Itinerant Air-Cooled

Apparently states get to write their own laws. MN has theirs, MO has a Castle Law. FL has a Stand Your Ground Law. They each are different in how they allow deadly force to be used. But why does anyone think they need a gun anyway? Over on The Samba there is a thread started by a guy who wants to know what kind of gun should he have for a cross country trip. You should read all the advice. The stupid meter goes all the way in the red. Just what we need. Some jumpy guy with a gun.

Amskeptic wrote:

BellePlaine wrote: it’s so important to know if Zimmerman was walking towards Martin or walking away towards his car. From the 911 call, it sounds to me like Martin was confronting Zimmerman asking “why are you following me?” and Zimmerman was re-engaging in the fight saying “what are you doing here?” If Zimmerman was walking towards Martin, then they were both willing participants which removes Zimmerman claim for self-defense.

Do you think the confrontations between angry morons and scared kids will include "gee, which way am I supposed to walk here?"

Colin

Yeah, if you are claiming self-defense then you'd better act like you didn't want to be there and head straight for your truck. The shooting took place South of Zimmerman's truck and North of Martin's girlfriend's house. Zimmerman couldn’t have been on defense he was on the path to Martin and not to his truck.

glasseye wrote:Zimmerman claims life-threatening injuries. Easily verifiable, yet no such attempt to do so is apparent.

Why not?

Really. Why the $%*# NOT? How is this even possible?

I thought I heard that as of yesterday the police hadn't interviewed the girlfriend who was talking to Martin via cell phone as Zimmerman was following him. Unbelievable.

RussellK wrote:Apparently states get to write their own laws. MN has theirs, MO has a Castle Law. FL has a Stand Your Ground Law. They each are different in how they allow deadly force to be used. But why does anyone think they need a gun anyway? Over on The Samba there is a thread started by a guy who wants to know what kind of gun should he have for a cross country trip. You should read all the advice. The stupid meter goes all the way in the red. Just what we need. Some jumpy guy with a gun.

The Stand Your Ground law allows you to not have to run away from your attacker and removes the No Lesser Force element to the three elements that must be present to justify using lethal force; unwilling participant, life in danger, no lesser force. If he was walking towards Martin, that makes him a willing participant. These were two guys coming towards each other, there was no “standing ”, Zimmerman was engaging Martin.

Why does anyone need a gun? Some people think that they have the right to protect themselves from bad guys. I agree.

BellePlaine wrote:Why does anyone need a gun? Some people think that they have the right to protect themselves from bad guys. I agree.

Bad guys? Seriously? I just don't perceive the threat as being so predominant that we need to arm ourselves.

RussellK wrote:

BellePlaine wrote:Why does anyone need a gun? Some people think that they have the right to protect themselves from bad guys. I agree.

Bad guys? Seriously?

I respectfully don't understand your question. Everyone has a right to their life thus they have the right to protect it, right? I'm arguing that you don't have the right to go around with a gun LOOKING for bad guys, playing hero. You cannot be a willing participant.

BellePlaine wrote:

RussellK wrote:

BellePlaine wrote:Why does anyone need a gun? Some people think that they have the right to protect themselves from bad guys. I agree.

Bad guys? Seriously?

I respectfully don't understand your question. Everyone has a right to their life thus they have the right to protect it, right? I'm arguing that you don't have the right to go around with a gun LOOKING for bad guys, playing hero. You cannot be a willing participant.

I recognize there are bad people in the world. I also think the odds I will have an encounter with one is statistically unlikely and even less so an encounter that will exactly match the circumstances you listed that would allow me to use a gun. A few weeks ago we had an accidental shooting in our community when some fool with a concealed carry permit dropped his coat causing his derringer to go off. It shot a kid in the side. Because the gun was permitted the owner wasn't charged. It was called an accident. I'm not nearly as concerned about encounters with bad guys as I am with Mr Citizen who thinks its within his right to inject his firearm into my space, into my life. Let's consider the rights of the kid that was accidentally shot.

edited to add: I think there are individuals with circumstances that justify concealed guns but I think we've gotten too free and easy with who gets a permit.

