1. #1021
    Quote Originally Posted by Isotope View Post
    You mean he's Hispanic.

    I wish people would actually get the facts right.
    By "race" he is White, by "ethnicity" he is Hispanic. Being White and Hispanic are not mutually exclusive...

    Nothing prevents someone from being a White Hispanic.

    Not that any of this matters.
    Last edited by Purlina; 2012-03-21 at 05:29 PM.

  2. #1022
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    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...?
    Florida's self defense law isn't unique...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_...our-ground_Law

    Florida has a particularly liberal interpretation of it though.

  3. #1023
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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.
    Most of those people are all talk. It's hard to respond in a crisis, and until you've been in one you don't know how you're going to jump. Lots of people simply freeze up, unable to do much of anything. The most common response it to lock in on one action, and try to do that come hell or high water. This is the reason the military is so incredibly invested in practice and training. It's not to make you better at your job, is so that when the adrenalin hits you have a learned pattern to fall back on.

    There was a study a few years ago that revealed that in a fake accident (unknown to the subjects), 30% of the test subjects were unable to dial 911, even after being told "dial 911". Many of the subjects were observed to ask what the number was after being told to dial 911.

    Without real training - way more than a weekend NRA class - carrying a pistol for self defense is a complete crapshoot. All you've really guarenteed is that there's a gun at any confrontation. The question over who's going to use it is still up in the air.

  4. #1024
    Dreadlord lol's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bored in Orgrimmar.
    Posts
    897
    This Zimmerman guy is mental, he needs to be detained.
    Signatures are overrated.

  5. #1025
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by braeldiil View Post
    There was a study a few years ago that revealed that in a fake accident (unknown to the subjects), 30% of the test subjects were unable to dial 911, even after being told "dial 911". Many of the subjects were observed to ask what the number was after being told to dial 911.
    Well this is sorta my point. Why would you allow the general person to have such a deadly weapon at their disposal when you know how poor the judgement and thought process is in a crisis situation? You even mentioned how military and other people who are suppose to be able to handle themselves in situations like that, needs training to an extensive degree but still wouldn't always be able to act accordingly.

  6. #1026
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Borzo View Post
    You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity.
    Wtf?
    Quote Originally Posted by Borzo View Post
    ***a wall of internet expert's refutal***
    Oh I see, an internet expert. I see no point in arguing with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Borzo View Post
    Me? No. I'm sure some people would though.
    Who? Do you know their names or are you just talking?

    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Well that's your opinion, my opinion is that they should take another look at the law.
    How many looks do they have to take for you to accept their law? Or do you expect them to change it, nothing less?
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    I don't see what you find so objectionable about having the law makers in Florida take another look at it...
    I'm not objectionable to that. I just noted that you've made an argumentum ad populum. Don't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BLCalliente View Post
    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.
    Hey, look a guy with a dictionary!

    "Enable" is not just a word, it's a term too. That's why I said it is better to use "Makes possible" because in other meaning "Enables" would mean that the law "pushes" ("push" is too strong word here, but you should get the meaning) people to kill someone "in self-defense".
    You won't find that meaning in a simple dictionary, as it is not just a word - it's a term. Psychological one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acewipe View Post
    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?
    Because in a life threatening situation you do not have the LUXURY to do that. You do not act reasonably - you act desperately, your only goal is to SURVIVE, instinct, dude. You may also panic and freeze - then you have time to come up with something reasonable, but sadly there are no "saves" in this "game".

    I'm pretty sure "adequate force" was invented by people who never were in life threatening situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acewipe View Post
    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.
    the problem is the burden of proof goes on the victim's shoulders. Victim have to prove that it was self-defense. Dead Perp becomes the "real" victim Jury is concerned about. That's unconstitutional, I guess. Presumption of Innocence? But what do I know...
    Look ITT. The same people who jumped on Zimmerman on page 1 with no info - the same people will be on Jury Duty. They will tell you how you could shoot him in the leg, or run away, call for help, call 911, talk perp out of a crime, etc, whatever comes to their mind to break your case. And if perp is black and you are white... it's a hate crime.


