Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[blankall]

A couple of points I find especially ridiculous in all of this tragedy:

1) Zimmerman being treated as white. If Zimmerman was killed by a white man, he'd be the poster boy for the hispanic community.

2) People (many of whom are usually very leftist and anti-jail) arguing that the state needs to be less lenient when it comes to putting people in jail. Or, better yet, people arguing that the USA is a lesser state for not being tough enough on crime. Wow. Do you honestly think it's harder to get thrown in jail in the USA than Canada?

Take this case. Ansari, the "country club murderer". He is caught on video chasing down his victim. He then stabs him 30+ times. He was given 5 years and let on parole 2 years after his conviction:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Par...156/story.html

This is what goes on in Canada. If Ansari is getting out in 2 years for chasing down and stabbing someone 33 times, what is Zimmerman getting, even if he is convicted?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

A couple of points I find especially ridiculous in all of this tragedy:

1) Zimmerman being treated as white. If Zimmerman was killed by a white man, he'd be the poster boy for the hispanic community.

2) People (many of whom are usually very leftist and anti-jail) arguing that the state needs to be less lenient when it comes to putting people in jail. Or, better yet, people arguing that the USA is a lesser state for not being tough enough on crime. Wow. Do you honestly think it's harder to get thrown in jail in the USA than Canada?

Take this case. Ansari, the "country club murderer". He is caught on video chasing down his victim. He then stabs him 30+ times. He was given 5 years and let on parole 2 years after his conviction:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Par...156/story.html

This is what goes on in Canada. If Ansari is getting out in 2 years for chasing down and stabbing someone 33 times, what is Zimmerman getting, even if he is convicted?

Are people saying that? What I see is people arguing that laws regarding gun use should be significantly strengthened.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are people saying that? What I see is people arguing that laws regarding gun use should be significantly strengthened.

Really? People are flat out arguing against the appropriatness of his self-defence argument. A lot of this is racially based. The ironic part is that if you strengthen gun laws or weaken self-defence defences, then you expose the lowest socio-economic classes to more convictions. It's people in lower socio-economic classes who are more likely to be involved in violent crime and more likely to carry guns.

Once you change a law, you have to apply it consistently. You cannot pick and choose when it applies.

Essentially, by changing these laws, you'd be sacrificing larger parts of the black and other disadvantaged communities to posthumously respect Trayvon Martin.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Really? People are flat out arguing against the appropriatness of his self-defence argument. A lot of this is racially based. The ironic part is that if you strengthen gun laws or weaken self-defence defences, then you expose the lowest socio-economic classes to more convictions. It's people in lower socio-economic classes who are more likely to be involved in violent crime and more likely to carry guns.

Once you change a law, you have to apply it consistently. You cannot pick and choose when it applies.

Essentially, by changing these laws, you'd be sacrificing larger parts of the black and other disadvantaged communities to posthumously respect Trayvon Martin.

Sacrificing how? By removing guns from the streets, guns which are often responsible for the inflated murder rates in those communities, and going after the same gun crime? I'll take that sacrifice.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not arguing against the appropriateness of his self defense argument, apparently he convinced the jury his fear was reasonable along with his response. What I'm arguing for is something that would shift the burden of proving that reasonableness onto someone who elects to carry a concealed weapon.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Sacrificing how? By removing guns from the streets, guns which are often responsible for the inflated murder rates in those communities, and going after the same gun crime? I'll take that sacrifice.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not arguing against the appropriateness of his self defense argument, apparently he convinced the jury his fear was reasonable along with his response. What I'm arguing for is something that would shift the burden of proving that reasonableness onto someone who elects to carry a concealed weapon.

Most gun offences do not involve legally licenced guns. The case of a legally licensed gun being involved in a killing is the exception, not the rule.

If you promote stiffer gun laws, you are affectign socio-economically disadvantaged classes far more than the people you are arguing should be protected.

And yes, you are arguing against his defence. Your arguing that he should have to prove his defence on a higher burden, IE it should be less available.

Once again, what you're talking about would result in an all out assault on working class and ghetto-ised Americans, who make up the vast majority of violent crime and gun offences in America. No different than the "war on drugs".

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Igottago

What kind of society is it where average citizens feel the need to be armed in order to go out and live life?

Uncivilized?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Most gun offences do not involve legally licenced guns. The case of a legally licensed gun being involved in a killing is the exception, not the rule.

If you promote stiffer gun laws, you are affectign socio-economically disadvantaged classes far more than the people you are arguing should be protected.

And yes, you are arguing against his defence. Your arguing that he should have to prove his defence on a higher burden, IE it should be less available.

