General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere's a debate about whether Zimmerman should have been carrying
Personally, I think that someone like Zimmerman, a scaredy cat, should be the last person carrying a firearm in public. Now before any right to carry defenders jump on on-board to counter my reasoning, first we all have to admit that it's quite clear that he didn't carry around his weapon to go hunting for game, or for practicing in the biathlon, or even as a nice accessory to his shoes… He carried that gun because he felt that he could find himself in a situation where he thought it'd necessary to shoot another person and possibly kill them.
Pardon me, but I think that that's fucking ridiculous.
There ARE people who do walk around, carrying firearms, who could in the course of their business find it necessary to shoot another person and possibly kill them… And I like to call these people "cops", "private security guards", "soldiers" and "criminals".
George Zimmerman, when I last checked, was not one of these people. That leaves one other definition that he could fit in; A Fucking Fraidy Cat.
Along with his weapon and the bullets in his gun, he took with him fear. A fear that he took with him everywhere he went that put in danger anyone who came into close contact with him. What a pitiful life to live. Let's assume that he moved to a gated community in Sanford with an assumption that he and his family would somehow be safe from crime there. And by looking at some young' black male walking the street in that neighbor, he realized that the worst of his fears had come to pass. So, with gun in hand, it was time for him to rectify the situation.
This is not the act of a brave citizen, defending his home, let's say. Stalking someone who hasn't committed a crime, who was unarmed, who was doing nothing more than minding their own business and THEN shooting that person to death in cold blood is nothing more than the act of a murderous coward.
In my book, scared cowards are much more dangerous people than any existential of young, black males threat that Zimmerman had summoned up in the worst of his own nightmares… Only he was too frightened to fucking see it.
Thus he felt that he needed to be strapped in cases where other ordinary folks would never think to carry a gun in public. People like me.
Go to the store: "Where's my gun?"
Drop the kids off at school: "Gotta have my gun."
Time to head over to Hooters for wings and brewskis: "There's my gun, right there."
Someone on my lawn: "My gun, my buddy."
This is not the kind of world that I would want to live in or even have lived in. My motto is pretty simple, anyone walking around in public who thinks that they'll need a gun to shoot someone else… Well, that person is looking to get themselves shot. It's a stance that has served me well, even in places like Detroit, Chicago, Philly, D.C, Baltimore, New York, Newport News VA and Austin TX. I don't think that the bedroom community of Sanford FL is any worse off than those other places.
Too bad that George Zimmerman's fear told him otherwise.
Now, I once somewhere read that only 22 percent of people who were ever murdered in this country were killed by strangers. So, by putting someone like Zimmy in the mix, the percentage of danger that he could possibly be in from someone who wasn't a stranger to him could be calculated at around 78 percent.
And thereby a 78 percent chance that he could gun down someone he knows with a gun and vice versa.
With those kind of odds, I wouldn't want to know the guy personally at all.
And there are some other things to consider too.
Even having the gun would increase the danger to himself because it could be taken away from him and used against him. He knows this possibility because he's using it to smear Trayvon Martin. It's ridiculous that he didn't even consider the fact that carrying that weapon around in public could possible create the greatest danger to HIMSELF!
But when you're a grown assed fraidy cat like Zimmerman, logic goes out of the window and you can supplant it with a handy gat.
To the Zimmster, any mundane situation could have been escalated to the point where someone is shot dead, merely because his scared shitless ass was dumb enough to bring a gun into the mix.
That, my friends, is the sure fire mark of an idiot.
Again, this is not about the right to bare arms, or arm bears… Whatever. This is about Common Fucking Sense. The common sense to think that someone wouldn't find it necessary to be whipping around cold steel in situations where cold steel is not a good option to measure.
This is why George Zimmerman should be arrested, it should be why he should go to trial and it should be why the preponderance of evidence will prove that he is guilty of wrongfully shooting Trayvon Martin to death.
You want you guns, go ahead and keep them… But if you're complete fucking coward and too fucking stupid for your own good, like George Fucking Zimmerman, prepare to sow the wind and reap the whirlwind, baby.
With great gats comes great responsibility.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
yardwork
(61,676 posts)Our prisons are full of young people incarcerated because of non-violent drug crimes, but George Zimmerman, with three assaults - attacking a woman, resisting arrest, and violently assaulting a police officer - was free to run around his neighborhood with a gun in his hand.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)He was fired as a bouncer in a bar for hitting a female patron.
yardwork
(61,676 posts)
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)Worse and she twisted her ankle in the process.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Locrian
(4,522 posts)The most dangerous dog is usually the fearful one. They're the ones that will bit you.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)At one time I owned a gun. When my then fiance )now my wife of nearly 14 years) moved in, she didn't ask me to get rid of it, but her discomfort was obvious. She meant, and means, more to me than any damn gun! I sold it legally at the gun shop from where I purchased it.
I do not consider myself a coward. I never carried a loaded gun in public. Whenever I went to the firing range I had the gun in it's case in the trunk. If I bought a box of bullets I kept them in the back seat on the way home so that no cop would think I had any intention of using it if I were to be pulled over.
george zimmerman IS a coward. H needs to go to jail for a VERY long time!
PEACE!
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...than that other person, assuming that he or she meets the state's legal requirements for carrying a weapon.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)... this case presents an opportunity to have a public discussion not only about what the current regulations are, but also about what they should perhaps be.
Personally, I think a person who has a history of emotional volatility and violent outbursts, as Zimmerman clearly does, should be disqualified from a carry permit. If the laws presently do not allow for such disqualification, then they should be amended in order to do so.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I'm OK with it.
The present system excludes from firearm ownership anyone who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. That ensures that there has been some formal judicial process for restricting the person's rights, and that there is always an avenue of appeal for the restriction.
I cannot abide allowing someone like a local chief of police or sheriff making amateur psychological assessment of people who apply for permits.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)... Whatever criteria are to be used must absolutely be objective, and if a particular criterion is something that requires a particular expertise in order to determine, then the assessment needs to be made by an appropriate professional.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)but the rest of us are.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Because Zimmerman had not yet proved that he was unfit to carry a weapon, he had a right to carry one. In retrospect it's easy for anyone to say he was unfit, but neither you nor I could have made that determination in an objective manner before February 26.
He used poor judgement, both in deciding to carry a weapon and in creating the situation that led to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. He will suffer consequences of his poor judgement even if he ends up not being charged with a crime.
Kaleva
(36,316 posts)He was a self appointed neighborhood watchman and apparently was a cop-wannabe. His stupidity directly lead to the death of an innocent teenager and Zimmerman ought to be punished for it.
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)you said it brilliantly. I, and my friends are old, arthritic, single women who live alone. Many of us have been victims of violence in our past. We are the most vulnerable demographic who should be living in fear and packing heat at all times. Yet we live our lives without constant fear, take walks at night, go shopping, solo road trips across country, and never even think of carrying a gun.
Courage is not a 5'10" 180 lb. man with a 9mm Baretta. If your pride and joy is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Courage is the 5'0" gray haired ladies who encounter their fellow travelers on planet earth armed only with a smile. Ordinary citizens who conceal and carry (and not required by profession) are simply... cowards.
Kaleva
(36,316 posts)At least as far as murder is concerned. In Michigan, the worst demographic for murder are young, black males. The safest is white females.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that Zimmerman was a coward.
After young children, older women (such as myself) are the most vulnerable and are generally perceived as such. When we fall, we sometimes cannot get up. With rare exceptions, we don't have a lot of physical strength and would not be able to defend ourselves if attacked.
On the other hand, young black males are perceived as the least vulnerable. Probably not true, but that is a widely held perception.
Yet, young black males -- perceived as strong -- are in more danger than elderly women.
I have to conclude that being perceived as strong does not protect one from violence.
My comment is, perhaps, a little off-topic, but this is quite interesting to me.
Bluerthanblue
(13,669 posts)real courage is not only not letting fear control you, it's also not letting fear make us into the kind of people we fear.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Do you think police officers live in a state of irrational fear all day while they carry their firearms?
Why do you think they carry firearms?
libodem
(19,288 posts)And a domestic violence call is one of the most deadly.
Please, just give me the answer to the question, why do police carry? I don't want to guess wrong. You are scaring me.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Police carry firearms to defend themselves in an emergency.
The same reason civilians do.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)"Carry it or you're fired" is a pretty good motivation, I think.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)"Carry it or you're fired" is a pretty good motivation, I think.
Do you think this is their primary motivation for carrying a firearm?
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)"Courage is not a 5'10" 180 lb. man with a 9mm Baretta. If your pride and joy is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
I have argued a version of this for years. To me, as a woman, there is something cowardly about an adult man carrying a gun. When I was a young woman, 115lbs soaking wet, living in a major U.S. city, traveling on foot and public transportation, I encountered my fair share of actual threats from men, and yet I managed to defend myself without resorting to using a gun. I've never been able to figure out what the big f**in' deal is for men, especially suburban and rural men that have a tiny chance of actually encountering a life-threatening situation. What is so much more threatening for them, than for your average woman? I think they are weaklings.
Of course, a lot of it is their fear of someone stealing their "stuff."
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Is that he is extremely aggressive, and has an authoritarian complex. He wants to be in charge. He wants to be the big hero of the day.
He is EXACTLY the wrong type of person to be packing heat. Police officers, security guards and soldiers have to answer to someone when they shoot people. Zimmerman so far has not had to answer to anyone for the shooting, and that is just wrong.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and, at some level, pities the fool.
Let me tell you, nothing, NOTHING is more addictive than that which relieves fear - even temporarily.
Which is also why I could have no more contempt for the NR of A. Fucking blood-soaked pushers of the highest magnitude.
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)+1000
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The last thing he needed was a gun. But the question is how do we as a society differentiate between the Zimmermans and people who have a legitimate need to defend themselves with a gun and are able to do so responsibly?
From what I've seen so far the real problem is that money and power hamstrung the system and kept it from disqualifying Zimmerman from handgun ownership and carriage.
The killing of Trayvon Martin is an outrage and hindsight is the only exact science. Zimmerman pulled the trigger but money and power killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman has a history of violent assaults, and while anyone can get into a scrape now and then, his well connected family was able to shield him from the consequences of bad parenting.
bluesbassman
(19,378 posts)But isn't that the point of Mr Scorpio's post? People with legitimate need like cops, security guards, armored car personnel, and the like do have legitimate need, and more importantly they are trained and held accountable for every bullet they fire. Most armed citizens have had little training, and as Scorpio points out little or no legitimate reason for packing. Except fear. Combine the two, and the potential for disaster is compounded.
I too, have been all over this country, and a few places outside, and have been in what would be considered dangerous areas and I can tell you that having a firearm would not have made me any safer, just less cautious.
And BTW, I own 2 rifles, a shotgun, and a 9mm handgun. None have ever seen anything but range or legitimate sporting activity.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)is assaulted by another they have a legitimate need. I've been all over as well and own guns. I've never needed them to defend myself. But you nor I can make that determination for somebody else.
There are limits to what can be accomplished by statute law and regulation. There are also limits to the ability of the police to intervene in the event of an assault. If the infrastructure of our society cannot offer security or compensation for its failure to protect us, it has no right to restrict the tools we use to protect ourselves. And we, as the (theoretical) owners and operators of government are responsible for taking those realities into consideration. If my government can't help you when you get in trouble, I have no right to tell my government to forbid you to do so on your own.
What I think we need is a more economically just society so that the sons of privilege like Zimmerman wont feel so entitled to take the law into their own hands.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)A police officer's best defense against assault isn't a gun or body armor. It's the uniform. An assault against a police officer is an assault against the powers that be. Assaulting a police officer is much worse for the criminal than assaulting a private citizen. Even more so if that citizen is a member of a vilified minority.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)maybe we should stop, as a society, encouraging gun ownership.
who knows if the laws will ever help us in this respect, but we could simply start by proclaiming far and wide:
guns don't make you safer overall, they make you think you're safer.
and as citizens we can make a difference. for example, except for your law enforcement friends/family members, you can have house rules --you don't come in the house if you have a weapon, period. leave the gun at home, or somewhere otherwise secured.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the problem surely must be the solution.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)in a way, you prove my point.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Some things that are real:
1. The police can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time.
2. Knives are just as deadly as guns, especially when weilded by a larger and stronger attacker.
3. The vast majority of people will never have to fight for their lives thus, most people are not physically able to do it.
4. Some people will have to fight for their lives, we just don't know who or when.
5. Most bankruptcies are the result of medical expenses. Even a broken jaw is very expensive. A single punch can break a jaw.
6. You don't have a solution for the disparity of force between most people and most criminals without the use of a gun.
The plain truth is that a firearm is the best self defense tool, hands down. Your fixation on guns to support your bourgeoisie ideology is an exercise in self congratulation. Nothing more. It has no relationship to the real world.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
right.rrneck
(17,671 posts)Remember Jack the Ripper?
Your ideology assumes a static, unchanging environment. Killers are perfectly able to adapt to changing circumstances. Again, try to develop an ideology that deals with the real world. Don't expect the world to change to fit your understanding of it.
