You find this shocking? There's always a small fringe element capable of violence in connection with divisive social and political issues and it's certainly not limited to the United States.Larry B. wrote:Innocent people to be killed? People would kill these McClain people because they knew their address?? Really?
Yep, sure. Why not?Larry B. wrote:And your fucking media has the guts to criticize and demonize 90% of the Eastern countries' people and how they treat each other?
The concealed permit wasn't the issue here. Stand Your Ground isn't a bad law either. It simply says if someone is trying to kill you or inflict great bodily harm you're within your rights to kill them first instead of being required by law to retreat. Without this law if someone was trying to beat you to a pulp you'd be required to try to run away instead of possibly following your more natural instinct to defend yourself physically and possibly kill your aggressor before they kill you.creep wrote:flordia is one of the few states where it is easy to get a concealed weapon permit. you can't do that where i live.
concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits
When questioned on his data:In a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, economics researcher John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.
Another good stat:Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[93] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[91] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[91]
In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."
So let's not suggest laws allowing people to defend themselves are the issue here.Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws.
Well now you didn't say that.creep wrote:huh? all i was saying is that in california you can not carry a loaded firearm out of the house in your neighborhood. i'm not an expert on gun laws everywhere but if that guy did that here he would be charged with a crime. that was my point.
Not everyone has the same instinct (fight/flight), but you are right - in the heat of the moment a survival instinct kicks in.hokahey wrote: Stand Your Ground isn't a bad law either. It simply says if someone is trying to kill you or inflict great bodily harm you're within your rights to kill them first instead of being required by law to retreat. Without this law if someone was trying to beat you to a pulp you'd be required to try to run away instead of possibly following your more natural instinct to defend yourself physically and possibly kill your aggressor before they kill you.
Stand your ground was/is not necessary. It makes for vigilantismchaos wrote:Not everyone has the same instinct (fight/flight), but you are right - in the heat of the moment a survival instinct kicks in.hokahey wrote: Stand Your Ground isn't a bad law either. It simply says if someone is trying to kill you or inflict great bodily harm you're within your rights to kill them first instead of being required by law to retreat. Without this law if someone was trying to beat you to a pulp you'd be required to try to run away instead of possibly following your more natural instinct to defend yourself physically and possibly kill your aggressor before they kill you.
I didn't know an additional law was necessary. I had always assumed that if someone strikes you first, that person would be seen as the aggressor and the chips would fall into place (justifiable homicide).
I guess it gets sticky when the aggressor is unarmed, and the victim has a gun. For instance if you have two guys, the same build, who get into a fight and the one who started it is winning, whose to say that they other guy won't shoot him to save face.
Any law has the potential to be misapplied, as with the Trayvon Martin. As a result, many people are starting to recognize that they bar may be set way too low with some Stand Your Ground laws when it comes to some kind of proof that an individual feared for his/her life.
So someone breaks into your home wielding a knife, you take out your permitted handgun & shoot them. Justifiable.The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse, justification and an exculpation. It is different from other forms of homicide in that due to certain circumstances the homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents. A homicide can only be justified if there is evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another.
Your on line in the bank, a armed robber comes in to hold up the bank. You pull out your permitted gun & shoot the robber. Justified.In cases of self-defense, the defendant should generally obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so. In the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,[1] New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and other Castle Doctrine states, there is no duty to retreat in certain situations (depending on the state, this may apply to one's home, business, or automobile, or to any public place where a person is lawfully present). Preemptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that one was right. Justifiable homicide is a legal gray area, and there is no clear legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable. The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.
Larry B. wrote:Innocent people to be killed? People would kill these McClain people because they knew their address?? Really?creep wrote:i really hate spike lee. nice job spike. he could have cause more innocent people to be killed.
Lee tweeted late Wednesday: "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace."
And your fucking media has the guts to criticize and demonize 90% of the Eastern countries' people and how they treat each other?
You're right about this. We have a different visceral reaction to what you could paraphrase as "better living through chemistry". I don't recoil at the idea of treating, augmenting or otherwise engaging with our flawed bodies in ways that may produce beneficial results for individuals or society. I think we agree that any particular case of this has very serious issues that come along with it (issues of entrenched power structures already in place that may abuse authority, and so on... I know you know these things... libertarians are very concerned with them, and I share that concern...) I just also don't subscribe to what I believe is a crazy view about humans that each individual has a "natural" or "uncorrupted" state which is preferrable to any kind of (chemically, or otherwise) modified state. I think that the history of medicine, and of mental illness in particular, strongly supports my view, even as it provides us with reasons to take your worries seriously. So yeah, I agree that there are problems here. I just wish we could consider them without knee-jerking at the thought of chemicals.hokahey wrote:Adurentibus Spina wrote: Requiring that jurors NOT be high or drunk is also mandatory. And it's not all that different.
One requires them not to be chemically intoxicated, and one requires them to be chemically intoxicated at the hands of a government official. Not all that different?
I suppose the logic is that both "requirements" promote clearer thinking, but you're talking about flawed machines being tasked with the decision to begin with, and asking them to not make themselves more flawed with intoxication is entirely different than trying to fix the machine. How many other chemicals and treatments may better prepare them to be the perfectly impartial machine? If one, why not the others?
As I say above, I think we share a worry about abuse of authority, but I think you jump the gun in your characterization of the possible use of a drug like propanolol for a very narrow purpose like this -- you presuppose negative features in your characterization of it that I can just as easily stipulate out -- so we are at an impass.Hokahey wrote:And if that's the case they should not be selected from the jury pool. But we have the right to have negative opinions on other races and should not be subjected to government reprogramming via the use of forced chemical intake to promote a "better way of thinking."The aim is to have an impartial jury. You can't be totally impartial if you have an implicitly racist disposition.
Guns don't kill people,Artemis wrote:
doI'm with you here. I really am. My concerns come in when the government forces these treatments or corrections.Adurentibus Spina wrote: You're right about this. We have a different visceral reaction to what you could paraphrase as "better living through chemistry". I don't recoil at the idea of treating, augmenting or otherwise engaging with our flawed bodies in ways that may produce beneficial results for individuals or society.
Your generalization here is quite frightening...dali wrote:Hello, LA riots? Yes, innocent people were killed in that. When blacks in this country get pissed off (whether rightly OR wrongly) they tend to go a little crazy, which is really what the problem is here. :lightbulb:
To add, people are forgetting the even bigger issue of the police not acting imo as they would if the victim had been another race...call me crazy but I am seriously of the opinion that if the races happened to be reversed the police would have arrested the shooter...people are forgetting the history the police and the media have in this country of not treating so called minorities the same as they do white people... so imo its not just that this kid lost his life, its the fact that it was handled as if the value of someone's life was lessened by his color, etc... how come this kid sat in the morgue for days when his parents notified the authorities that their kid was missing? How come he was killed so close to his destination and no one put two and two together? How come there have been so many efforts on the part of the media to make the person who lost their life into a villain...his facebook & twitter are now up for discussion as apparently he smoked weed and had gold teeth in one picture...the fact that he was suspended from school came out, etc, while Zimmerman's friends etc are on the news saying he's a good guy and he was justified etc...its absolutely CRAZY to me that its so blatant what's going on but the discussion ends up going all over the place to justify yet another unarmed person of color being killed...Juana wrote:With all the talk of the racism I can say more so its based on a hate. Having grown up in the LA area, earlier in this thread there was a "I don't get the racism element the Zimmerman guy was Latino" or whatever. Go to parts of LA and you will understand that there is a lot of hate from the Black and Brown cultures in some areas.
