Zimmerman, murderer and plagiarist

[laklak]

Oi! I resemble that remark...

[Blind groper]

To rEvo

You are half right.

The half you got right is that I suggested to Seth that he was a wannabe vigilante.

The "yellow bellied coward" bit was directed at a certain kind of person. If Seth chooses to accept that this applies to him, that is his problem.

[pErvinalia]

Except you directly related it to him.

Whatever, I don't really care. It's clear to me when people are attacking each other whether they are specifically ad homming them or not. Don't act holier than tho.

[Seth]

Seth

Over the last year or two, you have made many statements that imply you have little personal restraint when it comes to guns and vigilanteism.

You lie.

For example, you stated that, if a burglar entered your home, you would shoot him twice in the chest and then in the head before you stopped to talk to him.

Find the quote. Post it. Go ahead, I dare you. You'll find that I stated, very carefully, that given LAWFUL CAUSE to exercise deadly physical force I would not waste any time talking to him or making threats. If he has done the things that justify the use of deadly physical force under the law, then I am in IMMINENT danger of death or serious bodily injury and there is no time to waste. Here's a clue for you: You can't talk and shoot at the same time. The statement was made, and has been made before by me, to point out that this ain't Hollywood and there is absolutely NO legal requirement that you give any kind of warning whatsoever once the threshold conditions for the lawful use of deadly force have been crossed. Hollywood myths cause far too many people who are at a crisis point in a self-defense act to hesitate and shout some inane and worse-than-useless Hollywood platitude at someone that is fucking trying to kill them, when what they should be doing is acting in self-defense, using that force which is reasonable and appropriate to put a stop to the threat.

So yes, if a burglar breaks violent entry into my home with the obvious intent to commit another crime besides the uninvited entry therein, and he offers to use any degree of physical force against any occupant, and I reasonably believe that a lesser degree of force will be inadequate, then I absolutely reserve the right to exercise my unalienable right to use deadly force without first engaging in conversation with my attacker. The choice is up to the intruder. If he wants to avoid the possibility of my using lethal force, and two to the chest and one to the head is standard protocol when you absolutely must render an attacker incapable of continuing the conduct that justifies shooting him in the first place, then he should refrain from such activities.

If you think that's "little personal restraint" it just demonstrates how fucking ignorant you are of what I have actually written time and time again, self defense tactics or necessary response to life-critical incidents involving armed assailants. In other words, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you should shut the fuck up and listen to the expert, which is me, who has decade upon decade of training and experience in the subject matter that you seem to think you understand. Here's a clue, you understand exactly nothing about such things, and you likely never will, and I'm glad for that, because nobody should have to know this stuff. But I do, and other people do out of necessity because we have seen or been the victims of sudden, violent, deadly attacks and we know from bitter, stomach-churning, nightmare-inducing experience exactly what happens when someone doesn't know what to do, doesn't have the tools or experience to do it, or hesitates in using those tools when facing an armed criminal intent on killing you. You've never seen a man with his intestines spilled in the middle of a dance floor in a cantina and watched him die knowing there was nothing you could do. That man, and I see him right now, was murdered between one heartbeat and the next by a drunken, jealous Mexican illegal wielding a straight-razor who sliced him open from crotch to throat in one swipe. The poor bastard was dead right then, but didn't actually expire for a few minutes, long before the ambulance could arrive, not that it would have helped.

If I'd have been there and seen that Mexican pull out his razor and move to cut someone would I have wasted a fucking heartbeat putting a stop to his attack? No fucking way. I wasn't there, a man died before he knew what was happening and you think I ought to take the time to TALK to the asshole that killed him if I had any possibility of stopping him? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

You take a specific example of a specific situation that I describe in detail and then you turn it into some purported general policy I'm espousing. That's fucking ignorant and intellectually dishonest beyond measure.

Until you've had to make the split-second decision whether or not to take a human life to save an innocent human life...and made the right choice and succeeded in protecting the innocent against vicious attack...like your daughter or son...that threatens to kill them, you can just shove your insulting, libelous opinions right up your ass till they pop out the top of your head.

That kind of statement does not imply responsible behaviour.

You're wrong because you are abysmally ignorant about anything to do with self defense.

In fact, I regard anyone who does that as a yellow bellied despicable coward who is prepared to steal another person's life because he is too scared to wait long enough to determine if the 'offender' is a threat or not.

I consider anyone who pontificates out their ass about things they don't understand, despite having it explained to them in agonizing detail time and time again to be a mentally-defective pinhead who should be locked up in a rubber room somewhere for the good of society, so I guess we're even.