If we're filling in the blanks ourselves, here's how I fill them in:

We have a gun-toting fella with some sort of personal score to settle with the "bad guys" of the world.

And we have a young man who doesn't have a problem with giving a beating to someone who crosses him.

The two collided. One lost his life; the other does interviews with police, then Oprah, and writes a book about it. Fairly straightforward.

I have yet to figure out what is so unique about this story that it has captivated newspaper readers nationwide.

RussellK wrote:
I recognize there are bad people in the world. I also think the odds I will have an encounter with one is statistically unlikely and even less so an encounter that will exactly match the circumstances you listed that would allow me to use a gun. A few weeks ago we had an accidental shooting in our community when some fool with a concealed carry permit dropped his coat causing his derringer to go off. It shot a kid in the side. Because the gun was permitted the owner wasn't charged. It was called an accident. I'm not nearly as concerned about encounters with bad guys as I am with Mr Citizen who thinks its within his right to inject his firearm into my space, into my life. Let's consider the rights of the kid that was accidentally shot.

edited to add: I think there are individuals with circumstances that justify concealed guns but I think we've gotten too free and easy with who gets a permit.

We’re on the same page here, Russell. Yes, let’s consider that kid’s rights. But I think that there is a way to protect the kid's rights and everyone else’s right too.

The reason why I do not carry a gun is because I don't want the responsibility of bullet. If you kill/hurt someone with your car, the driver is liable for damages, accident or not. I don't see why it would be any different with a shooting accident. The fool who dropped his coat might not get in trouble for having a gun but he certainly has to be held accountable for the bullet. Did he get off without paying anything to the child? No medical expenses? No nothing? Having the right to carry a gun does not give you the right to fire it. If it goes off, expect to defend yourself in court.

I feel bad for everyone in involved in the Martin/Zimmerman case. Even if Zimmerman was in the right, his life is now changed, probably not for the better.

Velokid1 wrote:

I have yet to figure out what is so unique about this story that it has captivated newspaper readers nationwide.

Congressmen getting kicked off of the floor, Presidential statements, celebrities tweeting the address of family members, national media's bias editing, etc. I started this thread to have a logical discussion without all of that hype.

BellePlaine wrote:The reason why I do not carry a gun is because I don't want the responsibility of bullet. If you kill/hurt someone with your car, the driver is liable for damages, accident or not. I don't see why it would be any different with a shooting accident. The fool who dropped his coat might not get in trouble for having a gun but he certainly has to be held accountable for the bullet. Did he get off without paying anything to the child? No medical expenses? No nothing? Having the right to carry a gun does not give you the right to fire it. If you use it, expect to defend yourself in court.

I feel bad for everyone in involved in the Martin/Zimmerman case. Even if Zimmerman was in the right, his life is now changed, probably not for the better.

I don't know what happened other than there were no criminal charges. Maybe he'll lose his permit? Maybe he'll get sued? But if that bullet had severed the kids spine what amount of money is that worth.

The story is intriguing because it demonstrates from both sides the outcome of fear in our country. Both sides have a story to tell. Is anyone listening?

BellePlaine wrote: Even if Zimmerman was in the right, his life is now changed, probably not for the better.

I do not see how he was in any sort of "right". The instant he was told not to follow the kid, he was in the wrong.
Colin

I still don't get it. Either Zimmerman was receiving perceived life-threatening injuries (as he stated) or not.

This is easily verifiable by a physician. If not, it's murder. Plain and simple.

The important question is: Why aren't they being verified?

Statistically, if there is a gun around, it will injure or kill a friend or family member long before it is put to use in defense of a person's life. Statistics on hunting rifles may be different, I don't know, but I suspect not. My Grandfather lost a daughter, my Aunt, because a hunting rifle was in the house. If it hadn't been there, perhaps she would still be here. A suicide.


neal

Amskeptic wrote:

BellePlaine wrote: Even if Zimmerman was in the right, his life is now changed, probably not for the better.

I do not see how he was in any sort of "right". The instant he was told not to follow the kid, he was in the wrong.
Colin

I've been accused of prejudging the players in this case, I was taking that into consideration.

You make a good point GE but receiving life-threatening injuries when you are a willing participant still doesn't justify killing as self-defense.