So you wish to rewrite the text, the word could be translated murder but I doubt that concept existed then
|
So you wish to rewrite the text, the word could be translated murder but I doubt that concept existed then
Huh ? The concept is as old as Cain and Abel.
Its important to note that this new self defence law backed by the NRA with money, has driven gun sales up, through fear of course, and even threatens state laws that prohibit limits gun sales, and carrying a concealed weapon across state lines.
The same group that says you can buy a clip of 32 bullets for a 9mm handgun that was designed for 8 shots from Wal Marts. The assault weapons ban that limited capacity for handguns, and rifles has since expired, so the effect of these new laws has made a nut case capable of killing a lot more citizens.
This fact, and the lax laws about selling guns in the first place only increase the likelihood a nut case can have a gun in the first place. Good for the NRA, and the funeral business, bad for the ones who are killed by these nuts.
Im not sure Im understanding this line of thinking. Are you really saying that if guns were illegal then the criminals that aren't suppose to have them in the first place will just give them up? Also those mags your talking about aren't made for the pistols your commenting on. They are for rifles that use pistol ammo. There is nothing to stop a "nut case" if they have an objective anyway. Their way of thinking isn't within normal parameters nor does it have anything to do with how the law is handled. Laws are already in place to stop the known "nut jobs" from getting guns in the first place. Very few States don't have at least some form of background checks before a gun purchase. Also if you have a carry permit and your visiting a "reciprocal" State it is legal to cross a state line with a gun. The only limitation is that your subject to the laws of the State that you are visiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I appreciate your attempt to clear up the stand your ground law, but it really didn't help. Let me ask it this way... Let's say you're being chased by an angry MOB, and they want to tear you limb from limb. Can you shoot 'em all?
excon
Can you shoot them all? My answer would be that it depends on the encroachment. Lets say the mob is chasing after you and you feel your life threatened. You shoot 1 or 2 and the mob dissipates. Then you have no right if the other party is in retreat. If they were to continue and the threat remains then you have the right to shoot as many as it takes to relinquish the threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
To me the line is drawn at the level of threat and reasoning within the law. Lets say the mob is chasing you and you're a few feet from your car. You have enough of a head start to get away. You take a few shots into the crowd to slow them down. That to me would be illegal as you had the means to relinquish the threat without violence.
All of this of course is my opinion and what happens in the real world and the system can be dramatically different.
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
So, you CAN stand you ground. The only difference is how many you can shoot.. But, if you can legally shoot a couple, you can shoot 'em all.
Of course, nobody who is being pursued is going to stop, shoot a couple of people, and then watch?? That ain't real life. If you've got a 30 round magazine, and you fire ONCE or TWICE, you're going to keep on firing..
excon
If it were real life then most people wouldn't be walking around with a 30 round mag. And Im almost positive the person in question would still be running away after shooting someone until they were clear. As I stated only if the crowd continues to follow and create the danger to life would it be OK. Most unarmed crowds would start to dissipate if a gun is fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
What if one mobster HAS a gun? HIS life IS being threatened. Can HE shoot?
excon
Lets get some definitions down first. If the "mobster" has a legal right to have a gun and it is not during the commission of a crime then yes. If he has lost the right to carry a weapon then no. That would be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Threatened means imminent danger not just a verbal assault.
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Everybody's gun is legal. The guy the mob was pursing turned around and shot two people. It looks like he was next. Can he shoot?
excon
If you mean a person from the mob returning fire without pursuit then yes.
If they remain in the chase with the specific intention of shooting someone then no. They did not excersize good judgement and were committing an illegal act (crime).
So how about an an unknown adult chasing down, and confronting a kid, and the kid cracks him one, and the guy shoots him?
40 feet from the safety of his truck, and seventy feet from the safety of the kids house? The only probable cause was a strange kid in his neighbor hood of a thousand people. What even gives him the right to confront the kid in the first place?
I mean, who is threatening who here?
Hello again, dad:
You did good, but I don't think it's as clear cut as that.
excon
Thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Like I said before what we are talking about here may not represent real life situations nor the attitude of the courts for a given jurisdiction. It was a hypothetical discussion on hair splitting.