If you made all the guns magically disappear you might make the killer 10% less deadly. You would make the victim without a gun 90% more vulnerable.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i'm not surprised you'd make that argument, but by making it, you sound so ridiculous that you lose all credibility with many readers here.
i mean, think about it. you said a knife is as deadly as a gun, but most people will think of things that only a gun or other weapon (that isn't a knife) which have killed many people in minutes.
but here you are saying that, well, if it can kill 31 people in years, versus 31 people in minutes, then it's just as deadly. that's ludicrous.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Timothy McVeigh found a way.
Mass murders are an act of terror. There are any number of ways to terrorize people.
Do you have a self defense solution against an attacker weilding a knife, club, hands or feet that's better than a gun?
Joseph8th
(228 posts)Spot on! Just spot on. Zimmerman is a fucking coward, end of story.
The problem with people like Zimmerman packing heat is that they don't get the ass-kickings in life that they so desperately need. Before everyone was packing, two people get in a fight and they get bruised up. Zimmerman is a coward precisely because he's not willing to take an ass-kicking, so he packs heat. That's the definition of a cowardly bully, in my book.
Hey, I grew up in rural No. Colorado and have been in my share of stupid physical confrontations (always started by the other guy). I always worried that the other guy was gonna pull a weapon, but it never did happen. I lost one fistfight I was dragged into, but I kicked some bully ass the other times, and reduced the bully population in my little town by just a little bit that way.
Treyvon Martin is what happens when bullies are allowed to stand their ground. Fuck that.
The FACT of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment is the LEAST of our Constitutional rights. In this day and age, it's a fucking joke. Where's our right to keep and bear F-16s? Where's this supposed 'well-regulated militia'? Guns won't help when 'They' decide to come for 'Us' to drag us into imaginary FEMA camps... folks are deluding themselves if they think they can beat back the Military Industrial Establishment with some cap guns. Where's your armored troop carrier, helicopters, etc? If 'They' come for the gun nut murderers (in their deluded fantasies), there will be cops pouring down the chimney, climbing in every window, floating up the creek out back. They'll parachute in if they have to, but what they won't do is stop until the would be rebels are all captured or dead. Because in America we don't negotiate with terrorists.
In that respect, Zimmerman and everyone like him is not just a coward, but a terrorist. These are the unhinged nuts that our NRA felating leaders appeal to. Zimmerman is the base of the NRA and GOP: terrorists.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)And the OP wins one, too.
Where's our right to keep and bear F-16s? Where's this supposed 'well-regulated militia'?
The pro-gun people always seem to forget that pesky little "in a well regulated militia" part. And I feel very sorry for anyone who is so paranoid that they have to carry a gun everywhere they go.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Not that it matters- the right to gun ownership is not in any way dependent militia membership. But since you lot insist on a militia, here it is courtesy of Uncle Sam:
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/07/2011
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.
-End-
-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/07/2011
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia....
WingDinger
(3,690 posts)beat yur ass.
A way to ensure that rather than the guy that is tougher winning, it is the fatter wallet.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've been involved in a few altercations, mostly yelling matches over stupid shit, helped stop a drunk driver till the police arrived, but at no time in the last nine years have I had to, nor have I felt the need to draw my firearm.
And I like it that way. I will be perfectly happy, dying an old man in bed, never having once needed to draw my firearm, let alone use it.
I carry, because as a tool using mammal, I like having tools available to me. A firearm is, to me, life safety equipment. It is for the preservation of human life. Nothing else.
I do question the desire of some who carry, who's primary motivation is NOT the preservation of human life, but how you might craft a law to allow one to carry and the other not, boggles me.
Johnson20
(315 posts)and have only had to reach for it twice. In both instances there were multiple bad guys. Now when I say reached for it I mean I swept away my cover garment and placed my hand on the weapon. In one case I was able to maintain distance, in the other I was in a car at a stop light.
Added: your points are very, very well taken sir. I should also add that when the bad folks saw that I was armed and prepared to use they fled.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)"Swept away my cover garment"... gah. Like bad detective fiction.
I've never felt the need to carry. And anyone who thinks they need a gun at a stop light is wrong. I've been alive longer than you've been carrying, and I've never carried, and I've been at more stop lights than you and had scary men come after me, and been in my share of brawls and knock-downs and I've kicked some ass and had my ass kicked, but I've never had to resort to the use of a weapon for one simple reason: I don't need one.
If you think you do, you're either wrong or a coward.
Showing your gun off at a stop light is straight-up yellow-belly sapsucker.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)ou.
You are fortunate that is the case, but your experience doesn't apply to all situations, everywhere. If it did, the 'Hands, fists, feet' category of weapons used in homicide would be much smaller.
I tend to agree with you somewhat on the brandishing issue. If it is warranted to 'show' a firearm, it is also justifiable to 'show' a muzzle flash, and if the latter isn't actually the case, then brandishing probably isn't actually justifiable either. (And even a 'warning shot' has been found in court to be prima facie evidence the shooter did NOT actually feel his life was in danger)
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... weren't trying to kill me. OTOH if I'd pulled a gat on them, and still had my ass kicked, I'd likely be dead. Nothing pisses folks off like having a gun pointed at 'em.
Once had a bully pull up in his Ass-Mobile (white truck), jump out, and threaten me with his gun for parking (on a public curb) in front of some property he owned. He stupidly told me, "I've got a gun in my truck," so I moved between him and his truck and told him I'd stomp him senseless if he made a move. We reached an understanding when I agreed not to kick his ass, and move my car, in exchange for him not killing me. Nary a fisti was cuffed. But the gun didn't help his case.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)former Assistant Prosecutor and before that Sheriff's Deputy and Corrections Officer said it best: "If you pull a gun on a real bad guy you'll be lucky if he doesn't take it away from you and stick it up your ---." I think he knew whereof he spoke. I'm just fine without the false courage carrying a gun might give me.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This wouldn't apply to someone pulling a gun that is actually committed to USING it. If you're just pulling it out to show and tell, against a real bad guy, you are well and truly fucked, that's for sure. But if you are committed and willing to pull the trigger, odds are in your favor, as DOJ statistics show that people injured in a conflict or commission of a crime are less-injured if they draw and use a firearm, or once they have sustained and injury and THEN they draw, they prevent further injury better than an unarmed person.
Those numbers would tell a different tale if that applied to everyone, not just people who are incapable of or unwilling to pull the trigger.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the vast majority of us have a built in compunction against firing a weapon against another person. Unless they've had some experience with firing with intent to kill (whether in war or in some role as a Peace Officer) I think that when the rubber meets the road the inexperienced weapon-holder is at an extreme disadvantage in a confrontation with a person who possibly has no regard for life, his/hers or that of others. I think that's what my colleague was touching on with his comment.
texshelters
(1,979 posts)and that's not standing your ground.
Here's my post about it:
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/pistols-politicians-and-paranoia/
PTxS
Johnson20
(315 posts)is hunting, target shooting or shoe accessorizing mentioned. They are not rights granted to us by the fact of our birth in this country.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)With rights come responsibilities.
Perhaps you can show me where Zimmerman was engaging in a responsible exercise of his right to keep and bare arms when he felt it necessary to stalk down an innocent bystander and kill him.
And I ask, do you dispute my assertion that he's a coward? Are armed cowards the kind of people you would want to associate with? I know that I don't, in spite of the fact that they have the right to keep and bare arms.
I want to keep those fools away from me as far as possible.
Again, this is not about rights, it's about using common sense in the use of those rights.
That's the problem with this country, with dumbasses who think that it's perfectly alright to use a gun anytime they feels like it.
anti-alec
(420 posts)Hell, a stick would do me just fine in an armed war.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The loop we get caught in is between
1) "law abiding" folk who have the right to have guns
and
2) People who feel guns are too easy to access
However, what everyone forgets is that Zimmmerman was NOT a "law abiding citizen."
How would a person who ASSAULTED A COP get a permit anyway? THAT is the point that is overlooked. He was not some old man who has a gun to shoot deer. He, not Tray Martin, was the one with the RAP SHEET.
Therefore, he should NOT have been allowed on any Neighborhood watch, nor allowed to carry a gun.
Johnson20
(315 posts)The charges were dismissed, but I would like to know more about it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)On the one hand, it does sound like it should disqualify, right? But only a conviction would carry the disqualification.
I don't know about you, but I've seen enough cases of passive protesters getting beat on by officers screaming 'stop resisting'. (Not that I imply this happened to zimmerman) Being accused is not a disqualification, being convicted is an automatic.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)supposedly law-abiding gun owner who is all to ready to sell one for a fist full of cash.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Firstly, let me say that I am not defending Zimmerman. I believe as the evidence has come out his story is rapidly falling apart and it seems that he was likely not injured, or possibly even attacked, by Martin. There is very little testimony and/or evidence supporting Zimmerman's case at this point in time.
That said, I want to address your incorrect assumptions about people who carry concealed firearms.
Personally, I think that someone like Zimmerman, a scaredy cat, should be the last person carrying a firearm in public. Now before any right to carry defenders jump on on-board to counter my reasoning, first we all have to admit that it's quite clear that he didn't carry around his weapon to go hunting for game, or for practicing in the biathlon, or even as a nice accessory to his shoes… He carried that gun because he felt that he could find himself in a situation where he thought it'd necessary to shoot another person and possibly kill them.
Pardon me, but I think that that's fucking ridiculous.
There ARE people who do walk around, carrying firearms, who could in the course of their business find it necessary to shoot another person and possibly kill them… And I like to call these people "cops", "private security guards", "soldiers" and "criminals".
George Zimmerman, when I last checked, was not one of these people. That leaves one other definition that he could fit in; A Fucking Fraidy Cat.
This is a common theme for people against the concealed carry of firearms. That first, the only people who carry firearms are people who are "afraid", and second, that the only people who need to legitimately carry firearms are agents of the state.
I'm not going to comment on whether or not Zimmerman was "afraid". I have no idea what his mental state was, or how long he had been carrying a firearm, nor what his motivations were.
Most people who regularly carry firearms on their person, including police and soldiers, don't do it because they are perpetually "afraid". They do it to be prepared in case of emergency.
Now let's talk a minute about "afraid". Because when anti-gun people talk about people with guns being "afraid", they probably are talking about irrational fear. They want to paint the picture of gun owners as people trembling and timid about the world in an attempt to make them seem irrational.
Everyone makes decisions based on "fear". For example, most people have smoke detectors in their home out of the "fear" that their house might catch on fire one day. This doesn't mean that such people have an irrational fear of fires nor that they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about home fires. It's simply that there is a slight risk of fire and the risk of dying in such rare events is easily mitigated by having a smoke detector.
It's the same rationale that governs decisions about lots of things, from carbon monoxide detectors to fire extinguishers to spare tires to first-aid kits to insurance policies to seat belts. We buy all of these sorts of tools out of "fear".
But probably not the kind of fear that MrScorpio is insinuating. Not many people are probably quaking in fear every time they buckle up or buy life insurance.
It's the same thing for people who choose to carry firearms.
But then there is this notion that regular ordinary citizens should not be able to carry the tools necessary to defend themselves from violent crime. I myself think that is fucking ridiculous.
Agents of the state are almost never present during the commission of a crime. They almost always show up after the crime has already happened, to collect evidence, interview witnesses, and aid in the apprehension and prosecution of the criminal. Agents of the state carry firearms to protect themselves from violent harm. They almost never are available to use them to protect citizens from harm. And in fact, they have no legal obligation to do so anyway, unless you are in their custody.
Even having the gun would increase the danger to himself because it could be taken away from him and used against him. He knows this possibility because he's using it to smear Trayvon Martin. It's ridiculous that he didn't even consider the fact that carrying that weapon around in public could possible create the greatest danger to HIMSELF!
This is another common theme among anti-firearm folks. That having a gun is a waste of time because it could be used against you. Strangely the police continue to still carry firearms in spite of this possibility. The reason is simple: When presented with a violent encounter, most people would prefer to go into the encounter with the edge of having a weapon in their possession at the outset, even if there is a risk of losing the weapon during the encounter. It's better to start out with an advantage rather than start out on an equal footing.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Do you think that it's a good idea for as many law abiding people… Make that, anyone who's not prohibited from legally carrying a firearm, to either conceal or open carry?
You know, that idea that a well armed citizenry, is a peaceful one?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It looks like you've left some words out here, so I'm not sure what you are asking. I'm guessing you are asking "is it a good idea for as many law-abiding people as possible to carry a firearm"?
I think anyone who is law-abiding and legally able to carry a concealed firearm should be able to do so if they wish. These kinds of people tend to be hyper-law abiding. When you look at the published data on concealed carry permit holders such as the data for Texas, you can see that people with concealed carry permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. The rate of revocation for concealed carry permits is usually less than 2%. CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime compared to any other random person you might encounter on the street. So you would statistically be safer in a room of only CCW permit holders than random people selected from the public at large.
So there is no real harm in letting as many law-abiding people as possible who choose to carry firearms to do so. Yes, you will have the rare person, like Zimmerman, who commits a crime while carrying a lawful concealed firearm. There will be many, many more people who commit crimes carrying illegally concealed firearms.