    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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...
    Yeah, people on internet talk. Surprised? If you take any one of them and point a fake gun at them - they will shit their pants and give you their real gun with a 99% guarantee. That is if they own one, I'm not sure about that.
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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.
    They do not need guns for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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.
    I'm not talking about ANY laws, We were talking about murder. TRUST ME. Sane people do not need laws to refrain from murder if murder can be avoided.
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    People will in general weigh pros against cons before they take any action.
    When was the last time you contemplated murder? REALLY contemplated a REAL murder. Except your wife/husband/girlfriend/boufriend - that is normal.
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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.
    Same some who do it already. If you give a man a gun he won't go on a killing spree. If he was on a killing spree - he will continue it, but now with a gun.
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    The reason why the world is not filled with vigilantes is because they would get stopped by "the law" of the society.
    No. There are vigilantes - therefore "the law" doesn't work. They are few - because - vigilantes are not born - people become vigilantes in some cases. These cases are too very few. Like for example: a rapist rapes and kills 12 yo girl - her father becomes vigilante and kills rapist. The number of such vigilantes is directly proportional to number of such rapes and is less than that number.
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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.
    Everyone is able to kill another human being. Doesn't mean they gonna do it. What's your point? Of course they need reasons, etc. Funny you're using vigilantes as examples. The thing is if they have a reason - they will kill, no matter what "self-defense" law is in the state.
    Quote Originally Posted by sisk View Post
    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.
    Some people? Do you have their names? Can you identify them in a crowd? There are insane people. But I though I made it clear there's no point in discussing them as they do not care about laws anyway.
    You said that just because I won't do it, doesn't mean others won't do it. To say that you have to think that others are morally inferior. You and me understand the moral implications of murder, but THEM OTHERs do not. Since you can't identify them in a crowd of earth's population. I'm pretty sure - it's everyone you do not know. My world is not magical, I just do not assume that there's a significant (unknown) amount of people who are morally inferior to me. Everyone who doesn't do crime NOW - won't do any crime TOMORROW if laws are magically removed from this plane of existence. Though I am aware there are psychos out there. But I'm not talking about them - they cannot be helped. They do crime NOW - they will continue to do it TOMORROW.

  7. #1027
    Warchief
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ferndale, MI
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post

    Hey, look a guy with a dictionary!

    "Enable" is not just a word, it's a term too. That's why I said it is better to use "Makes possible" because in other meaning "Enables" would mean that the law "pushes" ("push" is too strong word here, but you should get the meaning) people to kill someone "in self-defense".
    You won't find that meaning in a simple dictionary, as it is not just a word - it's a term. Psychological one.

    Hey, look! A guy who is confused about the meaning of enable!

    You are making things up. I don't "get the meaning" because you are adding something to the meaning which isn't there on its own.

    Enable is the same as makes possible is the same as enable...ad infinitum.

    There is no intent or desire attached to the word. There is certainly no "push" of any kind.

    The mouse enables me to move the cursor. The mouse makes it possible for me to move the cursor. It's exactly the same thing. 100%. No difference.

    Even the word enable when used as a psychological term doesn't have anything to do with intent or desire.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-21 at 04:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Or they could simply add a clause which prevents you from instigating a fight and claiming self defense at the same time.
    And how would that work if there were no eyewitnesses?

    The guy who is alive would just claim he wasn't the instigator.

    So we have the same situation that we have now...

  8. #1028
    Stood in the Fire
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post

    I'm pretty sure "adequate force" was invented by people who never were in life threatening situation.


    the problem is the burden of proof goes on the victim's shoulders. Victim have to prove that it was self-defense. Dead Perp becomes the "real" victim Jury is concerned about. That's unconstitutional, I guess. Presumption of Innocence? But what do I know...
    Please stop. You are just throwing random statements and words out trying to make a point that is obviously wrong.

  9. #1029
    Quote Originally Posted by BLCalliente View Post

    And how would that work if there were no eyewitnesses?

