The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5061 - 5080 of total 5459 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 10:01pm PT
You are being the messenger that shoots.

Whaaaaattt???

You seem to be ranting now rather than thinking.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 9, 2015 - 10:10pm PT
JB, you need a session breathing into a paper bag while intoning,

"I'm Canadian and I don't get it."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 9, 2015 - 10:11pm PT
The terminology is actually a mess. Here's a site that helps clear it up, as well as explain how these statutes are derived from the common law "castle doctrine."

In Colorado, there has never been a "duty to retreat."
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 9, 2015 - 11:17pm PT
OK,

Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead. The perfect logic in this as reflected in state's rights is indisputable. (even for a Canadian)

Darn, It would be perfect if every castle didn't have a back door.

Apartment dwellers, not wanting to jump out a third floor window could be a mitigating factor.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:27pm PT
Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead.

Relentless straw-manning. That's not how the law works, even in "make my day" or "stand your ground" states. I'll repeat: "Imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death, as perceived by a reasonable person." That's a far, far higher bar to get over in front of a jury of 12 than, "He pushed me around."

Darn, It would be perfect if every castle didn't have a back door. Apartment dwellers, not wanting to jump out a third floor window could be a mitigating factor.

Do you really believe, I mean really (no trolling), that "society" (whatever that can possibly mean to you) so strips away your right of self-defense that the ONLY legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression is to flee if flight is even remotely possible?

I mean, even a third-story window is scant excuse to "stand your ground!" Better to jump even from there and RISK maiming or death (certainly not guaranteed) than to (gag!) shoot the intruder bent on raping/killing you. Flee, flee, flee.... Whatever it takes to never actually stand up to evil and put it down.

Call a cop, if there's time, but always FLEEEEEEE!!!

Run, Forest, run!!!
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:40pm PT
Yet when Trayvon Martin stood his ground against an armed stalker his murderer got way with it on stand your ground.

So, the last stand-your-grounder left standing is the one in the right?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 10, 2015 - 08:51pm PT
Ahh... Gary. Always the master of the ridiculous. Every new post pushes the edges of the envelope a bit further. :-)

Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 10, 2015 - 11:27pm PT
I never said fleeing (even if remotely possible) was the only, ONLY ! legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression. You do a fine job of editing a premise and truncating it's context.

Walking away (if possible) is understood as the first remedy to a situation that can possibly escalate into violence. That's so basic it's the first thing taught to everyone taking a martial arts or self defense program.

Letting pride replace objectivity is an emotional weakness that sees a lot of people f*#ked up or dead because they just had to prevail.

And Reilly... That was funny, you almost got me into a huff !
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 05:39am PT
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"

If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 11, 2015 - 07:19am PT
Edit: When Martin "stood his ground against an armed stalker" BY attacking him and beating his head into the concrete, at the moment he attacked was he in "imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death?"


If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?

I wouldn't be straddling someone on the ground (who apparently scared me so with their gun) punching their head repeatedly into the street...
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 09:32am PT
^^ That wasn't the question.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 11, 2015 - 10:35am PT
It depends on the details which you do not provide.


If an unknown person had a firearm(or any weapon) in their hands pointed at me in the dark, then of course I'd feel threatened.

I fear people's anticipated behaviors or intent, not just objects.

fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Mar 11, 2015 - 11:02am PT
Well, if TRULY cornered and having nothing else.....

But then straddling the (still armed) guy and pounding his head like something out of MMA on the tee-vee? Uhhh... no... lol ...

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 11, 2015 - 12:26pm PT
I never said fleeing (even if remotely possible) was the only, ONLY ! legitimate thing people can do in the face of aggression. You do a fine job of editing a premise and truncating it's context.

I'm to be forgiven for "misreading" your hyperbole from above:

Someone pushed me around and I shot him dead. The perfect logic in this as reflected in state's rights is indisputable.

Oh, and your bit about (perhaps) not having to flee if that would mean jumping out of a third-story window!

So sorry that I so totally "edited the premise and truncated the context!"

In point of fact, you have been perpetually confused about what "stand your ground" entails, as clearly you can't be bothered to actually look up how it works in such a state.

In point of fact, "no duty to flee" does NOT equate to "every right to stand there trash-talking, escalating, shoving, more escalating, coming to blows, and then when losing, pulling out a gun and shooting." That is NOT "stand your ground," and you are almost certain to go down for some form of illegal homicide if you are the shooter in such a case, even in a "stand your ground" state.

YOU are the one who is perpetually misrepresenting the arguments, JB.

OF COURSE the best choice is always to back away if you can. In fact, the best choice when armed is to avoid confrontation at all times. The primary thing "stand your ground" or "make my day" accomplishes is to give someone that defends themselves from an ASSAILANT the prima facie standing to HAVE defended themselves.

All of your "examples" do not involve defense against an ASSAILANT; they all treat the "defender" as a stupid, tactically-inept goofball who never should have been in the situation in the first place. I mean, how DARE you live on a third-story, so that your (fantasy) prima facie duty to flee puts you in such a bind???
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 11, 2015 - 12:34pm PT
If someone with a gun came after you in the dark, would you feel threatened? Or would you think that was cool?

Martin didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was not brandishing it or revealing it in any way.

What Martin felt "threatened by" was Zimmerman's cell phone.

And that whole "stalking" bit is absurd. Unlike Martin, Zimmerman actually had a legitimate purpose and had every business being where he was. I'm NOT saying that Zimmerman handled the situation wisely! He was advised by the cops to stand down, and he should have... or at least kept a lot more distance!