As for open carry vs. concealed carry, I am not in favor of open carry. Open carry causes more problems than it solves. About the only things that open carry might do for you is it might speed your access to the firearm and it might act as a deterrent to a confrontation.
But it may also mark you as the person to take down first in a violent confrontation. It may also prompt people to exercise false bravado in a confrontation (as in, "Oh yeah?!? You won't use that gun, coward!"
.
The other problem with open carry is that much of the public is unable to distinguish between someone up to no good and someone just going about their business. All they know is they see someone "with a gun". The safest course of action for them is to call the police and let them sort it out. This ties up valuable police resources that could be used elsewhere.
A firearm should never be produced in a confrontation unless you intend to use it. Note for some who have implied otherwise in the past, this does not mean that once a firearm is produced you have to use it. It simply means that you don't produce a firearm for the purposes of threatening or deterring - you only produce the firearm when you feel use is imminent.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Do you think that our society will be safer they more law abiding people carry guns? I wonder.
That whole more guns, more safety argument. The same argument that some places, like that podunk berg in Texas, that passed a law that said that every citizen who wasn't legally prohibited from carrying, had to carry. Does it work?
Are we all safer, the more folks are legally allowed to pack? And sure, I always hear that argument, "Better me than the criminals", but again most people are only at risk of being killed by a stranger in only one of five times… Your friends, relatives, neighbors, associates and co-workers make up the other four.
Who you are, where you live, what politics have and how poor you are have the greatest relationship to the possibility of you getting shot. Someone like you; educated, liberal and law abiding is much less likely of being gunned down than any one of our winger brethren.
I'm thinking that your own personal experience is not indicative of situations where irresponsible gun ownership is involved in causing death by firearms.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
If you live around Republicans, live in the Deep South, or are working class, you're practically walking around with a target on your back.
And of course, when it comes to the possibility of getting shot, location again is everything. It stands as a fact that my chances of getting shot would increase dramatically were I to move back to Texas or to California:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
You say that, "A firearm should never be produced in a confrontation unless you intend to use it." Which is my point exactly, why people like Zimmerman, an idiot who's scared of his own shadow and is armed, is more of a threat to society than the possibility of criminal behavior. People like that feel that they're ENTITLED to bring a gun to a Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea fight. They've got the Second Amendment that says they can.
He had no good reason to carry that day.
Don't make the mistake that I'm arguing against guns… Not at all, I'm arguing against idiotic cowards with guns. People like that ATTRACT gun violence. The more people who are like that out there makes it more likely for someone to get shot when there was no need to be.
And I'm saying that I want to stay as far away from people like that and possible, and I have to fear from them than I do about being the victim of crime by a stranger with a gun.
People who are stupid enough to think they can solve their problems with guns in any occasion frankly scare me.
One last thing, I really don't think that the vast majority of people who illegally carry firearms do so because they're out to prey on the law abiding. The best reason why I think that criminals carry guns is so that they are able to defend themselves from OTHER criminals. That's always been my best observation. Law abiding folks who are not involved in situations where they would come across some crook who's out to do them harm to them harm makes it very unlikely that confrontations would occur.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That whole more guns, more safety argument. The same argument that some places, like that podunk berg in Texas, that passed a law that said that every citizen who wasn't legally prohibited from carrying, had to carry. Does it work?
Are we all safer, the more folks are legally allowed to pack? And sure, I always hear that argument, "Better me than the criminals", but again most people are only at risk of being killed by a stranger in only one of five times… Your friends, relatives, neighbors, associates and co-workers make up the other four.
There simply is not enough evidence to make the case that "more guns = less crime".
The best the CDC could say is that there was no evidence that gun control laws had any impact on crime.
What we do know is that violent crime of all kinds has been in decline for over 20 years. Over the same time period, the numbers of firearms in circulation of increased, skyrocketing in 2008 with the election of President Obama over fears of renewed anti-gun legislation.
We also know that people with concealed carry permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.
So I won't claim that more guns = more safety. What I will claim is that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people probably won't hurt anything.
Who you are, where you live, what politics have and how poor you are have the greatest relationship to the possibility of you getting shot. Someone like you; educated, liberal and law abiding is much less likely of being gunned down than any one of our winger brethren.
Absolutely. I'll go one further - I bet you your biggest determinator for getting shot is your proximity to illegal drug activity, which of course is greatly linked to poverty.
I'm thinking that your own personal experience is not indicative of situations where irresponsible gun ownership is involved in causing death by firearms.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
This map is misleading, because it includes suicides. I don't like to include suicides in discussing firearm violence because people who are serious enough about suicide to use a gun are likely serious enough to find a way regardless. And it certainly isn't related to violent crime, which is my primary concern.
You say that, "A firearm should never be produced in a confrontation unless you intend to use it." Which is my point exactly, why people like Zimmerman, an idiot who's scared of his own shadow and is armed, is more of a threat to society than the possibility of criminal behavior. People like that feel that they're ENTITLED to bring a gun to a Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea fight. They've got the Second Amendment that says they can.
He had no good reason to carry that day.
Don't make the mistake that I'm arguing against guns… Not at all, I'm arguing against idiotic cowards with guns. People like that ATTRACT gun violence. The more people who are like that out there makes it more likely for someone to get shot when there was no need to be.
I agree with you - I don't want people like Zimmerman carrying guns, either. The problem is that all of us are entitled to bring a gun just about anywhere we please, because the Second Amendment says we can. That means that we are going to have to live with people like Zimmerman doing what they do. I'm not willing to give up my rights because of people like Zimmerman.
One last thing, I really don't think that the vast majority of people who illegally carry firearms do so because they're out to prey on the law abiding. The best reason why I think that criminals carry guns is so that they are able to defend themselves from OTHER criminals.
This may be. But there are for sure people who use firearms (and knives, and hands and feet) against law-abiding people. And law-abiding people deserve the right to carry the tools to counter that threat if they so desire.
Law abiding folks who are not involved in situations where they would come across some crook who's out to do them harm to them harm makes it very unlikely that confrontations would occur.
Again, I agree 100%. It's why I've never bothered carrying a firearm. I'm not likely to encounter criminal elements in my daily life, and thus it's not worth the hassle.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)not concealed carry. I have rights, too. I have the right not to be around people carrying guns. If someone is CC, I have no idea, and I can't move away from them for the sake of my own safety.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Statistically, you would be safer surrounded by only CCW permit holders than members of the public at large.
CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... to take the ass-kicking than to kill some idiot bully or the next T. Martin. Even if in self-defense. Where's the well-regulated militia? The rest is hot air.
Basically your argument of many words amounted to a very long admission that gun owners are cowards. They won't take their ass-kicking or face a confrontation on equal footing. Sounds cowardly to me.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You are saying that every victim of a violent crime should accept the violence visited upon them, or if they resist with any weapon rather than resort to a physical contest of strength with their attacker they are a coward.
Every victim of violent crime who ever faced someone who was bigger and/or stronger than they were would probably disagree with you.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... "gun owners" come to equal "victim of a violent crime"?
I am saying the Zimmerman's of the world should put their ffffff erg. Fuck. Gun fetishist. AH! The gun religion is plain fucking evil. If you 'like' guns, there's something wrong with you. If you NEED a gun, everybody agrees that's something different, and yeah, we have the 2nd Amendment to protect that, when that need is real and compelling and WELL-REGULATED.
As far as whoever wants to carry gets to carry wherever they want to carry... to hell with that. To hell with it. No. The answer is NO. Bullies are bad enough WITHOUT guns, is MY point.
When bullies HAVE guns, then you can't KICK THEIR ASSES without getting KILLED.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You said:
No... I'm saying it's better to take the ass-kicking than to kill some idiot bully or the next T. Martin. Even if in self-defense.
The implication here and in your other posts is that anyone who uses a gun (and, presumably any other kind of weapon) to defend themselves and possibly kill their attacker rather than "take the ass-kicking" is a coward.
This is ridiculous. Many people, not the least of which are police officers, possess firearms because they don't want to engage violent criminals in single combat. Especially people who are old, or infirm, or just small.
Firearms are the best tool currently available for self-defense. Without a firearm, victims of violent crime have three options: They can run away if they are fast enough, they can submit to their attacker if they are tough enough, or they can engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker. The weak will be at the mercy of the strong.
None of these choices are cowardly. When faced with imminent danger, everyone will seek out the solution that seems best to them at the time. You can't fault people for fleeing, submitting, or trying to fight.
Nor is it cowardly to defend yourself from harm using a weapon. What is cowardly is when the strong victimize the weak who have no good way to defend themselves.
If you 'like' guns, there's something wrong with you.
I like guns. My family has used firearms for sport for countless generations. I own firearms that have been in my family 4 generations. I enjoy the engineering that goes into them. I enjoy the craftsmanship that goes into them. I enjoy the skill and self-discipline required to master shooting them. I shoot competitively and I enjoy the sportsmanship and camaraderie with my fellow competitors. There are millions of people like me - even Olympic competitors. There is nothing wrong with us.
If you NEED a gun, everybody agrees that's something different, and yeah, we have the 2nd Amendment to protect that, when that need is real and compelling and WELL-REGULATED.
The second amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You will notice that it is the militia that is well regulated, not the people. You will note also that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not the states, and not the militias. You will also note that the militias spoken of in the second amendment ceased to exist in 1903. You will also note that "well regulated" in 18th century vernacular means "well-functioning". Just like when you defecate regularly you are said to be "regular". It doesn't mean your intestines follow an rulebook.
You will also note that every single proposed version of the second amendment reserved the right to keep and bear arms to the people. You will note also that an attempt to stipulate that this was a collective right was struck down by the Congress when a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.
You will note also that all nine justices of the Supreme Court and President Obama agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization like a militia.
When bullies HAVE guns, then you can't KICK THEIR ASSES without getting KILLED.
Bad people will always have guns. But if no one had guns, then everyone would be at the mercy of any bully stronger and faster than they were.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Assault on a police officer, even if pled down
The restraining orders...
Wumpusrat
(5 posts)What really just boggles my mind about this whole case is the idea that he's allowed to claim "self defense" due to this idiotic law in Florida. So if I "feel threatened", I can shoot someone, and suffer no consequences for it? Even if I'm the one who STARTS a fight?
Hypothetical situation:
I start following a pedestrian while I'm in my car, calling the police and telling them "there's some suspicious person here". They turn a corner, I do too. I slowly drive along after them. They notice this, and start walking faster. I keep pace with them in my vehicle. They start running. I speed up. They duck between buildings, I get out of my car and start chasing them on foot. At this point, what is the person to think? There's someone who's stalking them, and likely has ZERO friendly intent. Right now, they could reasonably claim that they feared for their safety.
Now, I catch up to the person after a short chase. I belligerently demand to know what they're doing in "my" neighborhood (even though they may live there as well) and stomp towards them, looking irate. I start yelling in their face that they don't belong here.
Fearing for their safety, they punch me in the face.
I scream "you assaulted me! self defense!" and pull out my gun, shooting them dead.
Apparently, according to the law in Florida, I'm perfectly justified. Even though I INITIATED the confrontation. Even though the police may have TOLD ME to stop following the person. Somehow *I* am the injured party, even though I shot someone dead.
How is that even remotely logical?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And there's a wrong way.
Clearly, Zimmerman was doing it all wrong.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Note that the Florida Stand Your Ground law, like many other states, does not allow the claim of self-defense in situations that you initiate.
Zimmerman probably will be shown to have initiated the confrontation and a case will probably be made that Martin feared for his safety.
The only problem with SYG laws is that there is a possibility that two innocent people could conceivably view each other both as reasonable threats to their safety. This may be what happened here.
Martin legitimately feared for his safety by being stalked by a stranger, and Zimmerman may have legitimately feared for his safety if Martin preemptively attacked him.
Note my use of "may have" and "if", because the evidence is becoming slim that Martin ever attacked Zimmerman.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)And Zimmerman's fabrications have all been tailored to those elements of the law.
If you face an extraordinary threat to life and limb, you may still employ deadly force: hence the 'battered head on the sidewalk' swill, and the fatuous claim of a verbal declaration of intent to kill by Mr. Martin.
If you attempt to retreat from the fight, and are pursued and engaged further, you may use deadly force: hence the initial 'he jumped me as I was headed back to my truck' nonesense.
776.041?Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The law says that even if you initiate the confrontation, you can only use deadly force at that point if you have not tried to escape first, or, if upon escaping, your assailant re-engages you.
This is different from the poster's original assertion "if I "feel threatened", I can shoot someone, and suffer no consequences for it? Even if I'm the one who STARTS a fight? "
As I said, this is not true. You can't just say you "feel threatened", even if (especially if) you initiate the confrontation, unless you try to run away first.
I don't believe the evidence is going to support Zimmerman's claims. His entire case is rapidly collapsing as more and more evidence comes out. He does not appear injured in the available video footage. Only one eyewitness's testimony supports his assertion that he was attacked by Martin. The 911 voice analysis does not seem to support Zimmerman's claim that he was calling for help.
And Zimmerman's fabrications have all been tailored to those elements of the law.