    The guy who is alive would just claim he wasn't the instigator.

    So we have the same situation that we have now...
    True, but even with an eye witness you can still instigate a fight and claim self defense. (As long as you can prove that you "felt threatened")

    (In Florida)

  10. #1030
    To put a real Florida case into the mix:

    In 2008, a couple of gang members had a beef with a rival gang. They gathered some weapons and drove into the other gang's territory. The other gang met them in the street, and a shootout developed in the middle of the street. During the shootout, a 15 year old boy was killed.

    Two men were arrested for the shooting. All witnesses agree that, in addition to firing the shots that killed the 15-year old, these men were the first to fire shots in this confrontation, and were the ones who drove into the neighborhood. Yet they claimed self defense while standing their ground, and the judge in the case was forced to agree, and dismissed all charges.

    That's current Florida law.

    Link: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/92183289.html

  11. #1031
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    Same some who do it already. If you give a man a gun he won't go on a killing spree. If he was on a killing spree - he will continue it, but now with a gun.
    Yeah we all know of the countless killing spree's done with the bare fists. Take the topic we are on right now with Zimmerman, lets assume he is guilty (and i do believe that) you honestly think he would have beaten the kid to death with his bare fists if he didn't have a gun at his disposal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    No. There are vigilantes - therefore "the law" doesn't work. They are few - because - vigilantes are not born - people become vigilantes in some cases. These cases are too very few. Like for example: a rapist rapes and kills 12 yo girl - her father becomes vigilante and kills rapist. The number of such vigilantes is directly proportional to number of such rapes and is less than that number.
    And your point is that all these people are insane. Everyone who has ever taken the life of another person is by your opinion insane and in some way mentally not responsible for their actions? Because no one in their right mind would even consider taking the life of another person unless there is fundamentally something wrong with them? Good thing countries doesn't ask their young men to go into wars making them a part of these insane people you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    Everyone is able to kill another human being. Doesn't mean they gonna do it. What's your point? Of course they need reasons, etc. Funny you're using vigilantes as examples. The thing is if they have a reason - they will kill, no matter what "self-defense" law is in the state.
    My point is exactly what you just said "Everyone is able to kill another human being" why would you want to make it easier for those few that actually end up doing it, to then get away with it. "Doesn't mean they are gonna do it" maybe not, but some do. If you choose to ignore the people who are currently in jail for doing so, then your just ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    Some people? Do you have their names? Can you identify them in a crowd? There are insane people. But I though I made it clear there's no point in discussing them as they do not care about laws anyway.
    You said that just because I won't do it, doesn't mean others won't do it. To say that you have to think that others are morally inferior. You and me understand the moral implications of murder, but THEM OTHERs do not. Since you can't identify them in a crowd of earth's population. I'm pretty sure - it's everyone you do not know. My world is not magical, I just do not assume that there's a significant (unknown) amount of people who are morally inferior to me.
    Are you kidding me? Unless you are deliberately trying to misunderstand me i was talking about people in general not specific individuals. And yes i do find someone willing to kill another person with a gun, based purely on speculation of them being up to no good, to be morally inferior to me. That doesn't make me suspect my neighbor of being like that... That is the reason why i wouldn't find it necessary to carry a gun myself, i don't expect the worst of people, but I'm not ignorantly saying that no one is like that. I do wish however that the number of guns given out is limited as much as possible so i wouldn't have to worrie about the other person carrying a gun either. Most arguments for having guns is that the other guy might have guns, but in most countries where guns aren't allowed to be carried around by anyone but the police, people tend not to worrie about them. You might disagree with me and agree with their right to do so, but that doesn't change my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ag666 View Post
    Everyone who doesn't do crime NOW - won't do any crime TOMORROW if laws are magically removed from this plane of existence. Though I am aware there are psychos out there. But I'm not talking about them - they cannot be helped. They do crime NOW - they will continue to do it TOMORROW.
    Yes you are right why do we even have laws? only psychos do stuff that would be considered breaking the law, so we only have to worrie about those... No normal person have ever done anything that would be considered breaking the law or morally wrong to others, so we don't need prisons we only need mental hospitals and we can just remove all laws all together (/end sarcasm).

