[paraclete]

So you wish to rewrite the text, the word could be translated murder but I doubt that concept existed then

[tomder55]

Huh ? The concept is as old as Cain and Abel.

[talaniman]

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.

[cdad]

Its important to note that this new self defence law backed by the NRA with money, has driven gun sales up, thru 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.

[excon]

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.

Hello again, dad:

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

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

I appreciate your attempt to clear up the stand your ground law, but it really didn't help. Lemme 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.

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.

[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.

Hello again, dad:

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

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

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 gonna 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 gonna 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.

[excon]

Most unarmed crowds would start to dissipate if a gun is fired.

Hello again, dad:

What if one mobster HAS a gun? HIS life IS being threatened. Can HE shoot?

excon

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

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.

Threatened means imminent danger not just a verbal assault.

[excon]

Threatened means emminent danger not just a verbal assault.

Hello again, dad:

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

[cdad]

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).

[talaniman]

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?

[excon]

Hello again, dad:

You did good, but I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

excon

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

You did good, but I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

excon

Thanks :)

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.

[cdad]

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??

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.

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.

[talaniman]

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!!

[cdad]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[tomder55]

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 !