Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[Tero]

Map of event.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00 ... 970b-550wi
Z got out of truck, but was not jumped there. Dead Martin is marked. So somewhere in between or at the death site they confronted. It cannot be seen from Z's truck, assumed spot marked.

[Coito ergo sum]

Absolutely. Gun on your belt makes you the alpha male. He had a visible holster:

Within eight minutes, Mr. Martin was dead from a gunshot wound to the chest, his body crumpled on a stretch of grass behind a row of town houses. When the first officer arrived at 7:17, Mr. Zimmerman was waiting not far from the body. He raised his hands in surrender before relinquishing his 9-millimeter pistol from the holster in his waistband.


Google for source.

Well, if that was "absolutely" what you're argument was, then it's safe to say that your argument bears no relationship to the law, and it is not an argument that the prosecution would make or even be allowed to make because it is complete bunk.

[Tero]

Yes, I want the case to lead to repeal stand your ground and concealed carry. Those are not explicitely guaranteed in the bill of rights.

Back to idiot George. Why didn't he state: hi, I'm George of community watch. Are you visiting someone here?

You take the name of the owner and call the owner. They were in Orlando at dinner. Only the 2 boys were in the apartment.

End of conflict. Z guilty of stupidity and lack of training.

I want all you guys trained on how to keep your gun in your pants.

As to my argument, what part is bunk? You alpha males are the ones that end up in court, directly related to the fact that you own a gun. Without a gun, you tend to settle things or at least move along and avoid the other alpha male.

[Seth]

Yes, I want the case to lead to repeal stand your ground and concealed carry. Those are not explicitely guaranteed in the bill of rights.

It won't.

Back to idiot George. Why didn't he state: hi, I'm George of community watch. Are you visiting someone here?

Maybe he did. Still, being brusk is not a justification for assault.

You take the name of the owner and call the owner. They were in Orlando at dinner. Only the 2 boys were in the apartment.

Maybe Martin copped an attitude at even being approached and was hostile from the outset.

End of conflict. Z guilty of stupidity and lack of training.

You don't know that because you don't know what happened. All you know is the culmination.

I want all you guys trained on how to keep your gun in your pants.

We are. But sometimes you have to take it out and use it. That's why we carry them.

As to my argument, what part is bunk? You alpha males are the ones that end up in court, directly related to the fact that you own a gun. Without a gun, you tend to settle things or at least move along and avoid the other alpha male.

Well, as it turns out, the facts prove you very, very wrong. CCW permittees are much LESS likely to be involved in ANY sort of crime or conflict precisely BECAUSE we carry guns...and we know and understand the gravity of doing so...which makes us very careful to avoid trouble whenever possible. We know that shooting someone, even if you are perfectly and unquestionably legally correct in doing so will probably cost you a minimum of $50,000 in legal and associated fees.

You cannot point to ANY substantial record of law-abiding gun owners "ending up in court" merely because they have a gun. Far more people end up in court after drunken brawls and fistfights than end up in court because they pulled their legal concealed handgun.

[Seth]

Yes, I want the case to lead to repeal stand your ground and concealed carry. Those are not explicitely guaranteed in the bill of rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Ninth Amendment

You lose.

[Tero]

Get to "bear arms", not hide them.

[Seth]

Get to "bear arms", not hide them.

Quite right. Especially in Colorado, where concealed carry is explicitly addressed in the state Constitution, which is why we have to have a law authorizing it.

I'd be happy to open-carry, but the problem is it frightens the sheeple so the police frown on it...even though it's entirely legal.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I want the case to lead to repeal stand your ground and concealed carry. Those are not explicitely guaranteed in the bill of rights.

What would concealed carry have to do with this if your assertion was true that he wasn't carrying it concealed, but rather "visibly?"

Further, stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with whether he had a self defense right while on his back with Martin on top of him. He did not have an opportunity run. The fact that he could have refrained from following after Martin is not where Stand Your Ground comes in. Stand Your Ground arises when your self-defense right has arisen, not before.

Back to idiot George. Why didn't he state: hi, I'm George of community watch. Are you visiting someone here?

Probably would have been the thing to do. But, since you've already stated that "we don't know" what happened, then..... we don't know...maybe he did say that. The evidence isn't in.

Moreover - even if he stupidly did not say that -- it does not give Martin the right to attack him physically. Zimmerman would have had to attack Martin.

You take the name of the owner and call the owner. They were in Orlando at dinner. Only the 2 boys were in the apartment.

End of conflict. Z guilty of stupidity and lack of training.

Even if we stipulate to that, it doesn't mean he didn't have a right of self defense.

I want all you guys trained on how to keep your gun in your pants.

Maybe he was. His defense is that the gun was in his pants until Martin was on top of him punching him and banging his head into the ground.

As to my argument, what part is bunk? You alpha males are the ones that end up in court, directly related to the fact that you own a gun. Without a gun, you tend to settle things or at least move along and avoid the other alpha male.