  12. #1032
    Quote Originally Posted by braeldiil View Post
    To put a real Florida case into the mix:

    In 2008, a couple of gang members had a beef with a rival gang. They gathered some weapons and drove into the other gang's territory. The other gang met them in the street, and a shootout developed in the middle of the street. During the shootout, a 15 year old boy was killed.

    Two men were arrested for the shooting. All witnesses agree that, in addition to firing the shots that killed the 15-year old, these men were the first to fire shots in this confrontation, and were the ones who drove into the neighborhood. Yet they claimed self defense while standing their ground, and the judge in the case was forced to agree, and dismissed all charges.

    That's current Florida law.

    Link: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/92183289.html
    Yeah sounds like a GRRRRRRRRRRREAT law Florida. So ambigious that anyone and everyone can claim "standing there ground" and seems like you can get off. This law has so many holes its swiss cheese. I know other states have laws like these (I hope not as horrible as Florida's). My state does not even tho we have a conceal and carry law. Back to Florida, I can't believe this law. So if its me and another person, no witnesses, I can blow him away and claim "standing my ground". Again, way the Sanford police (Florida) are interpreting it they won't even arrest Zimmerman to even give the prosecution the chance to find him guilty or the jury to say he is innocent. NICE LAW Florida. I will be coming to your state soon for vacation.

  13. #1033
    Quote Originally Posted by Shon237 View Post
    Yeah sounds like a GRRRRRRRRRRREAT law Florida. So ambigious that anyone and everyone can claim "standing there ground" and seems like you can get off. This law has so many holes its swiss cheese. I know other states have laws like these (I hope not as horrible as Florida's). My state does not even tho we have a conceal and carry law. Back to Florida, I can't believe this law. So if its me and another person, no witnesses, I can blow him away and claim "standing my ground". Again, way the Sanford police (Florida) are interpreting it they won't even arrest Zimmerman to even give the prosecution the chance to find him guilty or the jury to say he is innocent. NICE LAW Florida. I will be coming to your state soon for vacation.
    That is how the Florida law is written. The police do not arrest him because the witness statements apparently matched Zimmermans' story. They investigated then sent it to the State Attorneys, and the State Attorneys need to see if they have a case.

    I agree that the problem is how Florida's law is written. I personally think that if you are in a public place you have a duty to retreat, at the very least.

  14. #1034
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    That is how the Florida law is written. The police do not arrest him because the witness statements apparently matched Zimmermans' story. They investigated then sent it to the State Attorneys, and the State Attorneys need to see if they have a case.

    I agree that the problem is how Florida's law is written. I personally think that if you are in a public place you have a duty to retreat, at the very least.
    Yeah the law is stupid. To me if you are trying to make some self-defense law involving firearms I would make it leak tight. Wow I can't belive this.

  15. #1035
    Quote Originally Posted by Shon237 View Post
    Yeah the law is stupid. To me if you are trying to make some self-defense law involving firearms I would make it leak tight. Wow I can't belive this.
    Yes, that is why he isn't in jail. The Florida Statute clearly states that the police must accept the 'self defense' statement unless they have evidence to disprove it, and from everything I have seen, they have no evidence to disprove it.

    Shitty situation? Yes. Shitty law? Yes.

    Should this be a huge push to get the law changed instead of crying about racial injustice? Yes.

  16. #1036
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Yes, that is why he isn't in jail. The Florida Statute clearly states that the police must accept the 'self defense' statement unless they have evidence to disprove it, and from everything I have seen, they have no evidence to disprove it.

    Shitty situation? Yes. Shitty law? Yes.

    Should this be a huge push to get the law changed instead of crying about racial injustice? Yes.
    Seems like you agree but want to start arguements. Racial injustice? I never said that. For people who claim race, well their opinion. Always hard to prove racism unless you find out the person has a background of say if he was white he was neo-nazi, attended rallies, saved internet rant and/or actually criminal record vs minorities. Again this guy is Latin, which does not mean he is not a racist, you do not have to be white to be a racist. Seems in 911 call he says "coon" under his breath. Again I hate playing race card.