By the way, when someone kicks in your door in the middle of the night and comes at you with a crowbar, knocks you out, ties you to a chair and proceeds to rape and disembowel your wife and daughter before your eyes because you stopped to have a chat with him about his intentions, don't come crying to me.

Human life is too precious, even if that life belongs to a criminal, to take without giving that person every chance.

The violent criminal forfeits his right to care, consideration and life at the instant that he engages in unlawful behavior that raises a reasonable belief in another that he, or another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that a lesser degree of physical force other than lethal force would be inadequate to terminate the threat.

Sometimes, he who hesitates is lost. And THAT'S what I'm talking about...and only that.

You choose to be deliberately libelous and insulting because you stupidly think that this means that I condone the use of deadly force in circumstances that fall short of that legal standard. You couldn't be more wrong, and the fact that you don't give a fuck about even understanding this makes you worthy of no respect at all.

[Svartalf]

I need a beer, lets fry the fuck and hit the pub, lads.

If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be in court. Case closed.

That's how the Revolutionary tribunal worked during the Reign of Terror

[Blind groper]

Seth

You can stop a criminal many ways. If you have a gun and are forced to use it, the best way is a single shot to the abdomen. That has several advantages.
1. It is the largest part of the human body and the easiest to hit.
2. It immediately immobilises the victim, so that he cannot continue an attack. Try forcing an attack after receiving a gut bullet. You cannot.
3. It is survivable in most cases, assuming rapid paramedic assistance.

This option is one you have never, never, never suggested in any of your posts. The conclusion is that you are not interested in saving human life.

[Seth]

There is an important difference, Seth, between calling someone something insulting, and making a general statement that only becomes insulting if you take it personally.

I have several times made such a general statement, which you responded to with ad homs directed against me personally. Not that it bothers me. I have the hide of a rhino, which is why I do not respond to your personal insults in like kind. But you would keep further away from moderator troubles, if you tried to respond more appropriately. There are clever ways available to get your point across without drawing moderator phlegm.

Bud, I was playing that game before this forum was a glint in anyone's eye. Just ask rEv or one of the asshats at RDF or RatSkep how adept I am at slinging sly personal insults.

I'm not being coy because you don't deserve even an iota of respect for your calumnies and slurs against me, however obtuse you choose to be, and I choose to answer them directly and call you what you are. If that gets me time off, so be it. But my words will sit there right next to your lies and insults for all to see, which is what I require. Since the Mods here won't give you time off for what you do, I see no reason to hold back or be polite to you. You are one of the most ill-mannered people I've ever had the distinct displeasure of encountering in the Internet in my quarter-century of participation. You are part of a very small group of people whom I would NOT volunteer to have a drink with, and whom, were I a lesser man, I would beat the ever-living shit out of if I ever encountered you. Good thing for you that I'm not that sort of person...which is why I get to carry a gun and you don't.

Even rEv isn't in that elite crew. Hell, even FactMan2, one of my most virulent critics, isn't in that group.

You rub elbows with two people only, one of whom is insane and the other who is the subject of a restraining order.

I wouldn't shit on you if you were on fire.

[pErvinalia]

Who are the two people he rubs elbows with? I'm intrigued!

[pErvinalia]

By the way, I'd have a beer with you too, Seth. A few years ago, I mightn't have, but I've loosened up a bit, and you've displayed here on this forum that you are indeed human after all. My view is that your beliefs on violence and "socialism" are a product of your society. If I lived in a society as violent as parts of the US, I'd probably get a gun and shoot first ask questions later. BG might indeed be the same. NZ is a LOT different to how I understand parts of the US to be. NZ is a lot different to Australia. NZ is a peaceful happy place, with a pretty well educated population. In that regard it's better than Australia, I believe. In fact, it's why I nearly moved there about a decade ago (and would move there tomorrow if I didn't have my young kids here in Australia). Both Seth and BG are products of their society. As Australian, I and some others can look on the problem from a middle ground. While we are more like NZ than the US, we are a macho society that doesn't think it strange that one should resort to some level of violence to solve even trivial problems.

[Seth]

Seth

You can stop a criminal many ways.

No shit Sherlock.

If you have a gun and are forced to use it, the best way is a single shot to the abdomen.