I've explained what is bunk about your argument six ways from Sunday. You seem to think that Zimmerman being in his truck, or following Martin, or having a gun is some sort of reason why Zimmerman is guilty of murder rather than a killing in self-defense. In what planet is that the law? Your argument is bunk because even if what you say is true, it is legally irrelevant to the case at hand.

[Tero]

Who said he was guilty? Show me a quote where I say Zimmerman is guilty (of murder, manslaughter).

I want to use Zimmerman as proof of more gun violence from Stand Your Ground. Repeal it, as well as concealed weapons. There are too many idiots out there. I want to see their guns before I get any closer.

I'd like to see laws concerning guns similar to driving privileges.

[Seth]

Who said he was guilty? Show me a quote where I say Zimmerman is guilty (of murder, manslaughter).

I want to use Zimmerman as proof of more gun violence from Stand Your Ground. Repeal it, as well as concealed weapons. There are too many idiots out there. I want to see their guns before I get any closer.

I'd like to see laws concerning guns similar to driving privileges.

"more gun violence" is a loaded term. It's not really "gun violence" when an innocent individual lawfully uses his sidearm to stop a crime in progress.

And the reason that "stand your ground" statutes have come to be prevalent is because it's been discovered that "retreat to the wall" statutes are far MORE harmful to innocent victims who are required by such laws to NOT use the very force that could keep them from being harmed until they've tried everything to escape first. This places the victim at a severe disadvantage because his assailant is not bound by any such strictures, and is free to use and escalate the violence as much and as quickly as he likes.

This is precisely why so many state legislatures have authorized both concealed carry and standing your ground in the last 20 years. Legislators have been convinced how unfair it is to shackle the hands of the victim with laws requiring him to REFRAIN from using force when those same laws do nothing to force the attacker to refrain from doing so.

Society has judged that a victim's life and safety outweigh any "right" the criminal assailant might have to be protected from acts of lethal self-defense.

At least it has here in the US. In the UK it's precisely the opposite, and the government has decided that the criminal's life is worth far more than the victim's safety and security, which is why people who defend themselves in the UK get charged and the criminals get a fat settlement from their victim for daring to resist.

Utter stupidity.

And what makes you think you have a right to "see their guns" to begin with? Unless they are committing a crime, it's flatly none of your business whether or not someone is carrying a gun, anymore than you can demand to see someone's driver's license as they drive by. It's none of your business.

[laklak]

Concealed carry may not be specifically addressed in the Constitution, but now that Illinois has joined the 21st century it is legal in all 50 states. Some make it harder than others, and not all recognize permits from other states, but it's legal in all 50. I can carry in almost the entire country, the exceptions being the liberal northeastern states, the liberal pacific states and a couple of others like Wisconsin and Minnesota. Not likely to go any of those places anyway, but it's a shame about Puerto Rick and the U.S. Virgin Islands. To go see family in Delaware I have to drive up through West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

[Coito ergo sum]

Who said he was guilty? Show me a quote where I say Zimmerman is guilty (of murder, manslaughter).

I want to use Zimmerman as proof of more gun violence from Stand Your Ground. Repeal it, as well as concealed weapons. There are too many idiots out there. I want to see their guns before I get any closer.

I'd like to see laws concerning guns similar to driving privileges.

You want Stand Your Ground repealed -- so, you think that if you are being attacked, that you should be put in the position of having to make split second determinations as to whether you should run or fight back?

you realize that the injustice "stand your ground" rules prevent is the real occurrence, from time to time, of people being convicted and sent to jail because they were in reasonable fear of their lives or great bodily harm but chose not to run when a jury, thinking from armchairs, thinks he could have run off?

Remember - stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. Think about that. A person may justifiably use force in self defense when he has a reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. So, without stand your ground, person A attacks person B, person B is of the reasonable belief that he is under an unlawful threat -- without stand your ground, he must retreat first (and risk being pummeled or kiilled). With stand your ground, he may stand and fight.

Why in all fucking hell would you want to repeal that and give attackers more power? Without stand your ground you have people going to jail who acted in self defense.

[Collector1337]

Why in all fucking hell would you want to repeal that and give attackers more power? Without stand your ground you have people going to jail who acted in self defense.

That's the stupidity of it. They don't want you defending yourself, at all.

I guess we're supposed to pity criminals and just give them whatever they want, even if it's our life.

I'll pass on that bullshit.

[Tero]

I'll go with the sociologists on this one. More killers will get away as it is in Florida. You killed your opponent, there is no witness (he is dead) therefore your word is all is needed. "I thought he had a gun."

No thanks. We are not going to release you just because you had a legal gun and all permits. Every case will be investigated.

Physical evidence will get you off the hook. Same as always before.

[Collector1337]

I'll go with the sociologists on this one. More killers will get away as it is in Florida. You killed your opponent, there is no witness (he is dead) therefore your word is all is needed. "I thought he had a gun."

No thanks. We are not going to release you just because you had a legal gun and all permits. Every case will be investigated.

Physical evidence will get you off the hook. Same as always before.

So, I guess you're happy when cops do the same thing?

Every case is already investigated anyway.

You are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.