FL man shoots unarmed kid. Walks home, has a beer.

[Orvis]

Ok i can see the first link, but that vid seems more like a protect than a riot. I'm i wrong? It was thought that there would be mass riots all over the country, I'm just not seeing that.

Any confrontation with the police by a number of individuals constitutes a riot if it turns into crashing and burning of other people's property. I'm merrily showing that there is more one riot (riots) being reported on. How many people does it take to make up a riot? If one cares to research it they can find many "skirmishes" in the US over this issue.

Granted, some of them are probably mini riots that were just waiting for a reason to start and this trial was as good a reason as any. I suspect that some of them were going through withdrawals because they had not had a good reason to break something for awhile.

 

[Orvis]

I'll bet they cant site one case of homicide in the US involving a 50 caliber rifle.

That's only because there are no gang bangers that can figure out how to put one in his pocket. I think one gang banger tried to use one a year or so ago when he jerked it out of his low-rider, turned it sideways, stuck it out to arms length, and promptly broke his jaw when he fired it.

Oh shit! He forgot about the recoil.

I'm bullshitting, no one really did that. That I know of.

 

[Joe Morris]

Who won?

I keep thinking about your other post, longing for the good old days of settling differences with a good brawl, not having to worry about SYG issues. I'm going to guess, prior to your reveal, that you all just parted company. The laws on SYG are very clear, IMHO.

Here's one thing about brawls and SYG that you may have not considered. Guys like Buck, Nazif, or maybe yourself, brawl when it suits them because they are beefcakes. If they brawl, they'll usually "win". If they don't, it is not because they are cowards. Do you remember the scene in Schindler's List where Schindler convinced the German commander not to kill prisoners because it was more macho to allow them to live? That's how big guys frequently decide when to jump in.

Contrast that with someone my size. Guys like me are frequently on the wrong side of the beat down. You know that your ass is going to get kicked but that's a lot better than showing that you are a coward. The end question is whether the guy handing out the whooping knows when to quit.

I'm not a brawler. Sure, I prefer a fight over some other forms of conflict resolution but I'm probably just a dinosaur in that thinking. Still, when I see the Chicago murder figures I think they could stand to throw hands and leave the guns at home. The guys at the bar wanted to fight. We didn't. Simple as that. There wasn't going to be a fight. The fact that the instigator was Irish and his pronunciation of the word "twat" makes me giggle even now didn't help move things along. But I surely didn't feel threatened by them and could laugh off the possibility of a brawl so maybe that changes things. I dunno. Plenty of people on this board know me and couldn't imagine me in a fight. It is kind of hard to imagine! Heck, Britt scares the crap out of me sometimes.

 

[Orvis]

My principle issue with SYG is that it allows someone to escalate a situation and then use lethal force. That just strikes me as a bad idea. Even if that scenario is remote and unlikely the notion that it is permissible makes me think it's a bad law. My secondary issue is that SYG adds a layer of law to an area already covered. If you fear for your life you can use lethal force. The case in Sanford just proved it but that's not new either. Taking both objections at once I don't see what is gained by a SYG law but I do see a loophole created which I disagree with.

I'm not sure about other states however, in Texas, before the stand-your-ground took effect, someone that was armed, and even being in his own home, had to make every effort to retreat before using lethal force. The only way one could legally use lethal force was basically when you had no escape from a confrontation.

 

[ACDNate]

I haven't done any digging but this popped up on of my feeds and it supports your second link.

Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.4 and 7.4 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws.

A quote of a quoted text so it's as hokie as can be. Like I said, I haven't researched statistics.

I totally agree this is a state issue btw.

The discussion of increases in homicides among white males is kind of an irrelevant fact since they don't distinguish how much of the rise in total are the result of justifiable homicides or just general homicides. If they are justified homicides then why does that number really matter?

 

[Orvis]

I married one. You should definitely be wary.

I know how you feel. I married an Italian and considering that Italy cooperated with the Nazis I have to watch my wife like a hawk. I can't sleep at night for fear that I'll wake up dead. What to do, what to do? Woe is us.

 

[Joe Morris]

The discussion of increases in homicides among white males is kind of an irrelevant fact since they don't distinguish how much of the rise in total are the result of justifiable homicides or just general homicides. If they are justified homicides then why does that number really matter?

I can't really discuss something I've barely studied. That link came to my attention and I thought it was interesting because it conflicted with my expectations. I didn't dig into it any more though.

Personally I'd like for all deaths at the hands of another put before a jury. I realize that would be a burden on the courts. But I just have no faith in the cops or D.A. to make those judgements. A jury of the peers should, IMHO, and the standards of the community should be set that way. I feel like that way you get around the institutional bias of government beaurocracy and get a better measure from the people (as flawed as they can be). So in that sense when I read of higher murder rates I think of more court traffic. That's about it.