    I hope people who are non-Florida residents choose to call or write maybe Florida board of tourism or businesses such as Disney World and say "not going to your state with a law like that". Florida residents who have common sense. Well you better be calling your state reps.

  17. #1037
    Quote Originally Posted by Shon237 View Post
    Seems like you agree but want to start arguements. Racial injustice? I never said that. For people who claim race, well their opinion. Always hard to prove racism unless you find out the person has a background of say if he was white he was neo-nazi, attended rallies, saved internet rant and/or actually criminal record vs minorities. Again this guy is Latin, which does not mean he is not a racist, you do not have to be white to be a racist. Seems in 911 call he says "coon" under his breath. Again I hate playing race card.

    I hope people who are non-Florida residents choose to call or write maybe Florida board of tourism or businesses such as Disney World and say "not going to your state with a law like that". Florida residents who have common sense. Well you better be calling your state reps.
    Start arguments? I'm agreeing with you, but making a comment on the situation. The entire black community in Florida is screaming that it is racism, is what I'm saying. I'm saying, instead of claiming that this is some huge racial injustice, the people in Florida should use this case as a public outcry to change the law.

  18. #1038
    Fluffy Kitten Pendulous's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Treno
    Posts
    19,498
    Quote Originally Posted by braeldiil View Post
    To put a real Florida case into the mix:

    In 2008, a couple of gang members had a beef with a rival gang. They gathered some weapons and drove into the other gang's territory. The other gang met them in the street, and a shootout developed in the middle of the street. During the shootout, a 15 year old boy was killed.

    Two men were arrested for the shooting. All witnesses agree that, in addition to firing the shots that killed the 15-year old, these men were the first to fire shots in this confrontation, and were the ones who drove into the neighborhood. Yet they claimed self defense while standing their ground, and the judge in the case was forced to agree, and dismissed all charges.

    That's current Florida law.

    Link: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/92183289.html
    I'm sorry, how can anyone agree that that law is fine and doesn't need to be changed?

  19. #1039
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    I'm pretty sure that if the shooter was black he would probably have been taken into custody.
    Very likely since we can imagine the outrage of a black 28 year old shoot and killed a white teenager and him walking away from the shooting with just saying oh self defense. Really noone would buy that claim in that case and rightfully so. self serving statements is usually what goes around crimes and you dont take the criminals word for it. If we did we need to release thousands upon thousands from our jails since they all claim they are innocent and i didnt do it.

    Sure some of them probably didnt do it but the wast majority are infacto guilty as charged. Just used as a point in case to prove you dont take the words from the man doing the shooting until you can prove it is the case. Someone died we need to find out what happened and letting the shooter walk away even if it was self defense is just wrong when you have the evidence that more and more looks like he stalked and chased down and gunned down the victim

    Putting the evidence we do know ontop of each other and let the timeline play out it makes a very troubling case for the shooter. And even more troubling for the police department. It isnt the shooters fault he isnt arrested that comes on the PD.

  20. #1040
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    That is how the Florida law is written. The police do not arrest him because the witness statements apparently matched Zimmermans' story. They investigated then sent it to the State Attorneys, and the State Attorneys need to see if they have a case.

    I agree that the problem is how Florida's law is written. I personally think that if you are in a public place you have a duty to retreat, at the very least.
    Two problems with that:

    1) The witness statements did not match his story. Even the absolutely minimal statements the cops bothered to take that night didn't match his story. Neither did the available physical evidence. And there's evidence from law enforcement personnel that the officers who responded were "shaping" the evidence from the moment they arrived on scene.

    2) The local police didn't bother to do any further investigation. None. As far as the cops were concerned, the investigation ended with Zimmerman's statement. The only reason the real story ever came out is because of the family raising a fuss and local/national news organizations getting involved. For christ's sake, the police managed to miss the fact that he was on the freaking phone during the confrontation for nearly a month.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •