Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

[trish]

Calm down little dude, before you burst a vessel...or shoot somebody's eye out.

[bobvela]

Clearly I am touching on a nerve... you've resorted to calling me an 'idiot' twice in a single post... and as is your tradition, not offering anything substantive to support you claims.

Before I properly begin, while looking for something else you'd mentioned in the thread, I happened to re-read this post of yours and noticed something odd which once again demonstrates your lack of credibility due to an apparent outright refusal to learn the facts involved (emphasis mine):

You said, The Judge, however, thought it was sufficiently relevant to mention in his instructions to the jury. I see you're retreating already. Now your claim is, .

The judge in the case... is one Judge Debra Nelson, is as far as I can tell... a woman. And while she does bare a striking resemblance to Chris Farley in drag (as seen in a few SNL sketches), probably shouldn't be referred to as 'his'... unless you think you would like to be as well?

Oh my! Caught dead to rights in a loathsome lie. Whatever shall I do?

Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Yes. Of course. Just like there's a subtle distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty",

If by 'distinction' you mean 'a rather large gaping distance in the realm of legality'... then yes you are right.

It's the same distinction that exists between being a virgin... and a virgin who is raped in a penetrative manor.

there is also a distinction between agreeing "Zimmerman is not guilty" and the claim that the Florida SYG-law embolden Zimmerman and paved the way for the sad outcome of his encounter with Martin.

Hello apples & oranges!

If you bothered to read the jury instructions (which as I recall you claimed I didn't(notice how I call you out with specific mockeries at the time of said mock?))... justifiable homicide & excusable homicide were on the table... yet not guilty was the verdict. Hrm...

Even though you failed to make the distinction yourself, I'll refrain from calling you a LIAR...just this once.

Again... it's not me making that claim... you are... and yet have still not supported it. Once again you reveal yourself as a consistent withholder of the truth.

Absolutely not. Zimmerman is not guilty. I don't want to see him lynched.

You say that now... and yet previously you wished to use the actions of the legal system in order to convict & punish him. Believe it or not... a lynch mob doesn't just require a group of people to hang someone directly because they think they are guilty... instead it also includes those who push others to act to do the same. You know... just what you and others did in the lead up to the GZ trial?

I will, on the other hand, use his case and others like it to illustrate why this nation needs to rid itself of SYG laws.

So you do admit that you are using this case to further your motives to abolish SYG... something that while read to the jury in the GZ case, was not something he was directly acquitted because of.

(You do realize you're accusing a black woman of belonging to a lynch mob. I admire your temerity).

I always enjoy it when people (often those with the most ingrained biases) assume that trait A is only ascribable to those in group B... and refuse to acknowledge that group C, D E or all the way to Z is capable of A. It's the sort of closed-mindedness I've come to expect from you.

Why not just scream "No true Scotsman <something>!"? It would make defining your logical fallacies much easier.

I was mocking you, idiot. The phrasing copies the very phrasing of your previous post. Sheesh!

Lemme get this straight... you mocked and phrased:

what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

into

What else would you expect from someone whose ideologically conditioned paranoia out of control they have to carry concealed weapons.

?

Given the only commonality is "what else would you expect from"... you just gave me artistic license to say whatever I'd like... which I will refrain from given the poor quality of your mockery.

Didn't you just call me paranoid? LIAR

Interesting how you ignore my whole point and focus on a single word... and yet fail to understand how it still clearly applies to you while taking offense at the concept and projecting the label to a separate argument.

No. It doesn't. Re-read it again, idiot, with the prior quote and notice the underscore. Sheesh again!!!

Again we see your reading comprehension issues at work. I'm sorry to hear/see that the public schools in your home town failed you so.

While I am mostly the product of a public education... early on I recognized the issues with it and began to branch out and learn more about many a subject... alas it's clear that you opted not to pursue personal betterment.

[bobvela]

Calm down little dude,

Little?

before you burst a vessel...

Alas for you, my doctor is always surprised by my actual health, despite risk signs to the contrary. At the rate I am going I'll live to 120 despite a lifetime of smoking, drinking & eating fatty foods.

or shoot somebody's eye out.

Again alas for you... statistically, you are more likely to do that than I.

[trish]

Clearly I am touching on a nerve... you've resorted to calling me an 'idiot' twice in a single post...

sorry, but both times you were illustrating poor reading and comprehension skills.

If by 'distinction' you mean 'a rather large gaping distance in the realm of legality'..

No, the intent of my usage isn't restricted to the legal context, as my example clearly illustrates. You can't give real evidence for your position so you call me a liar for saying Zimmerman is innocent rather than not guilty. And now we have to go over that for the third time! Really?

So you do admit that you are using this case to further your motives to abolish SYG...

I don't admit it, I volunteer it freely. I take responding to your drizzle as an opportunity to repeat for all sane readers that stand your ground laws (coupled with concealed carry) serve to embolden wannabe vigilante heros and escalate avoidable disagreements to violence.

[bobvela]

sorry, but both times you were illustrating poor reading and comprehension skills.

Tell me, what's it like to be a parrot?

I've noticed that quite a few of your retorts to me tend to be "I'm not a towel, you're a towel!"... attempting to take my words/arguments and somehow turn them against me... but instead of involving a novel deconstruction of what I've said and then trying to turn the tables... you simply repeat what I've said.

No, the intent of my usage isn't restricted to the legal context, as my example clearly illustrates.

I am simply citing the official record... you on the other hand are making 'facts' up.

You can't give real evidence for your position so you call me a liar for saying Zimmerman is innocent rather than not guilty. And now we have to go over that for the third time! Really?

*shaking head*

Cite one specific time I have called you a liar here and provide evidence that I did so in error. I dare you. I double-dog dare you. Do it. Come on. You keep hating the fact I call you that and yet NOT ONCE have you supported your claim with non disprovable/discountable evidence that supports your claim.

I don't admit it, I volunteer it freely.

Once again you acknowledge your membership in the lynch-mob. You failed to take GZ's head in court, now you seek to pursue changes that will (in your mind) prevent further TM/GZ like events... never mind the fact that if successful, you will send far more people to jail who are just defending themselves against illegal and life threatening attacks.

I take responding to your drizzle as an opportunity to repeat for all sane readers that stand your ground laws (coupled with concealed carry) serve to embolden wannabe vigilante heros and escalate avoidable disagreements to violence.

When doing some searching for a few old posts... I encountered something interesting... at least of those who vote for the usefulness of a post... my retorts to you did far better than yours of me.

You clearly have a view that you are doing right... and yet so few chime in and say "Trish speaks for me". Odd that eh?

More so... you keep claiming that SYG laws "serve to embolden wannabe vigilante heros and escalate avoidable disagreements to violence" and still have provided ZERO evidence to support that claim... but then I would expect that kind of behavior from someone who has admitted to raping Nicaraguan kids.

[trish]

I’ve notice quite a few of your posts are nothing but long lists of variations on the form “you’re a towel.” This last was another fine example of your ad hominem laden dribble.

Now to some questions raised by this thread. Does the combination of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws embolden wannabe vigilante heros to enter into situations and initiate aggressive encounters? If not, why not? Had Zimmerman not had a gun on his person and the SYG law as backup, would he have stalked Martin to begin with? Would he have even bothered to join the neighborhood watch?

Why do people, who aren’t vigilantes or whose professions don’t require them to be armed, even want to carry concealed firearms? What is it about SYG laws that appeals to its proponents? Is concealed carry and SYG, as envisioned by their proponents, a valid form of private security that should be legal? Does the combo makes them (the proponents) feel safer? Does it embolden ordinary people to sometimes get into trouble they might otherwise have avoided? If not, why not? If it doesn’t embolden persons who are already wannabe vigilante heros, why doesn’t it?

[yodajazz]

If you look at the behavior of young people, they tend to fight not to kill one another but to inflict pain on an opponent. SYG laws under the guise of freedom, are really population control measures.

[bobvela]

I’ve notice quite a few of your posts are nothing but long lists of variations on the form “you’re a towel.” This last was another fine example of your ad hominem laden dribble.

Does Polly... errr Trish want a cracker? Again... you are playing the part of a parrot and when called out resort to claims of ad hominem.

How about you address what I've said rather than continue to deflect? Which alas is what you continued to do.

Now to some questions raised by this thread. Does the combination of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws embolden wannabe vigilante heros to enter into situations and initiate aggressive encounters? If not, why not?

Not going to answer your own Q? ... or provide support to that claim?

This thread is about the evil that is SYG laws... why not specifically highlight the harm it causes? (ie not what it *could* do). Shouldn't it be a simple matter to show an increase in excusable/justifiable homicides in states after passage of SYG laws AND that such shooters were embolden by the law?