The conflict is representational. Both sides are equal. In referring to this case they both had legal reasons for doing what they were doing. They were both within the law. The difference is that one had a carry permit and the other did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As far as what actually happened we don't really know and I hope the real truth is ferreted out. It may take months before something changes and arrests are made or it may not happen at all. Our legal system isn't always fair as we would like to assume nor is it always swift.
I respectfully submit, they are not equal, as the guy with the gun was stalking a kid coming from the candy store. They are not equal because he lied about a suspicious character who was up to something when he didn't know. They are not equal because the guy with the gun assumed the kid coming from the candy store was a threat, or suspicious.
They are not equal because the guy with the gun acted on assumptions, presumptions, and not on the basis of fact, and against the suggestions of authority.
They are not equal because the guy with the gun is presumed innocent, by law, and the dead kid coming from the candy store is presumed guilty of something, and no one knows what it is.
Maybe the law needs to be clarified so we know the good guys from the bad guys. Lets also understand this only one of many such cases like this, unarmed people being shot dead with no evidence of wrong doing. I can go with SLOW justice, but NO justice??
Do you really think without the cameras this would be just swept under an already crowded rug? I DO!!
Here is the latest news story I could find on what is going on. It is clear there was an altercation of some kind happening. As to what extent we may never know. But until everything that can be known is known then we must reserve the right of judgement and place faith in the system.
Ref:
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...,4644246.story
Cal they will kill you with hypotheticals that are not relevant to the case at hand .
Here are the relevant sections of the law . Whether the force used is justified is up to the DAs ,and possibly a jury.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.... 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
.. .
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
...
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:...
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Didja hear that NBC doctored the 9-1-1 tape to make it appear that Zimmerman was a racist ?
NBC to probe its handling of a Trayvon Martin news report
Another shining example of the dinosaurs of the gate keepers of truth at work !
They didn't doctor the tape. They did skip a few lines when reporting what the tape had said.
Which is the equivalent of doctoring .It complete altered the sequence to make it appear that Zimmerman made the observation that Martin was a Black on his own, without prompting .
NBC changed the tape to comply with the narrative they were creating . It's a fraud .
The tape wasn't changed. They just skipped over part of the tape. And yes, that was Not A Good Thing.
That is the lame lie that NBC is issuing as an apology . They should just admit it was an intentional attempt to paint Zimmerman as a racist. In many ways it shaped the way the story has unfolded.Quote:
"During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers,"
This is how the Today show 1st aired the abridged tape :
"This guy looks like he's up to no good he looks black."
This is the actual transcript :
"This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy is he black, white or Hispanic?"
"He looks black,"
Sorry NBC... you don't get a pass . 'An error made in the production process '?? Give me a break!! The State prosecutor should investigate possible evidence tampering... Eric Holder should investigate the instigation of racial tensions by NBC . Zimmerman should consider a defamation lawsuit.
Imagine that by ABC! The F*******g G******ns! They always get away!
Just like the five he called in before.
Well you can hear what you want to hear... I hear the word 'goons'. You hear the word 'coons' . Makes a big difference doesn't it ? Given that his volunteer work involves educating black children ;I tend to believe he used the word 'goons' .
Hello again:
You're ALL missing the point.. It's NOT about Trayvon, Zimmerman, or the media. It's about the racist COPS and the "shoot first and ask questions later", law.
Yeah, I know what you think about ME mentioning race... But, I'd like a simple answer to the simplest of questions... If Trayvon had been white, and Zimmerman black, do you think we would have the same outcome?
We would NOT, and THAT'S the issue..
excon
Well ;we now know that the cops wanted to book him.So the charge that they were racist is unfounded .
Sanford cops wanted to charge Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin caseQuote:
the police went to the state attorney with a capias request, meaning: 'We're through with our investigation and here it is for you.' The state attorney impaneled a grand jury, but before anything else could be done, the governor stepped in and asked us to pick it up in mid-stream.
A capias is a request for charges to be filed.
There may be issues about the law. But ,IF the narrative is true ;that Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head slammed into the concrete ;then with or without the law , he was justified to use the gun for self defense.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nice deflection... But, no cigar... We know ONE cop wanted to prosecute. We don't know what OTHER cops wanted, INCLUDING the chief. In any case, you're making a distinction between the cops and the prosecutor that I don't. Racist COP, or racist PROSECUTOR, don't make NO difference to me.