How the fuck would you know what's the "best way" to shoot someone? You've never shot anyone. You've never been in a gunfight. You've never even SEEN a gunfight. You know nothing about gunfights or gunfighting. You know nothing about physiology or the effects of trauma on the human body. You trying to tell tens of thousands of law-enforcement and military professionals like me how to do something that you have absolutely no understanding of or training in, whereas we stake our very lives on knowing these things and sharing them with one another and we study and practice and train constantly to survive armed encounters.

Are you really stupid enough to think that I'm making this stuff up? I'm telling you exactly what my Academy instructors, FTOs and fellow officers told me as a rookie, and what I've told dozens of rookies myself. This information is based on expert, professional review of thousands upon thousands of armed encounters, laborious and intensive research into ballistics, energy transfer, human anatomy, wound production and effect and many, many other things that you haven't the faintest inkling of. You're a child trying to tell Einstein how to add two plus two. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and the only reason I'm even responding is that you are purveying DANGEROUS false information that can get people killed if they are dumb enough to believe you.

That has several advantages.
1. It is the largest part of the human body and the easiest to hit.
2. It immediately immobilises the victim, so that he cannot continue an attack. Try forcing an attack after receiving a gut bullet. You cannot.
3. It is survivable in most cases, assuming rapid paramedic assistance.

Tell you what, you and I will stand 10 feet apart, each of us armed with an identical handgun, and on "GO" we'll draw and fire at each other. You can only fire once into my abdomen. I get to shoot as many times as I can before being incapacitated. Make sure your life insurance is paid up and you've said goodby to your family because you are going to die long before I do, even if I let you shoot me first.

You do not know what you're talking about, it's just that simple.

You don't understand the dynamics of a gunfight. You don't understand the stresses of a critical life-threatening shooting situation. You don't understand the effects of an adrenalin dump on your marksmanship abilities. You don't understand how drugs can prevent an assailant from even feeling pain. You haven't seen the picture of the crazed killer hopped up on PCP who took TWENTY NINE rounds from the police, all over his body, before he was incapacitated. Not dead, just incapacitated. It took longer for him to die. I saw that picture my first day at the Police Academy and I've never forgotten it.

I would go to the trouble of explaining exactly why you're wrong and why every law enforcement agency in the civilized world with any kind of training at all trains officers to shoot to center mass and keep shooting until the individual is down, but you're not worth wasting my time on anymore.

I'll be happy to explain it to anyone else however.

This option is one you have never, never, never suggested in any of your posts. The conclusion is that you are not interested in saving human life.

There's two reasons I've never done so: First, you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about and doing as you suggest is highly likely to get you killed; and second, if one has legal justification to use deadly force, then deadly force is the only thing that will save your life, and you'd better use it and use it properly if you expect to survive. I'm astonished at your complete incapacity to understand this very, very simple fact. If you don't need to use deadly force in self defense, then you CANNOT legally do so. But you CAN legally use deadly force in self defense, this automatically means that you have no other choice and no time to do anything other than use deadly force.

Get a clue for Christ's sake.

When someone is trying to kill you and you have to shoot them, you fire two rounds to center mass and then raise your sights to the head. If the head is still there, it means you have either missed, or have failed to incapacitate the assailant, perhaps because the assailant is wearing body armor and your center-mass shots were ineffective, and you take a head shot. It all happens in less than two seconds from start to finish if you're doing it right.

If you take one shot to the abdomen and then stand there waiting to see if your killer has been incapacitated or not, you, like many, many others, will end up dead because your sympathy for the crook overwhelmed your survival sense. You to it to me and I can guarantee you that I can unload all eight rounds from my H&K into your heart, lungs and head before I even go down, because if it's a gunfight, I'm going to win, no matter what. No matter how many times you shoot me I'm going to shoot to center mass until you stop moving, even if I die two seconds later. My mental strength and determination will give me the advantage and you will die, so go ahead and allow your delicate sensibilities cause you to hesitate, delay, dither and wring your hands over that "sacred" human life that's trying to take yours...or your son's or daughter's or wife's. You'll either live to regret it or you won't. In either case you'll get exactly what you deserve for being so utterly boneheaded and unwilling to listen to someone who actually does know exactly what he's talking about and has the credentials to prove it.

[Seth]

Who are the two people he rubs elbows with? I'm intrigued!

Nobody you want to know. Truly dangerous people, and I'm not kidding. I didn't "rub elbows" with them, they became enraged at my ability to deconstruct their arguments on the internet and utterly lost it, both of them. Police were involved, and guns.

There's plenty more people out there who would like to kill me but they are just part of being a cop. The two I'm referring to were internet nutbars of the first water and are exactly why I don't reveal my name on line. Ever.