Had Zimmerman not had a gun on his person and the SYG law as backup, would he have stalked Martin to begin with? Would he have even bothered to join the neighborhood watch?

Good luck proving either, in fact, given the actions of GZ prior to the incident(someone who seems to care about his community and wants to help make it better)... it's doubtful that SYG pushed him to that next level.

Why do people, who aren’t vigilantes or whose professions don’t require them to be armed, even want to carry concealed firearms?

Why do people... wear red shits? Or choose Nike over Reebok? Prefer blonds over brunets? Cary life insurance? Keep an charged flashlight in an easy to get to place?

Because they have the freedom to live as they see fit where their actions do not unduly deny others of their liberties, and in some cases take non-harmful 'just in case' steps.

What is it about SYG laws that appeals to its proponents?

Reducing the legal risks of after the fact second guessing & prosecutorial abuses for one.

In theory yes, it's a lovely idea that someone who feels their life is threatened should attempt to flee before using lethal force. If you are in such a potentially life or death situation, the fewer things you are worrying about the better... and every moment you are saying to yourself "Can I get away? Is that door unlocked? Can I outrun them?" is a moment you are not focusing on the situation and asking the core question of "is this person currently or about to be an imminent threat to my life?"

While SYG is more likely to result in the deaths of the perceived bad guy... 'duty to retreat' laws instead risk the lives & safety of those who are denied the right to defend themselves because of the second guessing involved.

Is concealed carry and SYG, as envisioned by their proponents, a valid form of private security that should be legal?

If I understand your meaning... can you hire an armed body-guard in your state? There would be your answer I think.

Does the combo makes them (the proponents) feel safer?

You keep assuming that the desire is to 'feel safe'... do you 'feel safe' because you have auto insurance? Do you 'feel safe' because you have enough food in your fridge to last you a full week?

The goal is to be prepared up to a point (varies by person) to deal with unlikely but not impossible events.

Most people don't keep a parachute in their high-rise office in case they need to jump out a window to safety... but most do carry some form of health/auto/life insurance beyond what they are legally required to.

Same thing here. People pick the degree and areas they opt to insure.

Does it embolden ordinary people to sometimes get into trouble they might otherwise have avoided? If not, why not? If it doesn’t embolden persons who are already wannabe vigilante heros, why doesn’t it?

I suggest you consult with a few sociologists & criminologists on that as I am unaware of anyone writing a paper or there being stats which demonstrate a fundamental causal relationship between SYG and emboldening 'wannabe vigilante heros'.

Here is a question for you... given you seek the repeal of SYG in 31 states, do you also seek the repeal of the Castle Doctrine? If so... how far back to you want to repeal the right to defend ones self? If not, why?

Remember, SYG is simply an extension of the Castle Doctrine and allows for lawful self-defense for the same reasons as the Castle Doctrine... but extends it beyond the home.

[trish]

Perhaps it is worthwhile remember the point of this thread. To that end I repost desireejones opening gambit.

Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"



The traditional presumption in the law—from the advent of the Hebrew Bible through the creation of Roman law, English common law, and American law—has been that if you could spare human life, it was incumbent upon you to do so.

With “Stand Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) laws, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have turned 3,000 years of jurisprudence on its head. Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked.

The NRA’s laws represent a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear “great bodily harm” (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.). The concept of responding with proportional force has been obliterated. Additionally, “Stand Your Ground” laws remove the duty to retreat from a conflict in public, allowing individuals to shoot and kill even when they could otherwise walk away safely from an altercation.

Please sign this petition calling on your state legislators to oppose “Stand Your Ground” laws.


http://csgv.org/action/stand-up-to-stand-your-ground/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...f=black-voices

To the objection that the Zimmerman case and SYG have “nothing to do” with each other, several counters have been raised.

1) The instructions to the jury ( http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467 ) composed by the Judge and the two attorneys instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida’s SYG law in their deliberations. (Which of the attorney’s do you think thought it was sufficiently relevant to make the jury aware of that law?)