Once again, what you're talking about would result in an all out assault on working class and ghetto-ised Americans, who make up the vast majority of violent crime and gun offences in America. No different than the "war on drugs".

Possibly the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Gun laws that are aimed at removing one of the leading causes of death for inner city youth are an all out assault on the working class. What a joke.

And sorry, if you want to carry a gun you should have additional burdens placed upon you.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Possibly the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Gun laws that are aimed at removing one of the leading causes of death for inner city youth are an all out assault on the working class. What a joke.

And sorry, if you want to carry a gun you should have additional burdens placed upon you.

Are you suggesting that somehow the legal carry people not being allowed to legally carry....will reduce the amount of people getting shot? ....when i think its pretty obvious that the vast vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by those who dont have their guns purchased legally or are even allowed to have them to begin with. That makes zero sense.

Other than that...i agree it would be wonderful to see a law that would help lessen all gun incidents....much like the one in NY that seems to have truly reduced gun crime significantly.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you suggesting that somehow the legal carry people not being allowed to legally carry....will reduce the amount of people getting shot? ....when i think its pretty obvious that the vast vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by those who dont have their guns purchased legally or are even allowed to have them to begin with. That makes zero sense.

Other than that...i agree it would be wonderful to see a law that would help lessen all gun incidents....much like the one in NY that seems to have truly reduced gun crime significantly.

You don't think curbing the proliferation of guns which can then end up being sold to whoever wouldn't help?

It's not an instant fix, no one is saying it is, but it's a step that helps over time. I don't understand why people cling to the "well what about illegal guns!" mantra. Yes, they're out there, yes they're a problem ... so what? Don't even bother to try now?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you suggesting that somehow the legal carry people not being allowed to legally carry....will reduce the amount of people getting shot? ....when i think its pretty obvious that the vast vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by those who dont have their guns purchased legally or are even allowed to have them to begin with. That makes zero sense.

Other than that...i agree it would be wonderful to see a law that would help lessen all gun incidents....much like the one in NY that seems to have truly reduced gun crime significantly.

I'm not suggesting that legal carry people not be allowed to carry, I'm suggesting that they would have higher standards placed upon them. Ideally those standards would come along with increased requirements, including fairly rigorous training in the use of all kinds of tactics to defend, disarm or otherwise deal with a threat.

I'd like to see guns treated as seriously as they should be, not something that you can carry around simply by filling out some paperwork.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Possibly the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Gun laws that are aimed at removing one of the leading causes of death for inner city youth are an all out assault on the working class. What a joke.

And sorry, if you want to carry a gun you should have additional burdens placed upon you.

And who do you think they will be arresting when they enforce these laws? The inner-city youth themselves. It's the exact reason the War on Drugs didn't work. The idea was to remove the drug dealers from the communities. Instead, you just end up arresting the community members.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not suggesting that legal carry people not be allowed to carry, I'm suggesting that they would have higher standards placed upon them. Ideally those standards would come along with increased requirements, including fairly rigorous training in the use of all kinds of tactics to defend, disarm or otherwise deal with a threat.

I'd like to see guns treated as seriously as they should be, not something that you can carry around simply by filling out some paperwork.

That's double speak. What you're saying is that you want to make it easier for crimes involving guns to come to a conviction.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

And who do you think they will be arresting when they enforce these laws? The inner-city youth themselves. It's the exact reason the War on Drugs didn't work. The idea was to remove the drug dealers from the communities. Instead, you just end up arresting the community members.

The community members committing violent crimes with guns, yep I'm for arresting those guys. What a crazy concept. I'm also for large scale overhauls of gun laws that would be aimed at reducing overall gun numbers, not just targeting small time criminals, but keep up the assumptions on what I'm for and equate it to the War on Drugs. I'm done with this, you've obviously already decided that my position is something very far from what it actually is, and without any basis to do so.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's double speak. What you're saying is that you want to make it easier for crimes involving guns to come to a conviction.

Try to read those words again.

People. Who have concealed carry permits. Would have. Higher standards. Placed upon them.

Much like people who are considered experts in many other fields are held to higher standard, those who obtain concealed carry permits should be considered experts in the use of deadly force, and should be judged as such.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

Try to read those words again.

People. Who have concealed carry permits. Would have. Higher standards. Placed upon them.

Nothing wrong with that. But what, if any, effect would that have had on this trial? Assuming we take Zimmerman's account of the story as closer to reality as there's a lack of evidence to contradict it. What type of standard should he have been held to?