[FBM]

I need a beer, lets fry the fuck and hit the pub, lads.

If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be in court. Case closed.

That's how the Revolutionary tribunal worked during the Reign of Terror

Robespierre knew his shit. And then one day...well...

[Seth]

By the way, I'd have a beer with you too, Seth. A few years ago, I mightn't have, but I've loosened up a bit, and you've displayed here on this forum that you are indeed human after all. My view is that your beliefs on violence and "socialism" are a product of your society. If I lived in a society as violent as parts of the US, I'd probably get a gun and shoot first ask questions later.

People who ask questions when they should be (and are legally justified to be) shooting are what we like to call "corpses."

BG might indeed be the same. NZ is a LOT different to how I understand parts of the US to be. NZ is a lot different to Australia. NZ is a peaceful happy place, with a pretty well educated population. In that regard it's better than Australia, I believe. In fact, it's why I nearly moved there about a decade ago (and would move there tomorrow if I didn't have my young kids here in Australia). Both Seth and BG are products of their society. As Australian, I and some others can look on the problem from a middle ground. While we are more like NZ than the US, we are a macho society that doesn't think it strange that one should resort to some level of violence to solve even trivial problems.

Thing is, BG (and you to some extent) are failing to understand the context of these sorts of discussions. I try to be very specific when I discuss this precisely so that it's clear that the ONLY thing I'm talking about are extremis situations where lethal force is both authorized and absolutely necessary. This ought not lead any reasonable person to the belief that I'm epousing any sort of "vigilante" or careless attitude about firearms. That's just stupidity, ignorance or deliberate mendacity at work. You don't shoot someone unless you have to shoot them. What I'm talking about is what you have to do when you MUST shoot someone or somebody else dies. That's why I carefully state the legal threshold for the use of deadly force every time I discuss this, but it seems like some people cannot avoid globalizing a specific tactical practice used on in a specific situation into some generalized agenda involving wild-eyed gunplay. There are so many factors one has to consider before even drawing a weapon that we could discuss it for a century and not cover it, but it should be obvious that I've never, ever suggested that someone shoot another human being unless and until they have the requisite legal authority and need to do so. Why BG doesn't get this is beyond me.

There's a million things one can and might and ought to do if the situation permits actions short of lethal force, and I advocate every one of them in the strongest way possible, but that's NOT what I'm talking about and never have been. If I can avoid a confrontation, I will. If I can evade a confrontation I will. If I can talk my way out of a confrontation I will. If I can OC spray my way out of a confrontation I will. If I believe I can fight my way out of an attack, I will.

But when comes the narrow passage, where its your life, or your loved one's life, or his life, there is no time for hesitation and no room for misguided mercy. Sometimes, and fortunately for me it's been, and I pray it will remain never, one is required to take another human being's life in self defense. And if and when that time comes, all this idiocy BG has been spouting will get you KILLED if you listen to him because he's quite simply utterly, ignorantly wrong.

I think it's great that you both live in countries where the statistical risk of being placed in that situation is small. But the fact is, as Dunblane and Port Arthur prove beyond any doubt, it CAN happen to you, or someone you love. It happened to a beautiful 16 year old girl here in Colorado just the other day. She was sitting in the library when a deranged student walked in and shot her in the head. It happened to two customers in a skate shop in a shopping mall. The examples are beyond counting, and they happen "down under" just like they happen here. Less often perhaps, but to the one on the wrong end of the gun, or knife, or baseball bat their statistical probability of being subjected to a potentially deadly attack is one-hundred percent.

And if you listen to BG, or any of the other anti-gun pundits who infest the internet and take their advice, if...and I reiterate if it happens to you you're going to die, or your wife and kids are going to die. And you will die because you didn't listen to me and resolve to do what is necessary for you and your loved ones to survive and you wasted their lives being concerned about the safety of the one who kills you.

It should be obvious to anyone of even moderate intelligence that when it's you or him, it's you or him, and if you don't know what to do to survive, and/or you don't have the tools to help you survive, you're going to die. Thinking about these things and planning for them doesn't mean you're a cold-blooded "vigilante," it means you're a rational human being who understands that knowledge, training and skill are never wasted and may be vital.

So on the astronomical chance that someone reading this thread ever finds themselves in harm's way, and perhaps, if they are lucky, they happen to have or come into possession of a handgun with which defend themselves, and they have no other choice, I don't want them doing something as fucking stupid as what BG suggests. I want them to do what every trained police officer and soldier is trained to do: two to the chest, one to the head, move to the next target if there is one. Once everyone's been served a first helping, go back and do it again till the threat is neutralized. If you don't train to do this, if you ever need to do it, you won't be able to do it, and you will die.

You may die anyway, but I'm not going to let BG's bilge stand unremarked upon because it's dangerously wrong and could get someone killed.

If y'all can't understand my motives after all the care I've take to make it perfectly clear, then fuck all y'all and I'll sign off forever because you would all be too stupid to bother with anymore. I'm damned close to concluding that anyway.

That being said, I agree, you've mellowed, and we've both taken to enjoying the repartee rather than letting it get under our skins.

BG's calumnies however aren't honestly or respectfully sharp-tounged, as yours usually are, they are just ignorant insults from someone who knows nothing, and I find him to be despicable.

[pErvinalia]

The thing is, there's no "right" answer, in either society. If there was, there wouldn't be need of courts and legal precedents, etc. Your environment has shaped you as much as his has shaped BG. Such that you might end up killing someone who it turned out wasn't a real threat (even though you might be legally justified killing them), and BG might end up dead because he underestimated the threat. But he is unlikely to kill anyone who wasn't a real threat. That's the sort of tradeoffs we all make in our different societies all the time. No one's life is guaranteed. We all trade off a bit of our own safety for a bit of reciprocal freedom.

Alls I'm saying is that there's no right answer, and I think for either you or BG to proclaim that there is, is misguided. But I do understand both your views (although, BG's 'sanctity of life' bullshit does get tiring). I'm pretty sure if I lived in a more dangerous part of the US or, say, South Africa, I'd most likely get a gun and I would act as though what might seem ordinary threats in Australia or NZ could be very potentially life-threatening. And I'd act fully in accordance with the law to the best of my ability. And if that meant shooting someone dead, then I'd live with that. I value my life too much to treat everything as a benign situation. It's actually pretty poor risk-management, given the terminal nature of being wrong.

edit: just to add.. I would only live in such a violent society for very limited and specific reasons. Most likely I'd choose to live in a safer society, than arm myself and consider shooting people.

[Seth]

The thing is, there's no "right" answer, in either society.

Sorry, but you're wrong. There is a right answer for the innocent victim: Survive, whatever it takes.

If there was, there wouldn't be need of courts and legal precedents, etc. Your environment has shaped you as much as his has shaped BG. Such that you might end up killing someone who it turned out wasn't a real threat (even though you might be legally justified killing them), and BG might end up dead because he underestimated the threat. But he is unlikely to kill anyone who wasn't a real threat. That's the sort of tradeoffs we all make in our different societies all the time. No one's life is guaranteed. We all trade off a bit of our own safety for a bit of reciprocal freedom.

True enough.

Alls I'm saying is that there's no right answer, and I think for either you or BG to proclaim that there is, is misguided.

I disagree. As I said, if one is the victim of a violent attack, surviving the attack demonstrates that the right choice was made, whatever that choice was, whether capitulation and surrender, flight or lethal self-defense.

But I do understand both your views (although, BG's 'sanctity of life' bullshit does get tiring). I'm pretty sure if I lived in a more dangerous part of the US or, say, South Africa, I'd most likely get a gun and I would act as though what might seem ordinary threats in Australia or NZ could be very potentially life-threatening. And I'd act fully in accordance with the law to the best of my ability. And if that meant shooting someone dead, then I'd live with that. I value my life too much to treat everything as a benign situation. It's actually pretty poor risk-management, given the terminal nature of being wrong.

edit: just to add.. I would only live in such a violent society for very limited and specific reasons. Most likely I'd choose to live in a safer society, than arm myself and consider shooting people.

You'll notice that I've never argued or demanded that everyone be armed. I've stated that it makes for a safer society, which is factually true. I've stated that it's a good idea, which it is. I've stated that it might save an innocent life, which it does, a lot.

But I'm a Libertarian and my foremost principle is individual liberty...including the liberty to do stupid or self-harmful things and make bad and ignorant decisions, and therefore I respect the right of anyone NOT to be armed. What I don't respect is those who use false data and lies to try to justify using the power of the state to DISARM others based on their own flawed understanding and analysis of risk vs. reward.

Those sorts of people are despicable scum of the lowest sort because they seek to impose their beliefs on others by force in ways that remove their liberty to decide to what extent they need to take measures to secure their safety. This sort of reprehensible and disgusting behavior gets people killed all the time, and I refuse to stand by silently and let it pass unremarked.