I agree with you. I don't think he is going to be able to defend his fabrications. I don't think Zimmerman is going to be able to demonstrate that he tried to run away. I think it's pretty clear that he initiated the confrontation. I think all of this would have been examined right up front if his father was not a retired judge.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)First, were it not for the hue and cry raised after several weeks had passed, Zimmerman would have gotten away with doing just that, namely provoking a confrontation and then ending it with deadly force on no more grounds than that he perceived the other person to be a threat. That hue and cry was hardly guaranteed to have occured, and may well not have occured.
Second, much of this does depend on the presence of witnesses besides the surviving killer. These will not always be present. It would certainly be possible for a person so disposed to confront and kill someone and successfully claim justification under this law, even if he acknowledged initiating the confrontation. Claiming a verbal declaration of intent to kill by your opponent, and and a menacing movement towards where a deadly weapon might have been concealed, could well be viewed as triggering provisions of this law.
The great weakness of the statute as a whole is that it directs that a claim of fear of death or bodily harm be presumed reasonable. Traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense, something the person making the claim had to prove; this law stands that on its head, by making the police prove a claim of self-defense is false, before a charge can be brought.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You are again correct, but this is probably not due to a failing of the Stand Your Ground law, but rather because of who his father was. The reason why there was no investigation is almost certainly because his father was a retired judge. Fortunately the hue and cry is going to reverse that.
Second, much of this does depend on the presence of witnesses besides the surviving killer. These will not always be present. It would certainly be possible for a person so disposed to confront and kill someone and successfully claim justification under this law, even if he acknowledged initiating the confrontation. Claiming a verbal declaration of intent to kill by your opponent, and and a menacing movement towards where a deadly weapon might have been concealed, could well be viewed as triggering provisions of this law.
The great weakness of the statute as a whole is that it directs that a claim of fear of death or bodily harm be presumed reasonable. Traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense, something the person making the claim had to prove; this law stands that on its head, by making the police prove a claim of self-defense is false, before a charge can be brought.
Yes, and we will have to rely on evidence to tell the true tale.
It is certainly possible that this law could enable easier-to-get-away with homicides. But I think this is going to be a rare occurrence and is worthwhile to spare people who legitimately kill their attackers in self-defense from needless expense and trouble in defending their actions.
I would not be opposed to having the law clarified.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)People who view some incident as a good excuse to whack somebody ought to have serious difficulties, including criminal, even capital charges, against them.
In the record of debate in Florida when this law was passed, its proponents were unable to point to a single instance of a person being prosecuted for a legitimate act of self-defense in that state.
It may be that some foolishness could be turned up with a fine-toothed comb search of records nation-wide over many years past, but the fact is that these laws are a classic instance of 'a solution in search of a problem'.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This is not true. I have heard countless stories over the years of people who have experienced great hardship after defending themselves legitimately with a firearm. In fact is is widely accepted that if you defend yourself with a firearm you can expect to spend several thousands of dollars in legal fees as a consequence, even if you were in the right, and you will probably lose your firearm for an extended period of time.
Here is one case in particular that sticks in my mind with sufficient detail to be able to google it:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/
If it turns out this web host is a baby-eater or something don't blame me - it was just the first hit I found with Google. Once I got the guy's name there are lots of other copies of the story also floating around the web.
This is about Garry Fadden who, in 1984, used a machine gun in legitimate self-defense. He ended up with about $100,000 in legal fees, about half of which his employer paid.
This is an extreme example, because of the machine gun, and hence it is why it sticks in my mind. But like I said, it is not uncommon for people who use legitimately use deadly force for self-defense to end up with serious legal and other consequences. This is what the Stand Your Ground laws were trying to fix.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)The fellow who wrote that, by the way, is a fizzing critter who ought not be allowed possession of anything more lethal than a popsicle stick.
My statement in regard to Florida is based on accounts of the debate on the floor of its legislature, and is accurate: no one could cite an instance where a person in the state had been prosecuted who would not be prosecuted under the law being contemplated, and then passed.
Some people may come to grief in defending themselves, just as some are rail-roaded without even being near a crime, and just as some may get away with murder, or are hit by lightening, or brain themselves taking a shower in the morning. It is not something that needs any particular solving, other than seeing to it prosecutors' offices are staffed by sane and intelligent people, and certainly does not 'solving' by the sort of sloppy invitation to abuse embodied in this Florida law and its ilk in other states.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You must be joking. Massad Ayoob is a world-renown expert on defensive firearm use. If your bar for firearm possession is higher than that, it's hard to imagine anyone you would trust with a firearm.
My statement in regard to Florida is based on accounts of the debate on the floor of its legislature, and is accurate: no one could cite an instance where a person in the state had been prosecuted who would not be prosecuted under the law being contemplated, and then passed.
That might be true for Florida, though I am surprised. Like I said, I have heard at least a dozen stories over the years of people who have defended themselves using deadly force and ended up with quite an ordeal because of it. And, like I said, this is now accepted dogma in self-defense circles - if you defend yourself with deadly force, expect expensive legal repercussions, even if you are in the right.
Some people may come to grief in defending themselves, just as some are rail-roaded without even being near a crime, and just as some may get away with murder, or are hit by lightening, or brain themselves taking a shower in the morning. It is not something that needs any particular solving, other than seeing to it prosecutors' offices are staffed by sane and intelligent people, and certainly does not 'solving' by the sort of sloppy invitation to abuse embodied in this Florida law and its ilk in other states.
I'm open to revision of the law to make it more clear that people who initiate confrontations can't claim self-defense, but I am all for laws that allow good people to stand up to bad people without bankrupting or otherwise causing them too much grief.
Victims of violent crime who successfully resist their attacker should not be punished for doing so.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)The fact that he has achieved some wide noteriety among shootists hardly alters that judgement; in fact it reinforces it.
'Over a dozen stories' seems to be the best you can manage. It would be child's play to put together 'a dozen stories' in which people were put in serious difficulties by winning a lottery, or were involved in traffic accidents in which their following traffic laws was the main reason they were hit. You have in effect made my point, that the thing is vanishingly rare. In my own life there have been several occasions where employing violence in self-defense struck me as necessary, and in none of them was there the slightest difficulty with police, though in none was it necessary to make a corpse to prevail.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This is like saying Chuck Norris isn't an expert martial artist, he's a "fizzing critter who seriously wants to beat someone up."
Whether or not you like firearms, self-defense, or experts with them, Massad Ayoob is an expert in defensive firearm use. From the videos I have watched of him, he is also extraordinarily conservative (not in the political sense) in his advice on using deadly force.
Here are some pertinent comments for one of his books on Amazon:
"What I found interesting is that the author repeatedly states that it is preferable to avoid situations where one would have to use a defensive firearm. That is stated throughout the book. And he backs that up with situations where one could be charged with various degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc.
For example, you're walking down the street and someone insults you. Do you get into it with them, or just keep going? He explains that since you are carrying a firearm, it is your responsibility to avoid having to use it, if possible. So getting into an arguement with some punk because he called you a name, which could escalate into something which might cause you to draw your weapon, must be avoided. Legally, it could be devisitating."
...
"If you are interested in "how to kill the bad guy and get away with it" read elsewhere. This book is not for you. If you want to learn how to keep safe and out of trouble and the grief associated with grave decisions, read this book. It is the best of its kind. "
...
"he provides great insights in to the world of self protection and particularly avoiding getting into a violent encounter."
...
"What I liked most about this book is that the author is not providing a 'how to' shoot manual. If anything, he is doing his best to inform the gun owner that pulling a weapon is a last resort option. He stresses active thinking in order to avoid the use of a firearm whenever possible, unless there is a realistic concern of someone's life being in danger."
This hardly sounds like the writings of a man who "seriously wants to shoot somebody", wouldn't you agree? In fact, as of 2010 at least, he has never shot anyone (at least, he says he has not killed anyone, and has no blood on his hands, so I'm assuming he hasn't shot and wounded anyone, either).
The man is a police officer and has trained civilians and law-enforcement personnel for almost 40 years. He has been an expert witness in court.
The man is an expert in defensive firearm use.
You have in effect made my point, that the thing is vanishingly rare.
Yes, self-defense is rare, and having to expend large amounts of money to defend oneself for having done so is probably also rare. I'm still glad to see the law more supportive of people who find themselves in the rare position of having to defend themselves.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)The person who wrote the account you linked to first in this exchange is indeed a creature fizzing with the desire to shoot someone. He may be able to mask in certain situations, and pass, but really ought to avoid trying evocative prose if he wa=nts the imposture to be seamless. That he amy be skilled with a pistol says nothing about his personality or drives, and hardly argues against the proposition he is obsessed at a fundamental level with using a gun on another human being.
As you concede my point that actual instances of legitimate self-defense are vanishingly rare, we have really nothing further to discuss, unless you want to explain why something you acknowledge is incredibly unlikely to occur consumes so much of your thought and effort, and looms so large for you as a matter of public policy.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So what is it, specifically, that you saw through this window that leads you to believe that he has a desire to shoot someone?
And how do you reconcile your opinion with the fact that the bulk of his advice is about avoiding violent confrontations in the first place?
As you concede my point that actual instances of legitimate self-defense are vanishingly rare, we have really nothing further to discuss, unless you want to explain why something you acknowledge is incredibly unlikely to occur consumes so much of your thought and effort, and looms so large for you as a matter of public policy.
Oh, gladly.
The vast majority of firearm owners, such as myself, are never involved in violent crime, yet gun control policy affects us all adversely.
Allowing people to carry concealed weapons creates virtually no problems (the people who lawfully carry concealed weapons and commit crimes with them is far more vanishingly small than the number of people who are victims of violent crime), it makes no sense to craft public policy to inhibit them.
People have a right to carry the tools that enable them to resist violent criminals if they so choose. I don't like and won't stand for people who try to tell me otherwise.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)Cheap pulp fiction, and it takes a certain sort of mind and personality to do that at length.
For the rest, you concede the matter is trivial in all respects, that in effect it makes no difference at all to people who earnestly desire to carry firearms whether they do or not. You still do not answer why you devote such energy of mind to the cause of doing so, why it bulks so large in your view --- most people do not devote themselves to things they acknowledge are trifles.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I'll take this as an indication that either you didn't bother to read it or you can't actually point to anything in the article that supports your assertion that the author wants to shoot someone.
Far from being fiction of any sort, it is the true story of Gary Fadden.
But regardless of what you think of the author of Gary's story, the point here is that it illustrates what can happen to people who legitimately defend themselves using a firearm.
Maybe a solution is to drop Stand Your Ground, but have the state re-imburse victims for their legal expenses if they are found not guilty.
For the rest, you concede the matter is trivial in all respects, that in effect it makes no difference at all to people who earnestly desire to carry firearms whether they do or not.
That's right. And since it causes little harm, there is little reason to restrict it.
You still do not answer why you devote such energy of mind to the cause of doing so, why it bulks so large in your view --- most people do not devote themselves to things they acknowledge are trifles.
I thought I explained myself pretty well in my last post, perhaps you could go read it again.
No matter how infrequently the right may be exercised, I don't consider the Constitutional-enumerated right to keep and bear arms as a trifle.
For example, I've never had troops quartered in my home. I doubt many people have for a long time. But I'd still be rather upset if someone started making suggestions that we should work against that provision of the Constitution.
The bottom line is I am an avid shooter. Gun control laws affect me directly and frequently, and I resent being inconvenienced on behalf of criminals.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)But by all means continue demonstrating the triviality and unreason of your over-riding concern here.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I tend to agree with you, this IS a fairly small issue, per capita. (Though with the DOJ reporting some 60,000 lawful defensive gun uses per year, not EXACTLY a vanishing issue)
But
"As you concede my point that actual instances of legitimate self-defense are vanishingly rare, we have really nothing further to discuss, unless you want to explain why something you acknowledge is incredibly unlikely to occur consumes so much of your thought and effort, and looms so large for you as a matter of public policy."
The penalty paid by an individual committing a truly defensive, wholly innocent/proper/lawful shooting, being found entirely pure and wholesome by a jury, and no-billed or found not guilty of any crime, then being put in jeopardy of a civil wrongful death suit, and possibly losing, is a highly unjust scenario. One might survive an attack that warranted lethal force in response, only to have their life ruined anyway, by the resulting trials.
So it seems worthy of some cycles of effort to me. However, as I mentioned upthread, we might find a simpler solution in simply bringing the standard of doubt between a civil and criminal case in a justifiable homicide case, into parity.
Do that, and as long as there is no explicit duty to retreat on the books, I would think all bases would be well covered, as a practical matter.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So it seems worthy of some cycles of effort to me. However, as I mentioned upthread, we might find a simpler solution in simply bringing the standard of doubt between a civil and criminal case in a justifiable homicide case, into parity.
Do that, and as long as there is no explicit duty to retreat on the books, I would think all bases would be well covered, as a practical matter.
Well said.
I would also offer that a possible solution might be that if someone defends themselves and is later found not-guilty perhaps the taxpayers should reimburse their expenses.
Since this is a somewhat rare occurrence it should not be that expensive to accommodate.