2) There is a obvious mechanism for how SYG laws may embolden carriers of concealed firearms to engage and push encounters to the threshold of violence. It’s part of a more general self-evident principle: More people will engage in an activity hazardous to themselves and others, if the law makes them feel safe from prosecution. Couple that with the another self-evident general principle: The more people who engage in an activity thats hazardous to themselves and others, the more people will be harmed by that activity. If you feel you absolutely need the SYG-law to feel safe enough to stand-your-ground instead attempting to attenuate a conflict, back away or avoid it altogether, then you are emboldened to stand-your-ground by the SYG-law. That’s the meaning of “embolden.” Now think how much more emboldened are wannabe vigillante heros. Particularize to Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not a bad guy. He wants badly to do good heroic things. It just that good and heroic things don’t always involve forceful confrontation. Here’s the way it done http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...oting/2680407/

3) Also a mechanism was suggested to demonstrate how SYG-laws may truncate jury deliberations. This is a general mechanism and may be particularized (but only hypothetically to date) to the Zimmerman case.

For paraphrasing these common-knowledge, common-sense items (of course they do not originate with me) I’ve been called a liar, a member of a lynch-mob, and a pedophile!!! This of course demonstrates the fierce emotional hold these issues have on some people. The sale of firearms in the U.S. is indeed skyrocketing. But not because people favor SYG and concealed carry laws. The number of households owning guns is down from approximately 50% to 30% over the last few of decades. There are more guns, but they are in the hands of fewer people. Homicides have gone down over that period. But we still have 19 times the homicide rate of other high income nations.

If you agree that Stand-Your-Ground laws to more to aggravate our nation’s gun problem than help, then go to the links above provided by desirejones and add your name to petitions. If you don’t agree, don’t sign. Simple.

[notdrunk]

Perhaps it is worthwhile remember the point of this thread. To that end I repost desireejones opening gambit.



To the objection that the Zimmerman case and SYG have “nothing to do” with each other, several counters have been raised.

1) The instructions to the jury ( http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467 ) composed by the Judge and the two attorneys instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida’s SYG law in their deliberations. (Which of the attorney’s do you think thought it was sufficiently relevant to make the jury aware of that law?)

2) There is a obvious mechanism for how SYG laws may embolden carriers of concealed firearms to engage and push encounters to the threshold of violence. It’s part of a more general self-evident principle: More people will engage in an activity hazardous to themselves and others, if the law makes them feel safe from prosecution. Couple that with the another self-evident general principle: The more people who engage in an activity thats hazardous to themselves and others, the more people will be harmed by that activity. If you feel you absolutely need the SYG-law to feel safe enough to stand-your-ground instead attempting to attenuate a conflict, back away or avoid it altogether, then you are emboldened to stand-your-ground by the SYG-law. That’s the meaning of “embolden.” Now think how much more emboldened are wannabe vigillante heros. Particularize to Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not a bad guy. He wants badly to do good heroic things. It just that good and heroic things don’t always involve forceful confrontation. Here’s the way it done http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...oting/2680407/

3) Also a mechanism was suggested to demonstrate how SYG-laws may truncate jury deliberations. This is a general mechanism and may be particularized (but only hypothetically to date) to the Zimmerman case.

For paraphrasing these common-knowledge, common-sense items (of course they do not originate with me) I’ve been called a liar, a member of a lynch-mob, and a pedophile!!! This of course demonstrates the fierce emotional hold these issues have on some people. The sale of firearms in the U.S. is indeed skyrocketing. But not because people favor SYG and concealed carry laws. The number of households owning guns is down from approximately 50% to 30% over the last few of decades. There are more guns, but they are in the hands of fewer people. Homicides have gone down over that period. But we still have 19 times the homicide rate of other high income nations.

If you agree that Stand-Your-Ground laws to more to aggravate our nation’s gun problem than help, then go to the links above provided by desirejones and add your name to petitions. If you don’t agree, don’t sign. Simple.

1.) The moment that Zimmerman was in danger (i.e., when Trayvon punched him and repeatedly punched him), he couldn't retreat. The anti-SYG people can't escape the fact that Zimmerman couldn't retreat. So what if the Judge included SYG langauge in the instructions? You are ignoring the fact that Zimmerman couldn't retreat. If Zimmerman's lawyers were really interested about the SYG law, they would of asked for a SYG immunity hearing before the trial case began. Why didn't they ask for an immunity hearing? They had to the right to request a hearing.

2.) Nice anecdotal evidence. I am sure that Adam Lanza, Nidal Hazan, James Hasan, and other shooters could of been talked down.

Michael Hill target wasn't probably the school and its students. It was a backdrop.

My point is that don't politicize a murder that doesn't your agenda. It is frankly..wrong.