Sure it would have been nice if Zimmerman was better at defending himself, but an ambush attack sucker punch that knocks you down from a 6'0'' person is going to cause problems for even those highly skilled in self-defense. And the ground-and-pound is hard to get out of for even the best fighters in the world.

Higher standards, more restrictions, I'm all for it. I'm really not a gun advocate, but given Zimmerman's account (which, yes, of course can't be taken as gospel truth) it's almost a good thing he had a gun on him.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Nothing wrong with that. But what, if any, effect would that have had on this trial? Assuming we take Zimmerman's account of the story as closer to reality as there's a lack of evidence to contradict it. What type of standard should he have been held to?

Sure it would have been nice if Zimmerman was better at defending himself, but an ambush attack sucker punch that knocks you down from a 6'0'' person is going to cause problems for even those highly skilled in self-defense. And the ground-and-pound is hard to get out of for even the best fighters in the world.

Higher standards, more restrictions, I'm all for it. I'm really not a gun advocate, but given Zimmerman's account (which, yes, of course can't be taken as gospel truth) it's almost a good thing he had a gun on him.

I'm not sure what impact it would have had on this trial, it certainly would have changed it but I don't know that it changes the ultimate result. At the very least it would have put a greater onus on Zimmerman to show that his fear was reasonable, not on the prosecution to show that it was unreasonable.

Ultimately it's really not about changing the outcome of this trial, it's about a policy that asks people who decide to carry loaded weapons to take on a greater level of responsibility. Heck, I'd also be for something that allowed a person who was highly trained to be given greater deference due to their training. Like I said before, my biggest goal is something that causes guns to be treated much more seriously than they are now.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not sure what impact it would have had on this trial, it certainly would have changed it but I don't know that it changes the ultimate result. At the very least it would have put a greater onus on Zimmerman to show that his fear was reasonable, not on the prosecution to show that it was unreasonable.

Who's going to argue that head smashing into concrete isn't a reasonable fear?

Sure, there's room for improvements in a lot of laws like gun policies and Stand your Ground. Don't think they would have changed anything in this trial (outside of removing the gun from his hands altogether and then it's possible he ends up dead and gun polices go the other way). Might as well be arguing about drug laws and minimum wage.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not suggesting that legal carry people not be allowed to carry, I'm suggesting that they would have higher standards placed upon them. Ideally those standards would come along with increased requirements, including fairly rigorous training in the use of all kinds of tactics to defend, disarm or otherwise deal with a threat.

I'd like to see guns treated as seriously as they should be, not something that you can carry around simply by filling out some paperwork.

LOL, I think you really are losing it. You teach someone to be the toughest guy on the planet, if they get sucker punched and pounded on the ground they are going to pull a gun and kill the attacker.

And even then you will still be crying because some kid went after said tough guy and is now blind in oneeye from taking a elbow to the face by an armed well trained fighter.

People simply need to not use violence as a way of dealing with problems. The entire pro Martin side is doing a disservice from this opportunity - someone died picking a fight for NO REASON. Martin should have gone home and called the police if he fealt something was wrong, not circle back and attack.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

LOL, I think you really are losing it. You teach someone to be the toughest guy on the planet, if they get sucker punched and pounded on the ground they are going to pull a gun and kill the attacker.

And even then you will still be crying because some kid went after said tough guy and is now blind in oneeye from taking a elbow to the face by an armed well trained fighter.

People simply need to not use violence as a way of dealing with problems. The entire pro Martin side is doing a disservice from this opportunity - someone died picking a fight for NO REASON. Martin should have gone home and called the police if he fealt something was wrong, not circle back and attack.

What in the fata are you even talking about? Receiving training does not require that someone become invincible, it simply alters what becomes reasonable, and it also lessens the chances that lethal force will be required. I must be losing it to think that perhaps people who are licensed to carry firearms should be trained, absolute crazy talk right there.

I also really enjoy that little fantasy scenario you constructed at the end there. What's your evidentiary basis for that? Oh what's that? Nothing at all. Just as I thought. We all have our theories, try not to present them as fact.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Who's going to argue that head smashing into concrete isn't a reasonable fear?

Sure, there's room for improvements in a lot of laws like gun policies and Stand your Ground. Don't think they would have changed anything in this trial (outside of removing the gun from his hands altogether and then it's possible he ends up dead and gun polices go the other way). Might as well be arguing about drug laws and minimum wage.

It depends on the circumstances, for some reason people seem to be under the impression that a single factor makes something reasonable or unreasonable, when the reality is that you must consider the totality of the circumstances.

I'm not sure I get the point of your second paragraph, this is a case involving a gun and stand your ground laws, why would it not involve a discussion of those issues?