People who have the misfortune of being victims of crime who successfully defend themselves should not be financially ruined, any more than people who have the misfortune of being injured or sick should be.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)http://www.guns.com/acquitted-self-defense-shooter-gets-hit-with-civil-suit-video.html
MILWAUKEE -- A Janesville man who admitted breaking into a home is suing the homeowner who shot him.
Kurt Prochaska, 39, was on probation last fall when he admitted he broke in to a home and was shot by the homeowner, but that's not stopping him from going after cash through the courts.
Late last year, the Rainiero family awoke to find Prochaska in their home. Michael Rainiero, a doctor, ordered Prochaska to leave. He didn't and was shot in the back.
Nearly a year later, Rainiero's attorney said it's far from over because Prochaska is suing him from beind bars, saying the doctor didn't need to shoot him.
"What the doctor wants is this whole ordeal to be ended and done with," Rainiero's attorney said.
The Milwaukee County suit claims Rainiero used excessive force to deal with the intruding plaintiff and alleges severe and permanent injuries, relentless pain, and loss of earning capacity. The suit doesn't specify a damage amount.
Rainiero claims he shot Prochaska in self-defense.
"The doctor was asleep in his bed when an intruder came into his home and put his life, his wife's life, and his two kids' lives in jeopardy," Rainiero's lawyer said.
The lawyer added that Rainiero showed restraint, not excessive force, in dealing with Prochaska. Although, he had an entire magazine of bullets, Rainiero fired only once.
The Rock County district attorney agreed, long ago ruling the shooting was justified. Still, Prochaska is able to move ahead with the suit.
"Judges like to give everyone their day in court. No matter how absurd it might seem, this gentleman has a right to have a day in court. And so, my job is to make sure that that day in court is a very short day in court," Rainiero's attorney told 12 News reporter Nick Bohr.
A hearing on the suit is set for next month. Prochaska's attorney did not wish to comment on the case.
If the case is thrown out, Prochaska can be forced to pay up to $500 of the legal expenses.
etc
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)You will need to do much better than this: a very questionable shooting indeed. It does not bother me that the person shot lost the suit, but the man who shot needed to have some occasion to think long and hard about what he had done.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)which can also be justifiable. It is also possible for a person to turn rapidly, after the decision to shoot defensively has been made, and the shooter is committed.
I don't have detailed autopsies in any of these three cases (I had a fourth but didn't post it apparently, not sure why) but I have seen other cases where detailed examination of the autopsy showed a person was shot in the 'back', which was really the 'side' or video showed what I would interpret as a 'clean' shot to the front ending up being in the anteroposterior, and a jury acquitted.
'thinking long and hard' isn't valid/proper to inflict, either the person is GUILTY and punishment is warranted, or it is not.
Did you note the others, or just the text of the one I dropped in? There are three there, I meant to post four, not sure what happened to that one.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)As does the other. On its face it is a bit more sympathetic, but there is an absolute lack of fact concerning the preliminaries, which makes it impossible to form an opinion. 'Words were exchanged' can subsume quite a bit. That said, it does seem to me that the local authorities handled the matter badly.
Still, you have failed to demonstrate any great pressing public problem. Things do occasionally go wrong, and the 'stand your ground' laws do not change this; they simply open fresh and wider fields for things to go wrong in.
The 'Buckeye Gun Rights' source, by the way, is clearly put together by people in the grip of serious hysteria. No characterization of events by these people is to be trusted.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So I should clarify: I do not approve of the Castle Doctrine laws, nor SYG, specifically as we have seen in the state in Question.
MY state, Washington, has no duty to retreat, BUT we also have no castle doctrine. If you shoot defensively, you can and should be prepared to explain yourself to a grand jury. I wholeheartedly approve of that tack, because it isn't enough to assume the survivor's tale is accurate. An investigation is warranted.
What I DO like about the SYG law, is bringing Civil and Criminal standards of evidence into alignment, in that if you are found not guilty in a criminal trial, you are immune to an associate civil trial, which might otherwise have a lower standard of doubt, and might be successful where the criminal trial was not. There are certainly cases of this happening, though it is, as you pointed out, by no means an epidemic. Seems there might be other pressing concerns for the legislature. But that aside, I do approve of bringing the two standards into alignment, and not just on defensive homicide.
But getting back to Castle/SYG as a mechanism to halt an investigation, I do not approve, as there is at the very least, a clear potential for abuse.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)Civil liability for wrongful death or injury is, and has been for a very long time, a question quite separate from criminal liability for murder or felonious assault. It should remain so. It is quite possible for an act to be no crime, and yet be properly regarded as a wrongful injury.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Even in cases where a disagreement was instigated by the shooter (hey fuck you buddy! No, fuck you. No fuck YOU arrrgh, etc) I believe the same standard of doubt should apply to both types of case. I am not able to think of a scenario, real or imagined, that should lead to a different result, and I can find examples where a bad result was clearly reached (including the only lawful DGU involving a select-fire weapon by an NFA/TitleIII manufacturer) because of what I would classify as shenanigans in a civil suit.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If you are found not-guilty of a life-destroying criminal case, why should you suffer double-jeopardy and be subject to having your life destroyed anyway?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and how many were, shall we say, recreated after careful consideration with attorneys.
My guess is that, if anyone does time for this, it will be those caught in a cover-up.
Wumpusrat
(5 posts)If I and the victim are the only witnesses, and the victim is dead, I can claim anything I want.
The very concept of this law seems to be set up in such a way to allow for premeditated murder, so long as you can justify it as "self defense". The IDEA behind it might have been noble (or probably not), but the idea that if there's no one around, you could simply claim "self defense" and kill someone?
The main problem is that from what I've read, the moment you claim "self defense", it's up to the state to prove that it WASN'T self-defense. All you have to prove is that you felt threatened. "Justifiable homicides" have skyrocketed in Florida since they adopted this law. And the vast majority of the people who ended up doing the killing didn't get charged or arrested.
Like I said, the very concept of it just baffles me. It's like we're drifting back to the "wild west" mentality, where everyone's going to end up walking around armed, gunning each other down for insults and arguments. Makes me sad for this country.
<edit> This bit here puzzles me, too: (2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant
So basically, let me get this straight, even if I'm the one that starts the fight, the moment I start to lose badly I can claim self defense and shoot the person? Dubya tee eff? O.o
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Accused people can claim whatever they like. This is why there is supposed to be an investigation and examination of evidence. Just like there will be in the Zimmerman case.
There probably would have been one from the start - if Zimmerman's daddy was not a retired judge.
So basically, let me get this straight, even if I'm the one that starts the fight, the moment I start to lose badly I can claim self defense and shoot the person? Dubya tee eff? O.o
No...you cut off the beginning of the law. You can't claim self defense if you initially provoke(s) the use of force against himself, unless:
"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant "
This means that if you start the fight, then you have a duty to try to escape the danger (run away) prior to use of deadly force.
The logic being, I presume, that if you are in a position to be able to start a confrontation then you are in a position to walk (or run) away from that confrontation before using deadly force.
Wumpusrat
(5 posts)Once the fight starts, if you start losing (badly, let's say), you're likely no longer in a position to simply run away. Hence the resorting to lethal force and shooting the person that you picked a fight with.
It just seems like a MASSIVE loophole. IMO, there shouldn't be ANY provision saying "if you start it, you can still claim self defense under these rules", no matter the outcome. It allows someone to artificially create a situation where they're allowed to shoot someone, and claim self-defense.
Personally, I'd strike the loophole entirely. If you start the fight, you're not defending yourself, at all. You're the aggressor in that case.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But if you already had the opportunity to run away, you're not on sound legal ground anymore. Unless you run away and your attacker re-engages you. But I don't think Zimmerman is going to be able to defend that claim.
It just seems like a MASSIVE loophole. IMO, there shouldn't be ANY provision saying "if you start it, you can still claim self defense under these rules", no matter the outcome. It allows someone to artificially create a situation where they're allowed to shoot someone, and claim self-defense.
Personally, I'd strike the loophole entirely. If you start the fight, you're not defending yourself, at all. You're the aggressor in that case.
I agree.
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)then kill their opponent if they realize they are losing and might get seriously hurt.
SYG, is the most idiotic law. And "Stand Your Ground," instead of the common sense requirement to avoid or retreat from a potentially violent situation, is just designed to protect fragile egos and enable bullies without the "inconvenience" of having to prove actual self-defense.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)might give you a better idea what the reality of this bullshit law really is. Not the wording of the law-what the actual consequences have been.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930
I agree with the OP on several points-CCW and SYG (especially SYG) has emboldened plenty of pip squeaks to be overly aggressive and confrontational. What have they got to lose? It's not like they're going to get arrested.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Frankly, this article makes me support SYG even more.
From the article:
"The Tampa Bay Times has identified 140 cases across the state in which "stand your ground'' has been invoked, and many involve defendants whose lives were clearly in jeopardy. But at least a dozen share similarities with what we know about the Trayvon Martin case, and they show the law has not always worked as its sponsors say they intended. "
First of all, I'm OK with the fact that 12 people might have improperly used the law to get away with a crime given that over 120 people didn't face financial ruin trying to defend themselves for defending themselves from true criminal violent crime.
But then there are the examples that the article cites as so terrible:
"Early morning, Jan. 25, 2011. Greyston Garcia was in his apartment in Miami when a roommate told him someone was stealing the radio from his truck.
Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and ran outside. The burglar saw him coming, grabbed his bag of stolen radios and fled.
Rather than calling the police, Garcia chased the thief down the street and caught up to him a block away. The confrontation lasted less than a minute and was captured on surveillance video. The thief swung the bag of radios at Garcia, who blocked the bag with his left hand and stabbed the thief in the chest with his right.
Pedro Roteta, 26, died in the street. "
Now admittedly, I'm in favor of the use of deadly force to protect property. So to me the issue isn't really that Garcia was physically attacked by the thief, Roteta. The way I see it, a criminal gambled his life over some stereos and lost. I'm not heartbroken over this.
It turns out that Garcia was also a criminal, later selling the stolen goods and lying to the police, but that's another matter.
Here's another hand-wringer from the article:
"One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.
He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.
Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force. "
As the article notes, "Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. "
Case closed, the judge decided, and I agree.
""There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said. "
That's right, there shouldn't be. We don't allow rape victims to be blamed for their rape because they were doing something stupid, risky, or not in their best interest, so we shouldn't allow victims of other violent crimes to be blamed for it, either.
Here's another:
"A man got into a shootout on a Sarasota street, for instance, killing a man who owed him money and endangering bystanders. But a judge granted him immunity because a witness testified that his rival had claimed he had "fire in his pocket" and threatened the shooter. Police found no weapon at the scene, but that didn't matter. What mattered was that the shooter believed his enemy had a weapon and was ready to use it. "
Seems like the victim had a pretty good reason to have a reasonable belief that his attacker implied he had a weapon and threatened him.
The bottom line is, except for the whopping 500 people who have evidently signed a petition to repeal SYG, most people believe that victims of violent crime should be able to defend themselves with deadly force without the penalty of massive legal entanglements after the fact.
People believe that good people should be able to stand up to bad people.
The SYG law does that.
I'm open to tweaking of the law that makes it clearer that people who initiate confrontations will have a much harder time claiming self-defense. But we are going to have to be careful on exactly what constitutions initiating a confrontation. If you have a right to be where you are, even if that is annoying to someone it's not an excuse for that someone to respond violently, and if they do, people have a right to defend themselves, even if they initiated the annoyance.
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)Mr. V initiates a verbal confrontation with someone who obviously can kick his ass, starts flashing his shootin iron and making even more threats (all while dozens of children are present), the ass kicker doesn't appreciate it and tells Mr. V to scurry on back home but he refuses and continues to flash his gun and foam at the mouth. The ass kicker, worrying about Mr. V's aggressive and erratic behavior and recently separated from military duty in Iraq, decides the time is right to disarm him. Mr. V, realizing the fight he started isn't going to end well for him, shoots him dead...in front of his daughter. Mr. V, being the gun toting law abiding citizen he claims to be, shouts "SYG" to the police. Perhaps unfortunately for Mr. V, there are witnesses-lots of witnesses.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to handle ANY confrontation now is to just drop whoever gets in my face-don't argue back, don't try to retreat- just drop them. F'd up country this has become.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Your questions are answered clearly in the statute.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)NExt to me in the theater is such a fraidy cat that he can't even leave his house without a frickin Glock.
Call me crazy but I don't want to be anywhere near him.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What are you afraid of?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I'm sure he'd be delighted to receive instruction on how to field strip a 1911 under water.
: rofl:
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And, those same gun carriers enable the NRA and other right wing gun organizations to get legislation passed that will put more like Zimmerman on the streets.
At some point, we have to say "enough is enough." If we sit on our rears for another decade, there will be another 100 million guns on the streets and a lot more people who think nothing of strapping on a gun or two before venturing out to public parks, city restaurants or wherever.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Did anyone ever save the Charlton Heston NRA infomercials of the 90s?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Good luck with your anti-gun efforts.
On the Democratic Party web site, all mentions of gun control are gone from the platform as shown online:
http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform
Near the bottom of the page is the 2008 party platform in PDF format:
http://www.democrats.org/pdf/platform/2008-Democratic-Party-Platform-Renewing-Americas-Promise
You can see the old passage about gun control is now gone.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)restrict your access to guns. Better run out and buy a couple more.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)And thanks to Starboard Tack, I just filled out my CCW permit form.