I'll ask ONCE more.. If the circumstances were the same, and a black man killed white man, would he still be free? I know WHY you don't want to answer.
excon
We are already dealing with too many hypotheticals and shifting narratives in this case.
That remains to be seen, as he was the aggressor, and had he used better judgement, and followed instructions, or even obeyed the recommended guide lines set forth in the neighborhood guide lines, that said, no patrols, no guns, then the circumstances would be different. He would be at home, and an INNOCENT kid would be alive.Quote:
There may be issues about the law. But ,IF the narrative is true ;that Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head slammed into the concrete ;then with or without the law , he was justified to use the gun for self defense.
I find it amazing you justify this homicide, and condone it with your arguments. I can see you cry to high heaven had it been Zimmerman who was dead, and Trayvon free. And that would be a hypocritical double standard. No matter what you heard on tape, you cannot erase the FACT that all his other calls about suspicious people were of color, and it matters NOT that he volunteered to teach Black kids. That's a cop out. In a half white community the only ones he deems suspicious are kids of color??
Obviously you see, hear, and think what you will but you can't ignore the obvious, nor gloss over it.
Its beginning to look like cover up rather than sloppy police work. Another observation. How can he afford a team of high priced lawyers in the first place? Oh, that's right, he can,his daddy was a judge, but poor people get a public defender, if they live through it.
Fair and unbiased equal protection under the law my A$$!! Fact is this law, and law enforcements application of it lets murderers go free, and serves the public poorly. You call this law and order?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You have constantly brought up all the OTHER killings that went on during that weekend... Apparently, you're perplexed as to why THIS killing is any different... When I try to explain that the black community can tell the difference between a RACIST system, and a NON racist one, you look at me with a wrinkled up nose, and say WHAT racism...
I've pointed out that when the cops catch the killers in ALL the other killings YOU mention, they WILL be prosecuted.. THIS one isn't. When I raise THE pertinent question, the answer of which will reveal WHY this killing IS different, you want to look the other way.
excon
All I know is that on the same day that Bobby Rush donned a hoodie to speak in the House of Reps ;there were 13 people shot, leaving two dead in Chicago .In his district a black man donned a hoodie and shot 5 ,killing one. Did he say a thing about these seeming daily killings in the town he represents ?
The outrage is being stoked by a press that wants to keep a sensational story alive instead of letting the process proceed.
I have no way of confirming or refuting your hypothetical .But I know that while everyone obsesses over this case ;scores of young black men are being killed in this country ,and it isn't white racists doing it.
Tom, Tom, Tom, go ahead start a thread about that if you want, but what of this case? Interesting you call for patients and due process here, but don't in the Chicago case. That's inconsistent, and distracting from this issue, in this case.
I mean where was your outrage when scores of black people were being killed FOR YEARS? To have equal protection, there has to be equal application. And a fair law in the first place. Ain't none of that happening here and if it weren't for the media attention there would be no investigation by any one. I know it takes time, but I say keep the pressure on. You just want it to go away.
And that's not a hypothetical.
You make it sound like I have a personal interest in the case . I don't . I think for this to be ginned up to get the national attention it has ,there had to be other motives . Why would NBC fabricate the tapes unless they were trying to drive the story to a predetermined conclusion ? You call that justice ? I say it's media lynching .Quote:
You just want it to go away.
I call it dishonest reporting.
Media lynching.
CNN is now backing off their claim about the racial slur in the 9-1-1 audio. They enhanced the audio and now it sounds like he said "cold" .
Also ABC did an enhancement of the police video of Zimmerman's head ,and now it appears that there is a wound.
George Zimmerman: Enhanced Video Shows Injury on Trayvon Martin Shooter's Head | Video - ABC News
Zimmerman must be asking by now , 'Which office do I go to get my reputation back'?
And sometimes they're just in so deep with some folks they've become just plain stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
MSNBC duped: Network runs satirical fake news from Daily Kos as a real story
I would call all of this extreme advocacy journalism. The type preferred by the majority of the media most of the time.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 PM. |