But casting that encounter as "poor, innocent Martin who is just reacting legitimately to Zimmerman's 'aggression'" is flat-out ABSURD. Martin died because Martin was a thug with a criminal record who initiated an assault against (to his mind) a smaller, older, unarmed man. And in ANY state a defender is going to have cause to engage in deadly-force self-defense when his ASSAILANT is beating his head into the concrete!

So, your question is patently ridiculous on every level. Yes, if some guy is stalking me with gun drawn, I am going to find that a threat and seek the best possible response tactics for the situation! But the Martin/Zimmerman encounter was NONE of that!

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
Martin didn't know that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was not brandishing it or revealing it in any way.

What Martin felt "threatened by" was Zimmerman's cell phone.

What's your source for that information?

And that whole "stalking" bit is absurd.

He was following the kid with a gun. That could reasonably be termed stalking, couldn't it?

Unlike Martin, Zimmerman actually had a legitimate purpose and had every business being where he was.

Martin lived there, and was returning from the store with tea and candy. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

I'm NOT saying that Zimmerman handled the situation wisely! He was advised by the cops to stand down, and he should have... or at least kept a lot more distance!

Couldn't agree with you more.

But casting that encounter as "poor, innocent Martin who is just reacting legitimately to Zimmerman's 'aggression'" is flat-out ABSURD.

What's so absurd about that? Zimmerman has a history of violent encounters that predates his encounter with Martin. Is it really a stretch of the imagination to think that Zimmerman was being aggressive? His post trial activities aren't exactly indicative of a sterling character.

Martin died because Martin was a thug with a criminal record who initiated an assault against (to his mind) a smaller, older, unarmed man.

Martin stood up to an armed THUG with a criminal record.
And in ANY state a defender is going to have cause to engage in deadly-force self-defense when his ASSAILANT is beating his head into the concrete!

Do only armed people have the right to use deadly force in self-defense? Do those of us who carry forfeit the right to defend ourselves?


your question is patently ridiculous on every level.

No, it's not. Unfortunately, we'll never get to hear both sides of the story.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 11, 2015 - 01:51pm PT
Your claim that we'll never get the full story from both sides is absolutely correct. However, the court did its best....

What's your source for that information?

The court found that Zimmerman produced and discharged his gun only after he was underneath and being savagely beaten by Martin.

He was following the kid with a gun. That could reasonably be termed stalking, couldn't it?

"Reasonably?" Apparently not. Rather than for you and I to brandish our opinions about, the better alternative is to look at the court transcripts and findings. The court found that Zimmerman was not "stalking" in any legally-relevant sense. Martin (obviously) did not know Zimmerman was armed. To call a neighborhood-watch guy a "stalker" is pretty impressive!

Martin lived there, and was returning from the store with tea and candy. Is that not a legitimate purpose?

"Returning home?" Is that how you're casting it? LOL

The area was a hotbed of break-ins and burglaries, to the extent that dozens of residents stated publicly and to police that they no longer felt safe living there. In the preceeding weeks, Zimmerman and other neighborhood-watch people called police repeatedly to report incidents of young men (coincidentally dressed like Martin) peering in the windows of empty homes. The police were in and out of that community frequently, due to neighborhood-watch calls of suspicious activity.

Now, against that backdrop, on the night of the incident, according to police dispatch records, it is NOT fair to cast Martin's "activities" as though he was just "returning home." He was not walking straight home. It was raining, and he was NOT just making a bee-line for his home. He was loitering, wandering, checking out houses, and when he saw Zimmerman's car he started running. None of that can be cast as "returning home." He was acting suspicious, he was called in as suspicious, and the area was awash in suspicious/criminal activity.

BTW... do you really want to do this???

The Martin shooting has been discussed ad nauseum, and your using of THIS as some paradigm example of "stand your ground" gone bad is an astoundingly bad example!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Mar 11, 2015 - 01:53pm PT
Martin stood up to an armed THUG with a criminal record.

HAS to be trolling.

NOBODY with a knowledge of the public record of the incident could reasonably cast the incident that way.

I'm done with the Martin example. Next you'll be race-baiting with it.

Oh, GAG!
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 09:18pm PT
Gary, how do you propose that smaller/weaker (perhaps due to age or disability) persons defend themselves against physical assault?

By any means possible,like Martin did. What I'm getting out of this thread, correct me if I'm wrong, is that there seems to be a tendency to think that anyone with a gun has a superior right to self-defense. Martin should have got on his knees and begged for mercy?
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Mar 11, 2015 - 09:27pm PT
The court found that Zimmerman produced and discharged his gun only after he was underneath and being savagely beaten by Martin.

How was that determined? Zimmerman's testimony?

"Reasonably?" Apparently not. Rather than for you and I to brandish our opinions about, the better alternative is to look at the court transcripts and findings. The court found that Zimmerman was not "stalking" in any legally-relevant sense. Martin (obviously) did not know Zimmerman was armed. To call a neighborhood-watch guy a "stalker" is pretty impressive!

That's why I'm here, to brandish my opinion about, same as you. He had a gun, and he went after the kid. That's a fact. If you want to call it something other than stalking, that's fine.

"Returning home?" Is that how you're casting it? LOL

Hadn't he been to the store? Wasn't he carrying Skittles and tea? What would you call it?

NOBODY with a knowledge of the public record of the incident could reasonably cast the incident that way.

I beg to differ.

I'm done with the Martin example. Next you'll be race-baiting with it.

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. Just having a discussion. It's obviously upsetting you, so I'll bow out.
Messages 5061 - 5080 of total 5459 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews