The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

Hey, I read in the paper this morning that they're going to charge that scum Drejka in Florida with manslaughter after all the stand your ground debate.

Maybe they'll get it right this time.

Unlikely. The law gives him too strong a defense.

 

[rah]

Probably but...........
unlikely is still better than no chance. And this will help fuel the debate further.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Probably but...........
unlikely is still better than no chance. And this will help fuel the debate further.

The Zimmerman's case was mishandled by police and prosecutors. In this case the murder was captured on video.

Plus they're charging him with manslaughter instead of capital murder which is much harder to prove in court. That is what got Zimmerman acquitted, not the stand your ground law per se. Local authorities citing the law when refusing to press charges is one thing, but in the end, a conviction seems to be a safe bet for this case.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

776.012 (2)
A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

That's the law that got Zimmerman acquitted, and it will get this guy acquitted as well, because it is terrible law and it applies exactly the same in murder cases as manslaughter cases.

"Sir, did you believe you were in imminent danger of great bodily harm?"
"Yes."
"The man had just pushed you to the ground, is that correct?"
"Yes."
"Was he armed?"
"Uhhh..."
"Let me rephrase that. Was there any way for you to tell whether he had a gun in his belt?"
"No."
"Knife?"
"No."
"So, once again, did you fear for your life?"
"Yes, absolutely."

That meets the letter and intent of the law, and if by some weird twist the jury disregards that fact he will win on appeal based on the judge obviously giving the jury inadequate instructions.

Notice that the law does not say anything about "were you being rude and confrontational?" or "did you in fact start the altercation in the first place?"

He was in a parking lot, where he had a right to be. While he may have been being rude, playing at parking code enforcement without actual employment in law enforcement, and overall being a (repeat offending) jerk, there is no indication or claim that he was "engaged in a criminal activity."

 

[Sommerswerd]

He was in a parking lot, where he had a right to be. While he may have been being rude, playing at parking code enforcement without actual employment in law enforcement, and overall being a (repeat offending) jerk, there is no indication or claim that he was "engaged in a criminal activity."

which brings up the matter of whether he was engaged in the terroristic threatening or criminal harassment of Brittany Jacobs and her son. If she says he was, that complicates his stand your ground defense.

 

[Lexicus]

which brings up the matter of whether he was engaged in the terroristic threatening or criminal harassment of Brittany Jacobs and her son. If she says he was, that complicates his stand your ground defense.

They were parked illegally, extreme measures were clearly justified.

 

[Ajidica]

They were parked illegally, extreme measures were clearly justified.

To be fair, when I become Dark Emperor of the Earth, double parking and turning in traffic without blinkers is to be punishable by summary execution.

 

[Lexicus]

In all seriousness I hope Sommer is right but never let it be said that I missed an opportunity for a show of callous cynicism.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To be fair, when I become Dark Emperor of the Earth, double parking and turning in traffic without blinkers is to be punishable by summary execution.

blocking the box for me... die box blockers, die...

 

[Lexicus]

My utopia definitely involves having missiles on my car to blow annoying and/or stupid drivers out of my way.

 

[Ajidica]

blocking the box for me... die box blockers, die...

I can't support that because I've done that once when I was behind a car that was behind a car with a trailer.
Thought there was enough space for all of us to make it through the intersection.
Turns out there wasn't. Whoops.

That was an awkward minute.

 

[Lexicus]

blocking the box for me... die box blockers, die...

This is supposed to be a $500 ticket in DC but the police never enforce it. As someone who bikes on the street it makes me very angry

 

[Sommerswerd]

I can't support that because I've done that

is actually a pretty good explanation for most laws... which is why diversity in government is nice

 

[Mouthwash]

I've come to realize (as someone who couldn't care less about the issue) that progressives view gun control as merely a stick to beat the other side with and associate them with atrocities. They aren't interested in what policy might reduce gun violence. The ability to call conservatives "pro-death" is too tempting to resist.

And of course, both sides use the issue as a way of deflecting attention from why so many are willing to do this.

 

[Uberfrog]

I've come to realize (as someone who couldn't care less about the issue) that progressives view gun control as merely a stick to beat the other side with and associate them with atrocities. They aren't interested in what policy might reduce gun violence. The ability to call conservatives "pro-death" is too tempting to resist.

And of course, both sides use the issue as a way of deflecting attention from why so many are willing to do this.

I think this is unfair to the many campaigners who are genuinely trying to bring about a change in the law.

I'm sure there are keyboard-warrior types who are only interested in mudslinging, but there are just as many conservatives who will sling mud right back with very little genuine concern for improving mental health support, gun safety or indeed constitutional rights. I don't think you can extend your claim to all "progressives".

In any case, I don't think you can equate the behaviour of both sides when one is supporting a status quo that would appear to be unacceptable in any other nation. People may disagree on what precise policy might reduce gun violence, but it seems pretty obvious that the current policy will not. Perhaps the incivility you perceive in the progressives is borne more out of frustration that the US Government has uniquely failed to take any action to mitigate this sort of gun violence.

 

[AdrienIer]

The pro-gun control side has made numerous proposals in order to reduce the number of gun related deaths. That was the n°1 strategy. But if the gun nuts are going to block any attempt at reducing gun violence there's not much that can be done but remind everyone of their death toll.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've come to realize (as someone who couldn't care less about the issue) that progressives view gun control as merely a stick to beat the other side with and associate them with atrocities. They aren't interested in what policy might reduce gun violence. The ability to call conservatives "pro-death" is too tempting to resist.

I can't recall many (or any TBH) liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc., here on CFC (or elsewhere FTM), using that phrase to describe conservatives, Republicans, etc in this context. So this whole position you've taken seems pretty strawmanny' and can be dismissed out of hand... but since you claim you "couldn't care less about the issue", whatevs, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think this is unfair to the many campaigners who are genuinely trying to bring about a change in the law.

I didn't say they weren't trying to change the law. It is (as you suggest below) frustration that the flyover country prevents the US from adopting laws that are now common across the developed world. But they aren't really interested in making sure whether those laws will fix America's gun violence, they want to disrupt the perceived 'bigoted,' 'white supremacist' lifestyles and values of ruralites.

I can't recall many (or any TBH) liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc., here on CFC (or elsewhere FTM), using that phrase to describe conservatives, Republicans, etc in this context. So this whole position you've taken seems pretty strawmanny' and can be dismissed out of hand... but since you claim you "couldn't care less about the issue", whatevs, I'll leave it at that.

I've seen it multiple times on this very forum. Usually aimed at opponents of termination (abortion).

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This is a gun thread, not an abortion thread. Don't sidetrack it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[miaasma]

I've come to realize (as someone who couldn't care less about the issue) that progressives view gun control as merely a stick to beat the other side with and associate them with atrocities. They aren't interested in what policy might reduce gun violence. The ability to call conservatives "pro-death" is too tempting to resist.

And of course, both sides use the issue as a way of deflecting attention from why so many are willing to do this.

now this is a galaxy brain take

"progressives" only want to shame conservatives and have no real interest in reducing gun violence

we have reached peak projection