You keep waiting for that backlash, ya hear?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Joseph8th
(228 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The Democratic party has dropped gun control from it's platform. I don't see what you are suggesting happening any time soon.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)I don't see it happening any time soon, either.
But it doesn't hurt to start agitating, now.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I was going to get a CCW but then I realized that if I did I'd have to take on extra responsibility while having it, and not only that, I would walk around being suspicious of everyone. Basically I agree with you. Having a need for a gun in that vein makes you a coward, not a man who can deal with his own issues.
(I do have a shotgun but it's not even loaded. It's just for home invasion prevention.)
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So you believe that if you suddenly had a gun appear in your pocket you would suddenly become suspicious of everyone?
I don't understand this. My perception of others around me is based on their behavior, not what items I have in my pocket.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)That when you carry a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)When presented with a nail and you have no hammer, you're out of luck.
I think of this every time I take my kids to the park. There is one of those "fireman poles" the kids can slide down. Unfortunately there are two exposed nail heads sticking out of the upper platform, pointing out towards the pole. I'm certain some kid sliding down the pole is going to rake themselves on those nails. I keep meaning to bring a hammer and pound them in, but I forget until I get to the park and see those nails sticking up.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Do you think that he should have made to decision to carry a gun on the day that he shot down Trayvon Martin?
Do you think that it's just possible that things could not have turned out to be so tragic had he decided to leave his weapon at home?
Is it possible that packing a gun is not always the best option for any situation?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Assuming that Zimmerman was not some crazed lunatic like the vigilante from Highlander who goes out looking for trouble (and this is a big assumption, given his history calling 911), there is no reason why anyone who decides to lawfully carry a concealed firearm should not do so. Nobody carries expecting trouble, they carry in case of trouble.
Do you think that it's just possible that things could not have turned out to be so tragic had he decided to leave his weapon at home?
Of course. It's also possible that if he had taken the 911 dispatcher's advice and not followed Martin. Or if he had simply stayed at home that day.
Is it possible that packing a gun is not always the best option for any situation?
No. The problem here is not that Zimmerman was carrying a gun. The problem here was how he approached and interacted with martin.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)…"there is no reason why anyone who decides to lawfully carry a concealed firearm should not do so. Nobody carries expecting trouble, they carry in case of trouble. "
I look at it as a choice, you seem to think of it as an OBLIGLATION.
My point is this… If someone feels OBGLIGATED to carry in a so-called civilized society, what the hell kind of society are they living in anyway?
I'm not so affectionate in the idea of packing heat to think that packing heat could solve any problem that I come up against… And I've known quite a few in my day. None of them would have turned out any better had I been packing… Quite the contrary, things would have been fucked up royally
I choose not to carry. Not because I hate guns, but because I find them to be unnecessary.
Zimmerman made the wrong choice to carry that loaded gun of his. Had he decided NOT to carry it, things would have turned out a lot differently for an innocent child that night.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)My point is this… If someone feels OBGLIGATED to carry in a so-called civilized society, what the hell kind of society are they living in anyway?
Oh no, I fully believe that carrying a firearm is a choice, a choice that all law-abiding people should be free to make.
I don't think anyone should be obligated to carry a firearm.
I'm not so affectionate in the idea of packing heat to think that packing heat could solve any problem that I come up against… And I've known quite a few in my day. None of them would have turned out any better had I been packing… Quite the contrary, things would have been fucked up royally
Now I didn't say that carrying a firearm can "solve any problem that I come up against". I'm simply saying that carrying the firearm itself has no impact on any problem you come up against. It simply gives you more options for dealing with any problems you come up against.
I choose not to carry. Not because I hate guns, but because I find them to be unnecessary.
I have always been the same way. I have never been a victim of violent crime. The only crime I've ever experienced is a year ago someone snuck into our back yard and tried to hot-wire and steal my garden tractor. Carrying a concealed weapon has just not been worth the hassle.
Zimmerman made the wrong choice to carry that loaded gun of his. Had he decided NOT to carry it, things would have turned out a lot differently for an innocent child that night.
Zimmerman's bad choice was not to carry a gun, it was his choice to start a violent confrontation that he could have walked away from.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)"Zimmerman's bad choice was not to carry a gun, it was his choice to start a violent confrontation that he could have walked away from."
What the hell do you think was his point in the brandishing of his firearm? That's exactly WHY he carried one, to start a violent confrontation. Intent denotes action, correct? So what would be the intent of his carrying a gun the way that he did?
Not for his own self defense, it seems.
He was afraid, he saw an object of his FEAR and he was stupid enough to think that carrying a gun could equip himself properly as he engaged in confronting that object of his irrationality…
Is that the definition of a fool or not?
His first bad choice was putting a gun into play, his second bad choice was to THINK that he could use it to do what he did.
Either way, not having that gun with him could have spelled a much different fate for his otherwise innocent victim.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I have not heard anything in the news about Zimmerman brandishing a firearm. Do you have a citation?
That's exactly WHY he carried one, to start a violent confrontation. Intent denotes action, correct? So what would be the intent of his carrying a gun the way that he did?
This is like saying people who carry spare tires intend to have a blowout. Or people who wear seat belts intend to have a car accident.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman didn't set out to shoot someone, because I don't know (though I doubt it). I'm just saying lots of people carry concealed weapons without the intent of starting a violent confrontation.
He was afraid, he saw an object of his FEAR and he was stupid enough to think that carrying a gun could equip himself properly as he engaged in confronting that object of his irrationality…
I agree, but it wasn't the concealed firearm that caused the problem, it was his choice to start a violent confrontation that he could have walked away from.
If you are saying that carrying a firearm gave him the confidence he needed to start a violent confrontation, maybe so. But if you are trying to extrapolate that this is common for CCW permit holders, that is incorrect.
His first bad choice was putting a gun into play, his second bad choice was to THINK that he could use it to do what he did.
Again, I disagree. Many people responsibly carry concealed weapons without instigating violent confrontations. It's not the gun that causes the problem, it's the person carrying it. There is no reason why Zimmerman could not have carried his concealed weapon that day and not used it. Lots of people do.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)In the absence of the soon to be arriving cops, his gun was his back up, was it not?
Are you adopting the position given by the Zimmermans, that Trayvon attempted to gain control of his gun?
Because, if you are, then that's the only way that you can make your current course of argument to stick. I'd really like to know.
Because, I think that the Zimmermans are lying about that. They've been truth deficient on a whole list of other issues and I don't think that they're creditable enough to make a good enough case about Trayvon trying to take Zimmerman's gun.
I'm not talking about most CCW holders, I'm talking about George Zimmerman. You're going to have to divorce your own reasoning for carrying a weapon from this guy to understand where I'm coming from. He makes a very bad example for the implementation of CCW, because he obviously did everything wrong and irresponsibly.
I said that he's the last person who should have been carrying a gun that day, and nothing that you've cited, in the way that most other CCW holders behave, can dispute my assertion about George Zimmerman… This armed and cowardly fool.
I'm also making a very clear point that the very reason that he sought to carry a weapon was because he thought that he would eventually find himself in a situation where he'd have to shoot another human being. That is the purpose of handguns, to shoot other human beings. He did eventually do what he prepared himself to do. Only the person that he shot was unarmed and would not have posed a threat to him otherwise.
He chose be afraid, he chose to carry a weapon in order to equip himself in case he'd come across the object of his fears, he chose to bring that weapon into a confrontation that he himself initiated with an unarmed individual and he chose to use it to kill that person.
Were he not to be afraid, or not carry a weapon, or confront Trayvon with that weapon and eventually use it, things would have been drastically different.
You can't get any more direct than that.
spin
(17,493 posts)because he can get charged with brandishing a weapon.
Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense
***snip***
Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
***snip***
Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?
A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
I have no idea if Zimmerman flashed his weapon when he encountered Martin. If he did, Martin would have had good reason to stand his ground and attempt to disarm Zimmerman. He had been followed by a suspicious person and approached by that individual who was not wearing a uniform and did not have a badge. If Zimmerman was aggressive, confrontational and then drew his weapon or showed it, Martin would have reason to fear for his life.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)May it happen soon
spin
(17,493 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I think every shooting should require a thorough police investigation.
But legitimate self-defense shootings should not bear crippling financial costs to weather.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... try to get the gun. He might have thought he was going to die and that was the best choice. Or more likely, IF there was a struggle, Zimmerman was pulling the gun during the course of the struggle and shot him then.
Either way, Zimmerman and gun nuts like him are cowards if they can't win a fight without pulling a piece. Fuck guns. You cowards packing heat piss me off. Put your toy away and take your beating like a man.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)OK, your credibility just flew out the window.
You've just told every victim of violent crime that unless they engage in hand-to-hand combat with their attacker they are a coward.
Joseph8th
(228 posts)... and recommend that if you can't smackdown the bullies without a gun, then pulling your gun is more likely to get you killed... so whether you can kick bully ass or not, having a gun makes no sense.
If it's for the sense of security, then yeah, I'm calling those gun owners cowards -- also idiots, because they're MORE likely to get shot that the next guy (or girl) who also can't smackdown a bully, but doesn't have a gun to be killed with.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So I'm assuming that you are actually speculating about the brandishing, right?
I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't brandish a weapon, because I don't know. But most people, particularly people knowledgeable enough to get CCW permits, very much understand the law concerning firearms and know that brandishing is illegal.
It seems highly unlikely that Zimmerman walked into the confrontation with his gun drawn. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but there's no evidence either way that I am aware of yet.
Are you adopting the position given by the Zimmermans, that Trayvon attempted to gain control of his gun?
Because, if you are, then that's the only way that you can make your current course of argument to stick. I'd really like to know.
I have no idea what transpired during the physical fight, but I have not seen anything to indicate that Martin tried to take Zimmerman's gun. My personal belief at this time is that Martin and Zimmerman were fighting, and then Zimmerman drew his gun and fired on Martin.
I'm not talking about most CCW holders...
That's fine, you are free to speculate about Zimmerman and his motives as we all are.
I'm just stepping up to correct the idea that all CCW permit holders carry concealed firearms out of some sort of irrational fear, or do so because they are out to shoot someone.
I myself don't think Zimmerman is as paranoid as you make out. I think he's an eager-beaver do-gooder who crossed the line. The guy in charge of our HOA neighborhood watch is the same way. Had little "neighborhood watch" magnetic decals made for his car, and little arm bands for the neighborhood watchers. I think the guy gets a hard-on being the neighborhood watch. Anyway I think Zimmerman is also a policeman wannabe. I don't think he was quite to the level of an active-seeking vigilante, but he was quite obviously an active-seeking 911 caller. Who knows, maybe you are right and he finally wasn't getting enough of an adrenaline rush just calling 911 and decided to play hero.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)As, Zimmerman himself has clearly demonstrated by his reckless disregard for his own safety and the safety of others, every single CCW holder is not a responsible saint with a gun.
He's the last person that you should be defending, because he's making anyone who is responsible look guilty by association. I can see this same kind of behavior when is comes to the issue of police misconduct; the rapid closing of ranks. It does no one any good except to perpetuate any problems that seem to pop up from time to time. You can fix the individual troublemakers without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Other than giving anyone armed the carte blanche to shoot anyone else that they don't like, this is one the main problems with the SYG laws… The apparent abandonment to require responsible gun ownership in the communities that have adopted these poorly written laws. It's quite evident that its proponents, ALEC and NRA have sponsored these laws with two distinct motives in mind: To exacerbate a general sense of fear and paranoia and to promote increased gun sales as a solution for that fear and paranoia. They're looking for more money for their coffers and increased political clout. It's working like gangbusters.
Frankly, this kind of behavior is the hallmark of a fascist society, not a free one:
We should not let ALEC and the NRA dictate what our rights and responsibilities as citizens are, especially of they're going to use the unreasonable promotion of fear and prejudice to pad their bottom line. If we allow this kind of think to persist, you can best believe that there will be a lot more unnecessary deaths from firearms in out near future than there already are in the present day.
What you'll get is more fools with guns than you need.
Indeed, whatever reasons that most responsible and law-abiding CCW holders decide to justify their willingness to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, I would think that a reasonable amount of concern for the added ranks of hyper-vigilant, fearful and aggressive gun toters among them is warranted.
Are you concerned that I'm advocating the restriction of 2nd Amendment rights? Well, let me tell you that I am not.
My central point is that not everyone in this country is equipped emotionally and intellectually, as well as having garnered enough maturity to carry a loaded firearm in public. These people like Zimmerman, who though was legally and rightfully able to carry up to the point where he gunned down an innocent pedestrian, are quite simply disasters waiting to happen.
These individuals must be held accountable for their actions. We don't need to restrict the rights of the law abiding by doing this one thing.
This is not about basic rights, it's about the basic responsible exercise OF those rights and the lack of that exercise by one George Zimmerman.
He's the gun owner who used his own weapon to gun down an innocent person…
He must be held accountable for his reckless and irresponsible disregard for another human life.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)taken it upon himself to hunt down and initiate a confrontation with a young man that was doing absolutely nothing wrong or even suspicious.