 

[In Your Corner]

Well, I know that I said I would refrain from posting in this thread any more, but I must post one more time to clarify, since you failed to mention the part of Todd's post that was really racist.

He said "well we already know, the blacks in this country dont give a shit when a black kills another black, hell, the 700 black teens killed in Chicago just since this incident happened in FLA is a prime example of that."

The highlighted part is the racist generalization that he made. The fact that he thought that Chicago's epidemic of black on black violence proved his racist generalization was just strange, but not exactly racist in itself. The young black males killing each other are the slim minority amongst black people in general, and millions of black people, as well as reasonable, sympathetic white people do in fact, "give a shit" about it.

But you're disregarding his point.
Where is the outrage over those deaths caused by the "slim minority" of blacks? I don't see anything remotely comparable to the outrage directed at GZ.
And if hundreds of deaths in just one city committed by blacks, who make up 20% of the population, isn't causing widespread outrage, then how does it make any sense that such an immense amount of outrage is directed at a "white person" concerning one shooting by a "white man", when whites are roughly 70% of the population?
That would make that one white person something considerably less than a slim minority.
An anomaly would be a better description.
So, while maybe stated in a way that is uncomfortable to read, his point is consistent with reality.

 

[Orvis]

I'd tend to agree. But I don't read that in the law. If I'm afraid for my life then I'm justified in using lethal force to defend myself. The mere possibility of a 3-on-1 beating would meet threshold for some. I don't need to seek safety. I don't need to see them lay a hand on anyone to prove my fears. I just need to feel afraid for my life. Or vice versa.

I cannot testify as to how NC laws affect this scenario. Here is how it is in the state of Texas.

Since you cannot carry a concealed weapon and consume alcohol at the same time, you would have some serious explaining to do to a judge on that issue alone. Secondly, if you're in a bar, or another business that obtains over one half of their income from the sale of alcohol, you cannot be armed in the place to begin with. Having a firearm in your car in the parking lot is another consideration however.

Of course, if you were able to go to your car to obtain the weapon, then you should have burned rubber out of the place instead of opening fire. In the event where you did use your weapon and survived the encounter, your only positive in this whole matter would be that you would be alive to speak to a judge. Very small consolation huh?

 

[Joe Morris]

I cannot testify as to how NC laws affect this scenario. Here is how it is in the state of Texas.

Since you cannot carry a concealed weapon and consume alcohol at the same time, you would have some serious explaining to do to a judge on that issue alone. Secondly, if you're in a bar, or another business that obtains over one half of their income from the sale of alcohol, you cannot be armed in the place to begin with. Having a firearm in your car in the parking lot is another consideration however.

Of course, if you were able to go to your car to obtain the weapon, then you should have burned rubber out of the place instead of opening fire. In the event where you did use your weapon and survived the encounter, your only positive in this whole matter would be that you would be alive to speak to a judge. Very small consolation huh?

North Carolina doesn't have a SYG law. I'm not well versed in the differing wording in different states as I can only seem to find Iowa online. I was in Maine at the time and I had no idea if they had a SYG law or not. But it did give me pause when they threw all of us into the street. Not like it changed any outcomes.

 

[theJrod]

I'd tend to agree. But I don't read that in the law. If I'm afraid for my life then I'm justified in using lethal force to defend myself. The mere possibility of a 3-on-1 beating would meet threshold for some. I don't need to seek safety. I don't need to see them lay a hand on anyone to prove my fears. I just need to feel afraid for my life. Or vice versa.

No, not entirely correct. A jury of your peers must find that you had a reasonable fear for your life. You alone don't get to make that determination. You can claim it all you want, but just because you think your life was in danger doesn't necessarily mean a jury/judge/prosecutor will.
There's usually a "reasonable and prudent" piece in the law somewhere (there is in my state).

 

[In Your Corner]

I can't really discuss something I've barely studied. That link came to my attention and I thought it was interesting because it conflicted with my expectations. I didn't dig into it any more though.

Personally I'd like for all deaths at the hands of another put before a jury. I realize that would be a burden on the courts. But I just have no faith in the cops or D.A. to make those judgements. A jury of the peers should, IMHO, and the standards of the community should be set that way. I feel like that way you get around the institutional bias of government beaurocracy and get a better measure from the people (as flawed as they can be). So in that sense when I read of higher murder rates I think of more court traffic. That's about it.

