The Cellar - Guns don't kill people ....

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Guns don't kill people .... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24412)

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 803672)

We don't even have all the facts yet.

Then why have you already made up your mind about this?

Bullets from guns people pull the trigger of kill people.

There are two separate legal issues...
One is the Trayvon Martin case, itself... the other is the "Stand Your Ground" law and concept.

As Classic says, the "facts" are not in on the Martin case, but there is a lot of emotion.
And, as Classic posted above, there is a lot to be said about the "Stand Your Ground" law.

It's more appropriate to call this law a “Castle Doctrine” because
that is what the NRA called it when it was distributed via "ALEC",
the American Legislative Exchange Council"

Here is a link to the "model legislation" as proposed by ALEC and the NRA.
The link down-loads a 3-page PDF document of the "Castle Doctrine".
I urge Dwellars to download and read the entire PDF.

But here is my short version...

Basically, Section 1 The concept of "a man's house is his castle" is
extended to vehicles and to anything in which a person might sleep, and that
anyone who claims to have used defensive force is presumed to have been in fear of bodily harm
and deems any defensive force as permissible under this law

Here is Section 1, Item 1:
Section 1. {Home Protection, Use of Deadly Force, Presumption of Fear of Death or Harm}

Quote:

1. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force
that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the
process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or
forcefully entered,
a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed
or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle; and
b. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe
that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was
occurring or had occurred.

Section 2 goes well beyond any previous legislation by giving immunity
from prosecution of any person using "defensive force"

It is section 2 that is controversial to the public,
and opposed by Depts of Justices, D.A.'s, and Law Enforcement.

Here is Section 2:

Quote:

Section 2. {Immunity from Criminal Prosecution and Civil Action}

1. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting,
detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section (1)
[and other state codes which are affected/amended by this legislation
and which refer to the use of force including deadly force]
is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
prosecution
and civil action for the use of such force, except when:

a. The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement
officer as defined in
[insert appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code,
which defines the term “law enforcement officer” or similar],
who was acting in the performance of his or her duties and
the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law; or

b. The person using force knew or reasonably should have known
that the person was a law enforcement officer.

3. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (2), but the agency may not arrest the person
for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause
that the force that was used was unlawful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 803675)

Then why have you already made up your mind about this?

My position is based upon what we do know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 803216)

Like they think we think guns are alive or something. "Oooooh, that gun is a mean one. He once shot a guy just to watch him die. Then he went to Starbucks. Ooooohhh."

Guns don't let guns shoot at Starbucks

in addition to the stand your ground law, there is also the use of force continuim to be considered which takes in to account physical condition, prior knowledge, and age

Does that apply to "Neighborhood watch" volunteers as well or just Police Officers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf (Post 802929)

... although Zimmerman did look beaten up when the cops got there.
...

So did Edward Norton in "Fight Club" :cool:

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 803037)

X number of people texted whiles driving and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of people were over the legal blood alcohol limit, drove, and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of priests sodomized young boys and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 803654)

(possibly racially biased)

Bingo! Had the race roles been reversed, the black shooter would have been arrested. THAT is the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 803506)

XoB reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to make this point:

You missed that point and distracted from it by challenging the content thus going off on a tangent.

I also reflected Lamplighter's method and format back at him to reiterate xoB's point. You missed the point again and went off on a tangent. Now it's been explained to you twice.

When attempting to use an analogous form to demonstrate a problem with an argument, make sure you're actually being analogous! In xoxoxoBruce's case, it wasn't actually true. If you apply his analogy to Lamplighter's, you would be claiming that Trayvon Martin hadn't been shot. In your case, assisted suicides are the expected result of legalizing assisted suicide. Applying your analogy to Lamplighter's, we are expecting more innocent people to be shot due to the NRA.

Quote:

Putting himself in a position of dependency by asking for Zimmerman's protection may have given Zimmerman the sense of control he needed to avoid his resorting to using a weapon. What did Martin need protection from?!!! Why his own emotions of course, Martin's fight or flight response was a contributing factor to his own death.

If that's your last word, I won't miss you "indulging" me.

Just read that Zimmerman 'fears for his life'.

does that mean he's going to open fire on the world?

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and carry a gun daily. As I type this, it in my briefcase within arms-length. I don't want to be a statistic if some nut-ball comes to the office I work in (law firm) and decides to start shooting.

That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.

In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for. Still...if someone breaks in to my house and I draw down on them with my handgun and they flee...the confrontation is over. If I give chase and shoot him, I am then the aggressor. That is what happened in this case and he should be charged.

ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.

In Colorado this is called the "make my day" law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmg1969 (Post 803794)

In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for.

Why are you thankful for this?

The idea that you don't have to run away if someone breaks into your house?