Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Borzo]

Well I could walk up to some random dude and start a fist fight.

Then, when he starts beating me up, I pull out my gun and shoot him in self-defence.

[Elim Garak]

i would be far more safe against a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun

No you wouldn't, realistically speaking. If someone is up to kill you - the tool doesn't matter. Danger is equal. Only brutality differs (and duration of a kill - i.e. your suffering, imagine being clubbed to death). It won't be a fair duel, you know. Perp will stab you from behind or during a brawl or however he can in a sudden attack. He doesn't have to kill you by stabbing your heart - you will bleed out thru any serious wound while waiting for an ambulance if there's any on the way.

---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 06:29 PM ----------

Well I could walk up to some random dude and start a fist fight.

Then, when he starts beating me up, I pull out my gun and shoot him in self-defence.

You could do that - but would you? Just because you could?

[Deleted]

I'm pretty sure the correct wording is "makes it possible for". NOT enables. Because I do not see how it ENABLES me for instance to go pick a random fight and kill someone. Probability for wanting to do it before the law == 0%, Probability for wanting to do it after the law == 0%.

No sane person would use this law to kill someone. To get away with (planned and inevitable) murder? - maybe.
Insane person does not need no legal "enabler" nor a way to get away with the murder.

You could make a point that some murderers would theoretically be able to get away with murder - but it still worth it. Better let a criminal go, than send an innocent to jail.

The human nature is a bit more complex then being sane or insane... If you know you will most likely have a "get out of jail free card" if you shoot someone as long as you claim self defense, more people will shoot first and ask questions later.

If they on the other hand knew they would probably have to serve time in jail for killing the person, they would automatically start thinking of other ways of getting out of problematic situations, then going straight to the option of going for lethal actions.

You might argue that you yourself is not like that, but then you are just ignoring how the general human nature is.

[Purlina]

I'm pretty sure the correct wording is "makes it possible for". NOT enables. Because I do not see how it ENABLES me for instance to go pick a random fight and kill someone. Probability for wanting to do it before the law == 0%, Probability for wanting to do it after the law == 0%.

No sane person would use this law to kill someone. To get away with (planned and inevitable) murder? - maybe.
Insane person does not need no legal "enabler" nor a way to get away with the murder.

You could make a point that some murderers would theoretically be able to get away with murder - but it still worth it. Better let a criminal go, than send an innocent to jail.

Or they could simply add a clause which prevents you from instigating a fight and claiming self defense at the same time.

[Acewipe]

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population:

US: 4.14
UK: 0.07

Except that the US and UK are not even similar demographically or culturally. Take away the guns from south central and murder will still happen all the time.

Guns may make murder easier but they are not the reason or the cause.

---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 08:39 AM ----------

Or they could simply add a clause which prevents you from instigating a fight and claiming self defense at the same time.

Or they could be like many other states where self defense is only self defense if it is proportional to the harm...ie, someone is punching you (and unless you really could be killed by it- like a 90 year old), you cannot use deadly force. But, if someone threatens you with deadly force (knife, gun, etc), then you can as well...

[Purlina]

Or they could be like many other states where self defense is only self defense if it is proportional to the harm...ie, someone is punching you (and unless you really could be killed by it- like a 90 year old), you cannot use deadly force. But, if someone threatens you with deadly force (knife, gun, etc), then you can as well...

Yes, that would be agreeable to me.

---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 02:43 PM ----------

You could do that - but would you? Just because you could?

The reason for doing so is irrelevant. Should he be able to carry out such an act without subsequently being punished?

[Xeones]

Except that the US and UK are not even similar demographically or culturally. Take away the guns from south central and murder will still happen all the time.

Guns may make murder easier but they are not the reason or the cause

/facepalm

The easier something is to do the more likely someone is to do it.

[Elim Garak]

The human nature is a bit more complex then being sane or insane... If you know you will most likely have a "get out of jail free card" if you shoot someone as long as you claim self defense, more people will shoot first and ask questions later.

I didn't divide people into sane/insane. I mentioned insane to say that they do not care about laws anyway - so no need to bring them up as an argument against the law (inb4). I also said that sane people can abuse the law. But not to kill - to get away with the kill that would've happened anyway.

It is very hard for an average sane human to kill another human. People need training to do it easily (military/police) or experience (accidental kills, real self-defense kills) or real hatred or big incentive.

Do not pretend to be macho man here. In a real situation you won't make the kill THAT easily as you think, unless you are military with experience.
People do not generally kill people NOT because there's a law against murder. Not because there's a god commandment "thou shalt not kill". But because it's not that easy to take life of another human being. For a sane person that is.

If they on the other hand knew they would probably have to serve time in jail for killing the person, they would automatically start thinking of other ways of getting out of problematic situations, then going straight to the option of going for lethal actions.