The problem that SYG laws address is finding yourself in court with 12 other people second-guessing whether or not you could have safely turned your back on a threat and run away rather than actively protect yourself.
That's twelve people who weren't there and didn't have to make a quick decision concerning an unforeseen situation.
Twelve people who get hours to consider the possible outcomes if only you had done something different in the seconds you had to respond.
Taking away that responsibility to run away and, instead, determine how to best protect yourself from a threat gives the threatened person a better chance, using decisions unclouded by what those 12 people might later decide "might" have been done differently.
It takes the onus off the victim and puts it on the aggressor, where it should be.

 

[Joe Morris]

The problem that SYG laws address is finding yourself in court with 12 other people second-guessing whether or not you could have safely turned your back on a threat and run away rather than actively protect yourself.
That's twelve people who weren't there and didn't have to make a quick decision concerning an unforeseen situation.
Twelve people who get hours to consider the possible outcomes if only you had done something different in the seconds you had to respond.
Taking away that responsibility to run away and, instead, determine how to best protect yourself from a threat gives the threatened person a better chance, using decisions unclouded by what those 12 people might later decide "might" have been done differently.
It takes the onus off the victim and puts it on the aggressor, where it should be.

So a judge makes that determination after hearing the evidence presented by lawyers in court is better? I'm not convinced. I think the citizens of the community should make that call. Either way it goes to court, evidence is presented, and a decision is made. I'm not sure what SYG accomplishes except shifting the judgement to a different group.

 

[Jim Moore]

the new concept is called... social engineering. Brought to you by http://parkscrump.com/attorneys/jasmine-rand/ from http://parkscrump.com

According to Ms Rand... this duty of "social engineering" is far and above the duty of being an attorney. Now they (law firm above) are "boo hissing" the Jury's decision.

Greta basically used her as a punching bag.

 

[Joe Morris]

No, not entirely correct. A jury of your peers must find that you had a reasonable fear for your life. You alone don't get to make that determination. You can claim it all you want, but just because you think your life was in danger doesn't necessarily mean a jury/judge/prosecutor will.
There's usually a "reasonable and prudent" piece in the law somewhere (there is in my state).

Like I said, my sampling of state laws is 1. Can anyone provide some other examples? I can't find them on the net.

 

[Britt]

I'm not sure what SYG accomplishes except shifting the judgement to a different group.

Example:

Without SYG;
In some places, if you are at home, someone breaks into your garage and is stealing your car..you walk out and see him..he points a gun at you, YOU have to Retreat into your home...IF he comes into your home, say you are in the living room and CAN retreat further before killing him you must...You Must Exhaust ALL Avenues of Retreat Before you can Kill him.

With SYG;, He breaks in, is stealing yer car..you walk out say "Hey WTF are you doing", He points the gun at you...BLAMMMMO..you shoot his thieving ass.

Sort of and shit...

 

[Shyster d'Oil]

Example:

Without SYG;
In some places, if you are at home, someone breaks into your garage and is stealing your car..you walk out and see him..he points a gun at you, YOU have to Retreat into your home...IF he comes into your home, say you are in the living room and CAN retreat further before killing him you must...You Must Exhaust ALL Avenues of Retreat Before you can Kill him.

With SYG;, He breaks in, is stealing yer car..you walk out say "Hey WTF are you doing", He points the gun at you...BLAMMMMO..you shoot his thieving ass.

Sort of and shit...

No.

 

[JeffroJ]

Example:

Without SYG;
In some places, if you are at home, someone breaks into your garage and is stealing your car..you walk out and see him..he points a gun at you, YOU have to Retreat into your home...IF he comes into your home, say you are in the living room and CAN retreat further before killing him you must...You Must Exhaust ALL Avenues of Retreat Before you can Kill him.

With SYG;, He breaks in, is stealing yer car..you walk out say "Hey WTF are you doing", He points the gun at you...BLAMMMMO..you shoot his thieving ass.

Sort of and shit...

Wouldn't that be where the castle doctrine applies? Stand your ground covers you if a similar scenario takes place away from your home, but only if it's in an area that you were permitted to be carrying.

 

[Britt]

No.

Oh, I am sorry, where did I go wrong..?

I am sure it is ALL Wrong...hence I didn't say I was a Lawyer.










But it seems I can set the hook...

 

[JeffroJ]

Example:

Without Castle Doctrine;
In some places, if you are at home, someone breaks into your garage and is stealing your car..you walk out and see him..he points a gun at you, YOU have to Retreat into your home...IF he comes into your home, say you are in the living room and CAN retreat further before killing him you must...You Must Exhaust ALL Avenues of Retreat Before you can Kill him.

With Castle Doctrine;, He breaks in, is stealing yer car..you walk out say "Hey WTF are you doing", He points the gun at you...BLAMMMMO..you shoot his thieving ass.

Sort of and shit...

Yes