He could have killed Trayvon with any number of mundane items, the gun didn't choose for him, to pursue someone who wasn't doing anything suspicious or illegal.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)He chose to purchase it, load it and carry it.
A thing that has only one intended purpose, to shoot someone with.
To suggest that he'd use something other than that primary tool is ridiculous, don't you think?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You realize many firearms are not suitable for shooting humans, right? And that the vast majority of the ~300 or so million firearms in the US never shoot a human, right?
And no, given that the public appearance of the case is that Zimmerman is allegedly a racist that went after this kid, seeking to harm him, no, I don't think it is unreasonable to think he would have tried to harm him with another implement, let alone fists and feet.
Without a firearm, would it have been Trayvon at that time and in that place? Perhaps not, but you can bet SOMEONE at some point was going to end up on the wrong end of Mr. Zimmerman's wrath, even without the presence of a firearm.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)It's not about Farmer Joe's shotgun, or about Mrs. Peterson's Derringer, or even about Collector Mike's vast array of antiques and replicas. It's not even about anyone else's handgun that they carry with themselves in public.
This is about George Zimmerman and the loaded handgun that he brought into a confrontation against an innocent pedestrian who was doing nothing more than minding his own business.
He killed that person with his handgun… There isn't any dispute to this.
I'm quite aware that America has an extensive gun culture, even in a ostensibly liberal place like DU. Americans love their guns.
However, as George Zimmerman has shown us, any fool can buy, load, carry and use a gun… As many other fools are also wont to do.
I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that the greater part of gun responsibility is actually not demonstrated by when one uses a gun, but actually is when one makes a conscious choice NOT to use one.
Had Zimmerman chose to not use his gun in the confrontation that he himself initiated, particularly one which ONLY has a main purpose to shoot people, Trayvon Martin would therefore not be shot by it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Only one point of contention:
"particularly one which ONLY has a main purpose to shoot people"
Earlier you seemed to refer to this in context of the firearm only having one purpose (which I might agree is the case in the context of the only purpose Zimmerman had for it).
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you refer to 'only has a main purpose' in the context of the confrontation. If that is the case, then queue the legions of angels to sing, and part the clouds, because we would agree 100%, and that should just never happen on the internet.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:53 PM - Edit history (3)
For which I'm not aware?
Perhaps you can enlighten me that Zimmerman's intent at that moment of confrontation was perhaps to do something like skeet shooting, or even target practice or even to show his new friend, Trayvon his fancy toy?
Isn't it reasonable to stipulate that he carried it with the express purpose of possibly shooting down a stranger in case he deemed it necessary to do so… And then actually did that?
I want to make one other clarification, just so you understand me: I, in no way, am advocating that Zimmerman didn't have the right to own and carry his handgun for whatever purpose that he saw fit. He, as well as any other law abiding citizen can do so and should be able to do so as long as we have a Second Amendment in this country.
This is not about the right to keep and bare arms.
All I'm saying is that otherwise irresponsible assholes like Zimmerman are the kind of people who decide to use handguns when it's a better idea to not use them.
Given his bad temper, propensity for violence and confrontation, apparent sense of entitlement and added to the fact that he's the owner of a loaded handgun, it's safe to say that George Zimmerman was bad news waiting to happen. Just the kind of person that I want as far away from me as possible.
In spite of all of that I have to say, just because he had the right to have that gun…. Well, that did not make it right for him to use it when he did.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Given the publicly available info, Zimmerman was carrying for the purpose of 'getting some'. Not skeet, or anything else.
I do not know the contents of his head that day, but to me, it has the appearance of something hunters would call 'buck fever'. You're so excited to get your first kill, you make stupid mistakes like falling out of your tree stand, or miss an easy target, etc. So 'ah-ha FINALLY', that you get tunnel vision, etc.
Conscious premeditation? Did he go out that day TO KILL SOMEONE? I don't know. A jury will determine that. But I think you are right in thinking what his purpose for having a gun was, and that is highly relevant.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)OK, you keep saying this isn't a discussion about other CCW permit holders, but you then say things that imply that every CCW permit holder who finds themselves in a confrontation intended to shoot someone.
That is why this has become a discussion about concealed carry in general.
I cannot say what Zimmerman's motivation was. Maybe he was out to shoot someone. From the way the story seems to play out now, I tend to doubt that. But it is possible.
But you cannot say that every CCW permit holder who finds themselves in a confrontation was out to shoot someone. It's like saying everyone who wears a seatbelt and gets in a car crash was seeking out a car crash.
Being prepared for an event to happen is not the same thing as looking for the event to happen.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)As does carrying a gun prepares the carrier for the possibility of shooting someone with it. What would cause a person to shoot another (or themselves, or to have a gun taken from the owner only to be shot by it) is always up for debate.
This shouldn't be a disputed idea.
My point, if you were go back and read my OP, talks about irresponsible gun ownership and the bad choices that could come out of that irresponsibility.
Some people are mature and responsible enough to be a CCW permit holder, other's are not. That's because everyone is human and some humans are more fallible than others. Merely because people have a constitutional right to carry doesn't mean that it's always a good idea for all of those who have that right to do so. Bad choices are a hallmark of irresponsibility and immaturity.
Would you or would you not want to be in close proximity to any irresponsible and immature people who carry firearms in public, in spite of their absolute right to keep and bear arms?
Also, do you feel confident that EVERY single CCW permit holder will ALWAYS exercise good and prudent judgement in EVERY situation that they find themselves in while in possession of a loaded firearm?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Of course. Now I haven't gone back to pour over your posts, but the gist I was getting from what you have written so far was the implication that Zimmerman was actively looking for someone to shoot because he was a concealed carry holder who got into a confrontation.
In other words, he was carrying a gun for the possibility he might have to shoot someone during a confrontation, he got into a confrontation, thus he must have been looking to shoot someone.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Would you or would you not want to be in close proximity to any irresponsible and immature people who carry firearms in public, in spite of their absolute right to keep and bear arms?
I can't control that, any more than I can keep stupid people from voting. If they meet the lawful requirement to carry, then they can.
Also, do you feel confident that EVERY single CCW permit holder will ALWAYS exercise good and prudent judgement in EVERY situation that they find themselves in while in possession of a loaded firearm?
Of course not. All we can do is look at the conviction and revocation data for CCW permit holders and note that they are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime and that they hardly ever have their permits revoked.
Statistically, CCW permit holders almost always exercise good and prudent judgement - even with regard to laws not concerning firearms.
And this should not be surprising. When you have people who are willing to go to the trouble, expense, and bureaucracy to comply with the letter of the law concerning a completely voluntary activity, you would probably expect such people to be very anal about obeying the law. People with no regard for the law just stick their pistol in their pants and call it good.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Look, Zimmerman initiated an unnecessary confrontation with an innocent, unarmed person while carrying his loaded weapon and ended up killing that person with it.
He should face the consequences.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)He should face the consequences.
I think a case can and will be made that Martin rightfully feared for his life by being followed by a stranger at night.
This does not mean that Zimmerman was doing anything illegal by following and approaching Martin at night.
It simply means that Martin would probably have been justified in attacking Zimmerman, if in fact he did so.
Right now, I'll point out again, the publicly available evidence is looking slim that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
If this is proven to be the case, that Martin did not attack Zimmerman, then Zimmerman is going to be in trouble.
If, on the other hand, Martin did attack Zimmerman, even if he was justified in doing so, now it's going to be harder to convict Zimmerman, because he was in a place he lawfully had a right to be up to the point that Zimmerman attacked him.
Now you basically have a situation where two innocent people reasonably feared for their safety from the other, and as one might expect the guy with the gun won.
This is the only real failing I see of the SYG law. There is the possibility that two innocent people will encounter one another and reasonably fear that the other is going to harm them, resulting in, effectively, a duel.
I suspect such cases are going to be very rare.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)You may hold yourself out as an exception, but the effort will not be very convincing.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If you had a gun would you suddenly become suspicious of everyone around you?
I don't understand this. To me, my perception of others around me depends on their behavior, not mine.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)And awareness that one can do serious harm, and some practice in having actually done it, does indeed condition how one looks at people and situations.
If you think your own mental state, and physical state, does not alter how you perceive the world around you, you are either not very perceptive, or not very honest with your self.
It is an element of human nature that what people think they can do something about, they will look at more closely than they do things they feel can do nothing about. A person aware he is in possession of deadly force will be aware he can do more about a certain class of situations or behaviors, and further, will know that rapidity of action may be an important factor in whether a thing goes of well or ends very poorly.
And this is quite separate from whether the person is actually looking for a chance to do something, which you would be incautious to try and deny is fairly common among the hard-core of 'gotta have my gun on me' enthusiasts.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I think you're wrong. I think I'm very perceptive, and more rational that most. Rationally, I understand that an object hidden on my person is not going to alter how people behave towards me, because they will be unaware of what is hidden on me.
True, I may feel more confident knowing that I'm equipped to deal with any violent confrontation, the same way I fell more confident driving down the road on a new set of tires, knowing I'm less likely to have to deal with a blow-out.
But I do not think that that confidence is going to make me more confrontational, any more than having new tires on my car is going to make me risk driving faster.
And this is quite separate from whether the person is actually looking for a chance to do something, which you would be incautious to try and deny is fairly common among the hard-core of 'gotta have my gun on me' enthusiasts.
Given how few firearm owners are involved in violent crime every year, if this is as common an attitude as you believe it is they seem to be failing at it.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)Roughly three times as many cases are being so classed after this law was passed as before: there is no doubt a number of these were killings that would not have taken place without this law, and therefore, while considered 'justifiable' under it, they doubtless were unnecessary killings, and quite likely would be criminal acts under soundly drawn law.
Most persons who place a premium on 'gotta have my gun wherever I go' are in fact habitues of milieux in which their chance of actually encountering violent crime runs between nought and nil, or roughly equivalent to their chances of winning the state lottery or being struck by lightening.
For the rest, the observation of human nature, those who read this exchange may draw their own conclusions regarding which of us has the better grasp of it....
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Yup, I just read an article on this:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930
"The Tampa Bay Times has identified 140 cases across the state in which "stand your ground'' has been invoked, and many involve defendants whose lives were clearly in jeopardy. But at least a dozen share similarities with what we know about the Trayvon Martin case, and they show the law has not always worked as its sponsors say they intended. "
So out of 140 cases, you've got 12 or so where they may have abused the law. And in some of the cases they cite in the article, I'm not really convinced they were abuses of the law.
Most persons who place a premium on 'gotta have my gun wherever I go' are in fact habitues of milieux in which their chance of actually encountering violent crime runs between nought and nil, or roughly equivalent to their chances of winning the state lottery or being struck by lightening.
This is true. Most people who carry firearms (or just own them for that matter) are probably unlikely to be victims of crime. Fortunately, violent crime is rare in most places of the country and the rate of violent crime continues to decline as it has for decades.
My take on it is since people who lawfully carry concealed firearms are hardly ever involved in crime it doesn't really matter if carrying is superfluous - as long as it isn't hurting anything (and it is very rare that it does), so what?
For the rest, the observation of human nature, those who read this exchange may draw their own conclusions regarding which of us has the better grasp of it....
I think I have a pretty good grasp of it. Carrying a concealed weapon cannot change others' perception of the carrier. It might increase their sense of self-confidence, knowing that they have more choices in case of a violent confrontation. It might even encourage more risky behavior, knowing that they might be able to get away with it. But I suspect such situations are rare. Most people in the habit of carrying a concealed weapon act no differently than a person drives differently from habitually wearing a seat belt.
But I am applying for my concealed carry permit this week, so in a few weeks I'll be able to tell you from direct experience how my behavior changes while carrying.
The Magistrate
(95,248 posts)That a dozen cases are similar to the shooting of Mr. Martin is hardly a statement that all other cases were instances where use of deadly force was necessary to preserve someone's life or bodily integrity. Some may have been, but there is no reason whatever to believe all beyond the dozen similar to Mr. Martin's killing were.
For the rest of this, we are well into 'Say something once, why say it again?' territory....
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Given the tone of the article, I'm given to suspect that if the author could have dug up more that could be compared to the Zimmerman case, he would have, especially since some of the 12 cases he presented were stretches at best.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Walk through a bad neighborhood with $1000 in your pocket (to buy a car or whatever) and tell me you aren't looking all around you.
Now do it with a weapon on your person whose function is to protect you from a threat. How can it serve its purpose if you are not looking for threats which it will protect you from?
I am completely certain that if I went through the CCW process I would become that way. I went to a CCW website and even went to an Open Carry website (Open Carry is legal here). Many of the posts were people who appeared quite paranoid individuals who worried about every little thing.
I say this 1) being a victim of a shooting 2) being accosted at gunpoint 3) being robbed with the threat of force. I still leave my house in the morning without a care in the world.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I've never done this, so I can't really comment. But my guess is, since there would be no outward indications of what I'm carrying, I would not expect anyone to behave any differently towards me than if I were carrying no money. In other words, if I were robbed, it would not matter if I were carrying $1000 or not, as that would not be material to causing the situation.