No, sane people refrain from killing because they are sane - not because they are afraid of jail time. Otherwise there would be no crime.
People can use self-defense to get away with murder, not to commit it. Big difference.
Criminals may plan murder around self-defense too, though. But it doesn't matter, murder would happen anyway. And as I said it worth it. Better to let 1 criminal go than condemn 1 innocent.

You might argue that you yourself is not like that, but then you are just ignoring how the general human nature is.

No, it's you just thinking that everyone else are morally inferior compared to you. "I won't do it, but the rest of population..." should I mention that that is wrong to think that way? (a lot of people think that way, btw, including your neighbor - he thinks you are morally inferior too, he wouldn't kill anybody, but you... thank god you are afraid of jail)

---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 06:55 PM ----------

Or they could simply add a clause which prevents you from instigating a fight and claiming self defense at the same time.

Won't help. Fight can be provoked and it will look like victim started it.

The reason for doing so is irrelevant. Should he be able to carry out such an act without subsequently being punished?

do not forget about the thing you are "buying" with this. Ability to defend you life without the risk of getting jail time.
I said it before - I say it again - worth it. Now REASON for doing so is relevant. Right?

[Acewipe]

/facepalm

The easier something is to do the more likely someone is to do it.

Except that taking guns away (however impossible that might be) would not reduce violence to the levels of Europe...

[Purlina]

do not forget about the thing you are "buying" with this. Ability to defend you life without the risk of getting jail time.
I said it before - I say it again - worth it. No REASON for doing so is relevant. Right?

I never said that the self defense law should be removed. I stated that it should be modified...

Notice how Florida's self defense law is unique? Why do you think that is? If Florida has it right, why don't we see more states following suite...?

[Elim Garak]

I never said that the self defense law should be removed. I stated that it should be modified...

I saw you liked the idea of "adequate force" - that will kill self-defense. Because the adequacy of force will be determined by people who WEREN'T there. Also it's pretty stupid to expect the victim in a life/death situation stopping for a minute to calculate the "adequate force". You know a big guy jumping on your chest trying to implode it, what should be the adequate force? Attempt a brawl (which you have already lost)? Or shoot the mother fucker down using all the ammo available? What would Jury say? Would they believe you that an "unarmed" guy had to be shot to death with 15 bullets to the chest? No witnesses!

Notice how Florida's self defense law is unique? Why do you think that is? If Florida has it right, why don't we see more states following suite...?

that doesn't make it wrong or bad. There are a lot of funny laws in US, state by state. I think the quality of state lawmakers is way down in US. I think Florida made it right, though.

[Borzo]

No you wouldn't, realistically speaking. If someone is up to kill you - the tool doesn't matter. Danger is equal. Only brutality differs (and duration of a kill - i.e. your suffering, imagine being clubbed to death). It won't be a fair duel, you know. Perp will stab you from behind or during a brawl or however he can in a sudden attack. He doesn't have to kill you by stabbing your heart - you will bleed out thru any serious wound while waiting for an ambulance if there's any on the way.

You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity.

If someone with just his fists wants to kill me, he'd have a tough time. Since I have fists too, I could fight back and stand my ground. Alternatively - if I was afraid of fighting because he's something like a 250 pound boxer, then I could run. His fists can't reach past 2 feet. A fist fight offers lots of options for defence and retreat. Also, killing someone with your fists might take some time, and requires significant physical effort (usually). That time and effort can provide the means for the assailant's emotions to cool down and realize that no - in fact they do NOT want to kill this other person who insulted their mother, and no, they do not want to spend the next 10 years in jail. At the very least, that time can allow others to interview and break the fight up.

Knives are slightly more effective, but suffer from some of the same limitations. You can easily out-run a knife. If someone with a knife wants to kill me, I could just run away, and they'd never be able to stab me with it. Also, dying from a stab wound requires being stabbed in certain areas - this is difficult to accomplish if I'm fighting back and defending myself. It also requires time and physical exertion to stab someone to death, that time may provide enough opportunity to cool-down, or for others to intervene.

You need a certain amount of passionate rage and effort to kill someone with your fists or a knife. You also need proximity.

A gun, can be shot at a distance, and a big gun fired repeatedly into someone's body will stop anyone. The chances of dying to a single bullet to the chest or head is significantly higher than the chances of dying to a punch to the chest or head. Also, you can't outrun a bullet.

60 seconds of rage + your bare fists = both parties probably still alive
60 seconds of rage + a gun = someone could easily be dead

I'm sure if you hired a hit-man to kill someone, they'd be able to do it without guns, knives, or fists. Which seems to be the analogy you're making. But most kills aren't premeditated to that degree... many people die to gunshots in the heat of the moment and are motivated by short-term emotions.

You could do that - but would you? Just because you could?

Me? No. I'm sure some people would though.

[Purlina]

that doesn't make it wrong or bad. There are a lot of funny laws in US, state by state. I think the quality of state lawmakers is way down in US. I think Florida made it right, though.

Well that's your opinion, my opinion is that they should take another look at the law.

