend yourself. Screaming is quite effective. People generally don't like to commit crimes in front of large crowds of people, and if they do, there's a large crowd of people to stop it from happening.
And the "attacked" comment I made earlier was referring to a time when some headcase came after me with a bat. Shockingly, I survived by running away from him. No one revoked my man card, either.
Tavarious China Smith was not particularly lucky. A small-time drug dealer in Manatee County, Smith sold crack and marijuana not once, not twice, but three times to undercover cops.
But in one respect, Smith, 29, hit the jackpot.
On two occasions, more than two years apart, he committed homicides but was not charged thanks to provisions of Florida's "stand your ground" law. Smith claimed self-defense in both cases and prosecutors agreed. He never faced a judge or jury for fatally shooting Nikita Williams, 18, in February 2008 in a drug-related incident or Breon Mitchell, Williams' 23-year-old half-brother, in December 2010.
I went into the Stevie show with such high expectations, and left disappointed. Probably the most underwhelming headliner I've seen at Bonnaroo, which for a big fan like me was pretty heartbreaking.
I already have. I'm a gun owner, carry a gun often, served in the military and have defended myself more times than I've cared to without a firearm. When and if I ever need to exercise that right I will. Is that enough separation for you? FWIW, if you were in legal possesion of a firearm and someone was attacking you with a baseball bat what would you do? Let them hit you until you were sure the next blow would be fatal? Hope you are faster? I'd probably shoot them in the leg and then briskly jog away, I'd do what I could to not shoot them but I wouldn't run and I wouldn't let them hit me with the bat if I could help it.
First issue is this idea you're putting forth where running from a dangerous situation is a negative. It's not. It's not cowardice, it's intelligence.
Second issue is the idea that your only options in your hypothetical are "get beat with bat until you fight back" or "shoot them." You've already eliminated the easiest solution (run) and you're ignoring that there are many other ways to defend yourself. Screaming is quite effective. People generally don't like to commit crimes in front of large crowds of people, and if they do, there's a large crowd of people to stop it from happening.
And the "attacked" comment I made earlier was referring to a time when some headcase came after me with a bat. Shockingly, I survived by running away from him. No one revoked my man card, either.
It seems like you're arguing over what you would do, not what's legal. I've already established what I would do, that's unlikely to change. Run away from the aggressor screaming and crying down the street all you want, I'm just not a fan of it being a legal requirement.
I already have. I'm a gun owner, carry a gun often, served in the military and have defended myself more times than I've cared to without a firearm. When and if I ever need to exercise that right I will. Is that enough separation for you? FWIW, if you were in legal possesion of a firearm and someone was attacking you with a baseball bat what would you do? Let them hit you until you were sure the next blow would be fatal? Hope you are faster? I'd probably shoot them in the leg and then briskly jog away, I'd do what I could to not shoot them but I wouldn't run and I wouldn't let them hit me with the bat if I could help it.
If you shot someone who was beating you with a baseball bat, that would be valid self-defense in all 50 states, regardless of Stand Your Ground laws.
I went into the Stevie show with such high expectations, and left disappointed. Probably the most underwhelming headliner I've seen at Bonnaroo, which for a big fan like me was pretty heartbreaking.
First issue is this idea you're putting forth where running from a dangerous situation is a negative. It's not. It's not cowardice, it's intelligence.
Second issue is the idea that your only options in your hypothetical are "get beat with bat until you fight back" or "shoot them." You've already eliminated the easiest solution (run) and you're ignoring that there are many other ways to defend yourself. Screaming is quite effective. People generally don't like to commit crimes in front of large crowds of people, and if they do, there's a large crowd of people to stop it from happening.
And the "attacked" comment I made earlier was referring to a time when some headcase came after me with a bat. Shockingly, I survived by running away from him. No one revoked my man card, either.
It seems like you're arguing over what you would do, not what's legal. I've already established what I would do, that's unlikely to change. Run away from the aggressor screaming and crying down the street all you want, I'm just not a fan of it being a legal requirement.
Uh, you asked me what I would do? Hence my response.
I could keep explaining that running isn't a coward's move and is the choice that gives both you and the aggressor the best chance of surviving the incident, but you clearly have it embedded in your brain that if faced with an aggressor, you must destroy it.
I went into the Stevie show with such high expectations, and left disappointed. Probably the most underwhelming headliner I've seen at Bonnaroo, which for a big fan like me was pretty heartbreaking.
.....wut.
Sorry, it's true. I've talked to other people who agreed he may have been having an off night. I respect your right to disagree, but I just left disappointed. I was wrong about him being the MOST underwhelming headliner I've seen though, that award goes to Bruce. At least I watched the entire Stevie set, I had to leave Bruce early it was so awful.
Sorry, it's true. I've talked to other people who agreed he may have been having an off night. I respect your right to disagree, but I just left disappointed. I was wrong about him being the MOST underwhelming headliner I've seen though, that award goes to Bruce. At least I watched the entire Stevie set, I had to leave Bruce early it was so awful.
Where were you sitting?
I have talked to many, many people about that set and didn't hear anything like what you're saying.
Post by Funky Munky on Jul 16, 2013 14:31:05 GMT -5
I agree. Adding, and then crossing out, you're a moron, is chicken shit, I'd expect someone representing the position of a civilized society to at least have civilized discourse. I've said since my first post that my position has nothing to do with the specifics of the Zimmerman case and in fact his choices were poor and he is in fact an idiot in my estimation.