Now do it with a weapon on your person whose function is to protect you from a threat. How can it serve its purpose if you are not looking for threats which it will protect you from?
My situational awareness is pretty much the same whenever I am out and about.
I say this 1) being a victim of a shooting 2) being accosted at gunpoint 3) being robbed with the threat of force. I still leave my house in the morning without a care in the world.
So having actually been a victim of crime you are still oblivious to people around you, yet if you had some money in your pocket you suddenly would not be? It is hard for me to understand.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I don't have much responsibility when I have a $5 in my pocket, if it's stolen I'm not out much.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)But rationally, surely you realize that no on knows how much money is in your pocket, so there is no impact on how people are going to behave towards you. In other words, rationally, surely you agree that the amount of money hidden in your pocket cannot change your odds of being a victim of crime, right?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...or $5000 in my pocket?
That's effectively what you're saying here.
That indicates to me that you're the one whose "situational awareness" is maxed out, as I would fear mine would be if I was a CCW holder.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I probably do have better situational awareness than most, as I trained for it.
But again, I'm asking you, rationally, you do agree that the amount of money hidden in your pocket cannot influence the behavior of the people around you, right?
Yes, you might be more nervous irrationally, knowing that you are carrying a fortune in your pocket, but rationally, you do realize that it has no effect on the behavior of those around you, right?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The behavior of the people around me has nothing to do with my level of preparedness or my awareness.
I don't think it is irrational to be more prepared in one situation over another given the utility of that preparedness.
There's little utility in being hyper aware of my surroundings as I go check my mail.
There's plenty of utility in being aware as I put my big screen TV in my car.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The behavior of the people around me has nothing to do with my level of preparedness or my awareness.
I know that. I'm just pointing out that your nervousness doesn't bear on the reality that what is hidden in your pocket won't influence the actual behavior of people around you.
I'm glad you agree that it doesn't.
There's little utility in being hyper aware of my surroundings as I go check my mail.
There's plenty of utility in being aware as I put my big screen TV in my car.
But this is different. You are now basing your awareness based on something very obvious that you are doing. In your first example, you aren't doing anything that would attract the attention of anyone or likely change their behavior towards you. In your second example, you are.
Carrying a concealed weapon is not going to change my perception of the people around me, any more than walking to my mailbox is going to change my perception of the people around me, because those people would not notice any difference either way. To the people around me, there is nothing different about me to warrant increased suspicion or awareness.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I would still have more utility for being more aware of my surroundings in a situation where I would lose more if I wasn't than if I was.
Likewise I would see the utility of a weapon as something that can back my moral and ethical inclinations, so I could see myself intervening in situations where otherwise I would not.
For example, when I was shot at, I might have jogged outside to see if I could get the tag number of the car (instead I just ducked down in my house as plaster bits floated in my room).
Or another example, when I was accosted at gunpoint I might have pulled my gun and shot him, rather than simply walking away (he was drunk and his buddies stopped him).
Being robbed of course, that goes without saying. Someone would be dead.
Given this, the utility of the weapon would be less in situations where it wasn't usable and more where situations where it was.
Given that I don't like to waste money, I would be looking for situations where it was.
You're making this about other people but for me it's about me and the level of fear that I am experiencing on a daily basis.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)There's nothing scarier than hearing one rack in the dark.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Have a machete for the real work if it ever happens.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)That's an attention getter.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Wouldn't be having these discussions.
spin
(17,493 posts)just because you have a carry permit and you are carrying?
Perhaps you're talking about the fact that many people who carry practice situational awareness. That means that they are just more alert to their surroundings than most people. They don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to their ear.
It doesn't mean such people are paranoid or fearful. They do notice things about people they encounter and if a person is acting in a truly suspicious manner, they might be somewhat careful of that individual. Practicing situational awareness can actually be fun. People are interesting.
If you are alert to your surroundings you will also notice far more of nature's beauty that you often miss when you are not paying attention to your environment.
You do make a very good point about the extra responsibility involved in owning and carrying a firearm. Owning a firearm or getting a carry license is not something that everybody should do. However, you don't have to carry a gun to practice situational awareness. The simple fact that you are alert, walk confidently and make eye contact with the people you encounter may make you far less of a target for a street thug.
Situational Awareness
The most important thing to remember about self defense is to avoid the situation where you need to defend yourself. You do this by not making yourself an easy target and being aware of your surroundings. There are a number of things you do every day without realizing it that make you more or less of a target to be the victim of a crime. The following will help you avoid being victimized and know what to do if it happens anyway.
***snip***
Walking on the Street
Don’t Be a Target
Walking along talking on a cell phone is one of the best ways to put a “rob me now” target on your back. You are talking to your buddy, with the illusion of security because you are not alone, but your buddy can’t help you! Muggers look for people who act a certain way, just as child molesters know how to choose their victims. If you walk with a purposeful stride and look around, making eye contact with people who pass you on the street, you are not the first choice of a mugger. If you have a purse, don’t wear it on one shoulder on the “street” side of the sidewalk – it’s just too easy for someone to grab. If you have a weird feeling about the man/men walking toward you from the other direction, don’t hesitate to cross the street. Make it a habit to listen to what your gut is telling you.
http://www.survive2day.com/whattoknow/situationalawareness.html
libodem
(19,288 posts)Wreaks of racial profiling, tracking, stalking, and murder.
I still have questions about GZ's 'wife'. Where is she in all this? Is there a restraining order on him to stay away from her? Was there a history of domestic abuse. The creep should not be carrying if he is separated and has an order of protection against him.
Is he a HOMEOWNER? In the association? What is this character's regular job? How does he pay for his home? Is he some kind of undercover n
arc, is that his source of income. What is this wanna be's purpose in life. He owes a certain family a kid. That is a lot to pay for. Hope a big ol' civil suit is pending, in case he gets OJ'ed
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)And don't forget family connections, privilege, and police cover-ups.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . Zimmerman led a Powerpoint presentation late last year in December to discuss neighborhood watch patrols in Sanford, and he invited the Sanford Police to attend.
Zimmerman was told by a Sanford police officer that NONE of them should pursue any other person in that neighborhood if they suspected them to be up to no good, and that NONE of them should be carrying a firearm while doing neighborhood watch patrols -- because that is the POLICE DEPARTMENT'S JOB!!!!!!!!
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This may be true, but I don't think it can be binding.
It is against the actual Neighborhood Watch policy to carry firearms while patrolling:
http://www.usaonwatch.org/
But I don't think membership in such an organization can prohibit you from lawfully carrying a concealed weapon, whether they like it or not, and whether the police like it or not.
About the only thing I could see could happen is the NW organization could expel you from it and revoke any benefits.
In short, I don't think you can tell a CCW permit holder they can't participate in neighborhood watch programs while carrying a firearm.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)There's also the fact that the neighborhood watch he claimed to be a member of may not even be legit. The one that Zimmerman formed, anyway. It was not registered with the state as being a legit neighborhood watch organization, anyway. So, it looks as if the reports that he was a "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" may be true.
The entire process has gotten out of hand.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I had never heard anything to suggest he was part of an official neighborhood watch effort anyway. Zimmerman was always presented as being the "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain".
Not that such a thing is necessary. We have a "neighborhood watch" but I don't know if anyone has joined any official organization to do it. Nor is it necessary to even claim you are part of a neighborhood watch to patrol your neighborhood.
Zimmerman could have said he was part of the "Zimmerman Patrol" and it would have no bearing on the legality of his actions.
There is nothing illegal about driving or walking around your neighborhood with a legally concealed weapon.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)It's called a certainty.
Zimmerman's claims all have a bearing on the legality of his actions.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Mr. Scorpio, you are turning into one HECK of a fine writer! Yes INDEED!
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)There are websites out there where people talk about how to use SYG laws should they want to use their guns in public and outside of the home.
What an amazing post!
This is the best sentence ever in regards to SYG:
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I don't think Zimmerman was a "fraidy cat", I think he was a typical bully... wanting the trappings of power and authority but without the stones or the brains or the smarts or the discipline to become a soldier or a cop.
I betcha he had one of those police-looking badges that says "legally armed citizen" or some shit that you can stick in your wallet like undercover cops have. Hell, they actually sell a little wallet with the badge on one side and a clear window for your CCW permit on the other.
But that's besides the point.
Being violently attacked isn't a game. You don't get points for bravado or technique. You either get the shit beaten out of you, or you beat your attacker into retreat or submission.
You stance worked fine in an array of cities. That's fine; even in the shittiest neighborhoods in America the odds are you'll go untouched in any given year.
But look around you.. plenty of unarmed, non-cowardly people in Detroit and Baltimore and DC were killed, and a dozen times that seriously injured, while you were living there being brave and unarmed.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)establishments, or to schools. From what I can tell, it mainly lets you keep your gun concealed in your car. That's where Zimmerman was initially, if you recall. But he could also carry it on him walking around the neighborhood.
I grew up in La., where a lot of people have guns. I have a gun. People kept guns in their glove compartments, even tho I guess that was illegal. No one killed anyone. Well, except for criminals in the commission of their crimes.
I think it's wrong to blame a THING, when someone uses it to harm someone else. The problem isn't the THING, it's the person. Unfortunately, people can carry guns even when illegal, or knives, or bats, or anything, and hurt someone, if they want. We can't stop that.
But there was warning that Zimmerman was out of control in his neighborhood watch patrol. The homeowners say they complained about him, but I wonder how many did. Because if enough had, he wouldn't have still been so-called patroling. The police knew he was out of control, what with 46 calls on suspicious characters. Although they couldn't take his gun away, they could have charged him with a nuisance or something. Someone could have done something, I think. Esp with his violent background as an issue.
It might be a regional thing. When you're raised around guns, and live in a big hunting area, guns are just part of a way of life, like the rain and the mosquitos. Most people know a bit about how to handle them, and they certainly respect the danger they represent. Like I respect wet roads, being from Louisiana. No one knows how important it is to slow down on wet roads than someone who is raised with a lot of wet roads.
I don't have a carry license. I don't much see the point, since I couldn't carry it almost anywhere. And as long as I keep the gun visible, I can carry it in my car.
RedCloud
(9,230 posts)May your words soar high, my friend
Response to MrScorpio (Original post)
Post removed
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Do you think Zimmerman was right in shooting Trayvon?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)In my own thread even.
That's what I get for leaving the room.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's scary in the living room!
William769
(55,147 posts)Could you please elaborate on who the "thugs bad guys" are?
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Zimmerman's defenders claim he is the one screaming in terror for his life. If so, if indeed an armed man was that terrified of an unarmed teen, and his defenders believe he would act in this fashion, well then scaredy cat is what he is. And anyone who is that scared should not be armed. He's a danger to himself and others.
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)marshall gaines
(347 posts)No debate. he should not have been able to carry a concealed weapon.
marble falls
(57,134 posts)his entire adult life, blame the cops, prosecutors, judges, dad who protected him through every one of his misadventures with the law, who kept him from facing consequences.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)legislators are writing and passing laws concerning firearms they don't take
into account that someone with NO criminal history could use the SYG law
to justify pre-meditated murder? From what I've read this law doesn't apply
to killing just strangers. A person could claim to be threatened by a family
member, business partner, obnoxious neighbor.
Theoretically someone seeking revenge could manipulate this law a million
different ways. If screenwriters were aware of this law, there would be
films out there using it in the plot. Most people had never heard of SYG.
I hope Zimmerman's hard drive gets into the right hands. I would love to
know if he did any research on this law prior to murdering Trayvon.
There's a very popular TV show that just had an episode where
a guy ( a deranged cop) kills another guy he hates. He then slams his head into a tree
so he can claim self defense. But that's just a TV show, could never happen in real life.
marble falls
(57,134 posts)anyone who claims that they did not foresee that the practical application of stand your ground was legalized murder is a liar. Gun laws do not legalize else anything except ownership of guns.
Zookeeper
(6,536 posts)I completely agree with you. People who are so paranoid and frightened that they feel the need to carry a gun around with them everywhere, at all times, are a menace IMHO. While I believe race played a part in Trayvon's murder, Zimmerman could have also been sufficiently frightened by a white, Asian, or Hispanic kid on a "scruffy-looking" day to follow, question and shoot. Zimmerman was a tragedy waiting to happen.
On another note, wanna make a bet that the NRA is paying for Zimmerman's defense team?
moriah
(8,311 posts)When they have to have a Realtor's Safety Month every September, and multiple police departments across the country have safety pages like this one:
http://www.cabq.gov/police/prevention/realtor.html
... for realtors showing homes, it's a clue that it's not exactly the safest occupation on the planet. I agree, Zimmerman probably had no reason to carry a gun, and certainly had no reason to use one against Trayvon. But there are occupations aside from those listed that increase a person's likelihood of being a victim of crime.
-----
An advocate of concealed carry for women, though, has a different perspective -- you might enjoy reading Kathy Jackson's article "Are You Paranoid?"
http://www.corneredcat.com/Are_You_Paranoid/
She does address quite a bit of the concerns you mentioned about making carrying concealed becoming an act that is reinforcing a fearful and paranoid mindset.