But the bigger issue here is people acting on fear and possibly hate. He was told to cease and desist by the local authorities and ignored that order. Why? Who knows. Could be racism, could just be an outright hate for others. Whatever the thing is that someone got killed and someone needs to answer for their actions in regards to this. Had the individual followed the order and left the kid alone perhaps that kid would still be alive today and this conversation would not be happening.
Having experienced a racist altercation personally because of my brother being mixed race, I can say its not the ideals that bother me, its the people acting out their ideals and hurting others. "it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good. . . ." an excerpt from Civil Disobedience that while taken out of context can apply here.
Please provide evidence for your claim that this law specifically results in vigilantism. I'd also like to know why you obviously see this as a bad thing. Explain.Romeo wrote: Stand your ground was/is not necessary. It makes for vigilantism
This is NOT universally true, which is why some states have Castle Doctrine laws and Stand your Ground laws. Living in New York I'd think you may be familiar with "Duty to Retreat", which requires you to have first avoided conflict and secondly, taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.So someone breaks into your home wielding a knife, you take out your permitted handgun & shoot them. Justifiable.
Your on line in the bank, a armed robber comes in to hold up the bank. You pull out your permitted gun & shoot the robber. Justified.
This couldn't be more wrong. And ironically, FL is one of the few states that what you're saying may be true and this is because of the Stand your Ground law. 
I was talking about the white groups picketing. But way to assume. If you would have got the movie reference there was both white and black groups picketing outside the courthouse and there was drama and violence as the police couldn't control the differing crowds. Its a safe bet to assume that there could be mob violence by any number of people because of the issues debated nationally here, as well as the total whackos that will use any excuse to justify whatever their cause is.Romeo wrote:yea, look at them going crazy
I would say the shepard must be African american but he's german
you want evidence? Trayvon Martin.hokahey wrote:Please provide evidence for your claim that this law specifically results in vigilantism. I'd also like to know why you obviously see this as a bad thing. Explain.Romeo wrote: Stand your ground was/is not necessary. It makes for vigilantism
What's funny is that you then attempt to explain how Justifiable Homicide laws mean Stand Your Ground is unecessary because the same actions are legally justified. So Justifiable Homicide must also result in vigilantism right? They are the same laws according to you.
This is NOT universally true, which is why some states have Castle Doctrine laws and Stand your Ground laws. Living in New York I'd think you may be familiar with "Duty to Retreat", which requires you to have first avoided conflict and secondly, taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.So someone breaks into your home wielding a knife, you take out your permitted handgun & shoot them. Justifiable.
Google Richard Aiken to read a high profile case where the victim was convicted of manslaughter for defending himself in a life threatening situation.
And guess what?
He didn't use a gun.
Your on line in the bank, a armed robber comes in to hold up the bank. You pull out your permitted gun & shoot the robber. Justified.
A quick look around the internet will make clear of this, as this exact scenario is often used to describe a situation where you WOULD be convicted or murder for shooting the robber.
A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat
vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.
pssssst... my response was to Dali and his crazy assertion that black people go crazyJuana wrote:I was talking about the white groups picketing. But way to assume. If you would have got the movie reference there was both white and black groups picketing outside the courthouse and there was drama and violence as the police couldn't control the differing crowds. Its a safe bet to assume that there could be mob violence by any number of people because of the issues debated nationally here, as well as the total whackos that will use any excuse to justify whatever their cause is.Romeo wrote:yea, look at them going crazy
I would say the shepard must be African american but he's german
Did you NOT read the quote where justifible homicide " It is different from other forms of homicide in that due to certain circumstances the homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents. A homicide can only be justified if there is evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another"hokahey wrote:Your on line in the bank, a armed robber comes in to hold up the bank. You pull out your permitted gun & shoot the robber. Justified.
A quick look around the internet will make clear of this, as this exact scenario is often used to describe a situation where you WOULD be convicted or murder for shooting the robber.
by the time I hit submit with my retort there was like 5 other posts in betweenJuana wrote:Oh my bad I mentioned picketing, sorry about MY ASSUMING