I don't see what you find so objectionable about having the law makers in Florida take another look at it...

[BLCalliente]

I'm pretty sure the correct wording is "makes it possible for". NOT enables. Because I do not see how it ENABLES me for instance to go pick a random fight and kill someone. Probability for wanting to do it before the law == 0%, Probability for wanting to do it after the law == 0%.

No sane person would use this law to kill someone. To get away with (planned and inevitable) murder? - maybe.
Insane person does not need no legal "enabler" nor a way to get away with the murder.

You could make a point that some murderers would theoretically be able to get away with murder - but it still worth it. Better let a criminal go, than send an innocent to jail.

enables3rd person singular present of en·a·ble (Verb)
Verb:

1) Give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.
2) Make possible.

Did you think "enables" meant something else? It has nothing to do with desire.

[Paranoid Android]

Oh yeah, she could say whatever about how the conversation went.

I'll be honest with you though, after looking into this story a fair bit, I'm almost completely convinced this was some wannabe cop who injected himself into the situation and killed a boy. I can't say if it was racially motivated, but I am very certain this was a guy who flat out chased this kid down, instigated an altercation by being so aggressive, then shot the boy. The police even told him to back off, so his pursuit in spite of that speaks volumes about the vigilante nature of Zimmerman.

Well put. I don't want to put words im your mouth or post but this is reason why I cannot believe people who support concealed guns or gun laws such as Florida. People who think they can be judge in jury and thinking in their own little world that someday they may "save the world" by pulling out their weapon and saving some innocent person by acting like Jason Bourne or some Hollywood character.

I'll keep the racial overtones out of this. Maybe he is maybe he is not a racist but he did decide that he was judge in jury in assuming he was some criminal and deciding to pursue the victim with again no type of police training at all.

[Acewipe]

Also it's pretty stupid to expect the victim in a life/death situation stopping for a minute to calculate the "adequate force".

Except that it is not stupid. That is the law in many states for a reason. It prevents a fist fight from turning into a murder. Why is it stupid to expect someone to act reasonably? The law asks that of people everyday- someone comes at you with a gun or knife or other weapon that reasonably could inflict deadly force then you would be more than within your rights to kill them with your gun. But, every situation is looked at on an individual basis to determine if the reaction is reasonable and whether the victim reasonably could have felt that their life is at risk.

[Deleted]

It is very hard for an average sane human to kill another human. People need training to do it easily (military/police) or experience (accidental kills, real self-defense kills) or real hatred or big incentive.

Do not pretend to be macho man here. In a real situation you won't make the kill THAT easily as you think, unless you are military with experience.
People do not generally kill people NOT because there's a law against murder. Not because there's a god commandment "thou shalt not kill". But because it's not that easy to take life of another human being. For a sane person that is.

I am in no way trying to be a macho man here... We have already had plenty of people in this very tread advertising how they like to own a gun so they can protect themselves, and that they would use it if they felt even the slightest threatened by someone else... I am by not in any sense saying that the normal person would walk around being a killing machine just because they thought they could, but a lot of people are willing to use lethal force when it may not be needed.

No, sane people refrain from killing because they are sane - not because they are afraid of jail time. Otherwise there would be no crime.
People can use self-defense to get away with murder, not to commit it. Big difference.
Criminals may plan murder around self-defense too, though. But it doesn't matter, murder would happen anyway. And as I said it worth it. Better to let 1 criminal go than condemn 1 innocent.

If you think that laws do not impose restrictions on how people behave or what they think is a reasonable thing to do in a given situation then /facepalm to you. People will in general weigh pros against cons before they take any action. Again not saying that every person out there would go around killing people, but when you open an option like this some will take advantage of it. The reason why the world is not filled with vigilantes is because they would get stopped by "the law" of the society. More people are able to kill than you might think, most just need a reason good enough that would justify it to themselves... some need more than others. Like killing a child molester, killing someone for sleeping with your wife ect ect.

No, it's you just thinking that everyone else are morally inferior compared to you. "I won't do it, but the rest of population..." should I mention that that is wrong to think that way? (a lot of people think that way, btw, including your neighbor - he thinks you are morally inferior too, he wouldn't kill anybody, but you... thank god you are afraid of jail)[COLOR="red"]

Yes because i can recognize that some people in the world I live in, needs less reason then me to kill another person I must think that everyone around me is morally inferior <.< I didn't say that the rest of the population would do it but thanks for putting words in my mouth. It's extremely naive to think that just because you wouldn't be able to take a life that no one else would... I guess the magical world you live in, no one has been killed by another person yet.

[nnelson54]

Can someone explain what's racist about his Facebook?

He's white.

[Isotope]

He's white.

You mean he's Hispanic.

I wish people would actually get the facts right.

[Failhance]

You mean he's Hispanic.

I wish people would actually get the facts right.

This really has no relevance honestly, regardless of Zimmerman's nationality, he clearly has a racial prejudice against martin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw