Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he would be parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.

Can you rephrase that in English?

My point was that he probably spends most of his day with his gun. At least all his free time.

On what basis do you say that? Because he's Hispanic?

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

Apparently many do...you, of all people should realize that, living in Texas. I realize, however that you live in Austin which is the exception rather than the rule.

In view of the martin case, I think the stand your ground law will be modified and more specific if not changed all together. Usually takes someone to die before anything changes.

What do you think the Stand Your Ground law is?

[Seth]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

Depends on what you mean by "start shit." Obviously if I'm doing nothing illegal and he thinks I am, we'll have a civil discussion about it and try to resolve our differences amicably and without the use of force, and if things turn ugly because he won't be reasonable, I'll call the police to come and resolve the dispute before anybody gets shot. On the other hand, if he unlawfully proposes to use deadly physical force against me when I've done nothing to justify it, we'll have what we like to call a good old fashioned shootout, and he'd better hope that he's better and faster than I am, because I'm pretty damned good and fast with my handgun.

And yes, I do want to live in that sort of society, because the vast majority of the time such issues are peaceably resolved through the exchange of information without violence. If he thinks I'm trespassing in his private gated community, and he confronts me about my presence, I'm going to politely explain to him why I'm there and what my legal justification for being there is...such as that I'm visiting a specific individual living at a specific address, while acknowledging his right to approach and question my presence. I've been on the other side of such discussions thousands of times on my ranch, and only twice have the persons I approached been belligerent right off the bat. The first time I was sixteen and a pair of duck hunters floating down the creek in a canoe pointed their shotguns at me and told me to fuck off when I told them they were trespassing. I was unarmed at the time but I ran home and called the Sheriff, who unfortunately didn't find them downstream. The second time, a fellow hunting geese illegally on my property became irate when I told him he could not trespass to recover a goose he'd illegally shot over my property. In that case, there was no real problem because I was visibly armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic "assault" rifle while on "goose patrol" early one January morning. You see, there was a time when hundreds of goose hunters would trespass on the railroad line that bordered my ranch, a right of way 100 feet wide, to shoot at the flocks of geese rising and returning to the game preserve where hunting was not permitted.

They would shoot at the geese over the neighboring properties thinking (wrongly) that they would be allowed to go collect their geese when they fell on my and my neighbor's property, due to a provision in the hunting laws that allowed hunters to pursue wounded game onto private property, but only if they first attempted to get permission to do so. I spent several years patrolling the pastures in my truck in the early morning hours preventing these hunters from trespassing to recover their kills. I would recover them and turn them over to the Division of Wildlife instead. After I, and many other landowners testified before the legislature, the hunting laws were changed to make it clear that shooting over private property is (as the criminal laws always said) a trespass and a violation of the hunting regulations that, like any trespass on private property, results in a five year revocation of hunting privileges. That finally put a stop to the trespassing both on my property and the railroad right of way.

Ever since that first incident at sixteen, I decided that I would never go chasing trespassers on my property unarmed, and in the following four decades I never experienced any real violence from a trespasser in large part because I was both polite and reasonable to them despite the fact that they were trespassing, and because I was always armed...and if necessary I discreetly (or as in the case above not very discreetly at all) let them know that fact.

You see, an armed society is a polite society, and I very much want to live in that sort of society.

[Tyrannical]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

Since I'm considering moving to that area of Florida, than yes. I'd certainly feel safer if every Black that didn't belong there was confronted with a gun.
Zimmerman's only mistake was failing to fire before l'ill Trayvon assaulted him. I'd have my hand on my gun and would have fired before that l'ill gangster had a chance to hit me first.

[Seth]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

Apparently many do...you, of all people should realize that, living in Texas. I realize, however that you live in Austin which is the exception rather than the rule.

In view of the martin case, I think the stand your ground law will be modified and more specific if not changed all together. Usually takes someone to die before anything changes.

Um, the law was changed just recently to permit "stand your ground" precisely because the harm not having such a law causes is to the victims of violent crime, such as (so it appears) Mr. Zimmerman.

I seriously doubt they are going to repeal it when it worked precisely as intended in this case.

[FBM]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

What connection does this have with what I actually wrote? Or is this more biased, political spin?

[Seth]

I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he would be parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.

Can you rephrase that in English?

My point was that he probably spends most of his day with his gun. At least all his free time.

So what? I spend all day every day with my gun(s). I spent last weekend shooting steel targets at ranges out to 1000 yards. I carry one every day and have for more than 25 years in public, and longer than that on my own property. And yet I've never gone spontaneously insane merely because I possessed a gun and started shooting people who don't deserve to get shot.

As far as the current evidence shows, Martin deserved to get shot, and he got shot. That's bad planning on his part, but good planning on Zimmerman's part, because he's still alive when he very likely would have been dead or seriously injured had he not been armed.

I always prefer it when the victim comes out of the violent criminal attack in better shape than the thug who attacked him illegally.

[maiforpeace]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

What connection does this have with what I actually wrote? Or is this more biased, political spin?

Since he didn't quote you, I'm assuming that's just a general statement of his.

Maybe that's actually how Amused, and those of us who don't share your beliefs about guns feel? Why do you need to label it biased, political spin?

[Seth]

No problems with this 'stand your ground' law, eh?

Woman Gets 20 years for Firing a Warning Shot

I bet if she knew she was going to get 20 yrs for that, she would have shot him dead instead. Now if she shot him and claimed self defense, she'd get off free. She should have shot that bastard dead.

She'd have gotten first degree murder charges.

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

She had a restraining order against him, then she illegally violated the restraining order by going to her former residence where he lived. Then she illegally entered the house that she no longer lived in. Technically, this is burglary.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

"Feared" for her life by running outside to her car to get her gun and then reentering the house and shot at her ex


If she had stuff she needed to retrieve, she is supposed to make arrangements with the police via a judge.

One hundred percent exactly correct Tyr. She had no business there in the first place and RETURNING to the house with a gun shows intent. Even if she made the mistake of illegally going into the house to "get her stuff" when confronted and placed in fear, and upon ESCAPING that threat, she should have driven away and contacted the police. Getting the gun and going back inside was extremely poor judgment, and firing a shot was intensely stupid...20 year's worth. She got what she deserved.

[Seth]

Shit was indeed started.

By whom, we seem to have dearth of evidence.

There was no need to start any shit at all.

See above.

If Zimmerman had just remained in his car, there would be no shit starting and there wouldn't be a dead kid today.

If Martin had just stayed home, the same would be true.

If Martin had been polite and reasonable and explained his presence, or had even just run away and gone to the residence he was authorized to be at, or merely stood his ground and used his cellphone to CALL THE POLICE and then waited peacefully for them to arrive while remaining on the phone with the dispatcher (like Zimmerman was), he wouldn't be dead.

[Tyrannical]

I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he would be parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.

Can you rephrase that in English?

My point was that he probably spends most of his day with his gun. At least all his free time.

So what? I spend all day every day with my gun(s). I spent last weekend shooting steel targets at ranges out to 1000 yards. I carry one every day and have for more than 25 years in public, and longer than that on my own property. And yet I've never gone spontaneously insane merely because I possessed a gun and started shooting people who don't deserve to get shot.

As far as the current evidence shows, Martin deserved to get shot, and he got shot. That's bad planning on his part, but good planning on Zimmerman's part, because he's still alive when he very likely would have been dead or seriously injured had he not been armed.

I always prefer it when the victim comes out of the violent criminal attack in better shape than the thug who attacked him illegally.

Shooting for a thousand yards is a bit more than what I'd consider self defense

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you really want to live in a society where self-appointed vigilantes can start shit with you and then shoot you if you defend yourself?

What connection does this have with what I actually wrote? Or is this more biased, political spin?

Since he didn't quote you, I'm assuming that's just a general statement of his.

Maybe that's actually how Amused, and those of us who don't share your beliefs about guns feel? Why do you need to label it biased, political spin?

Because if that's how you feel, then your feelings are biased and political spin, because you make a stereotype and generalization about gun owners.

And, the problem with Amused's post is that it makes assumptions that lack foundation -- "self-appointed vigilante?" "start shit" and "shoot you if you defend yourself?" Nobody has even alleged that people should be able to start fights and then shoot people who are merely defending themselves. And, don't you think there is some room for doubt as to whether Zimmerman was a "self-appointed vigilante" who "started shit" and "shot him for trying to defend himself?"

[Seth]

Yes it does require intent.

It doesn't require premeditation and deliberation, but it is still intentional homicide. 2d degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. First degree is intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation.

How am I sidetracked? Others have raised the issue that he had the intent to provoke Martin so that he could kill Martin in alleged self-defense. I just wondered why someone with that sort of intent would call 911, guaranteeing the cops would be there to examine the fresh crime scene.

Even I think that's ridiculous.

I still stand by my belief that it was an accident gone wrong...wrong on BOTH sides. To what extent or percentage remains to be seen. It's not as simplistic as he started it, so he's responsible...whoever 'he' is.

I also don't think zimm was hell bent on killing martin from the start. But he understemated what kind of reaction he would get from martin,

No, he didn't. Clearly he anticipated a violent reaction from a potential burglar, which is why he was armed. Duh.

and since he was not trained in how to handle these situations,

He did use poor judgment in turning his back on a potential attacker. If he'd seen Martin approaching him in a rage and had presented his pistol, Martin would have likely backed off and run away again. The threat of the use of deadly force is always a lesser application of physical force than actually shooting the weapon, and it's extremely effective in most (some 60 percent) cases. But, his bad tactical response doesn't remove his right to self defense.

his first and most obvious option was to shoot.

It's becoming pretty clear that he used deadly force as his very last option before being seriously injured or killed.

However, I think that if zimm didn't have a gun, and they just punched the bejezzus out of each other it would have been much better.

Unless, of course, Zimmerman ends up with his skull fractured and his brains turned to mush, but you don't give a fuck about Zimmerman, you are just making a racist presumption that Martin could not possibly have provoked his own death by attacking Zimmerman.

Even more better would have been if zimm never got out of his car, call 911 and stay put. But getting out of his car and following martin, he was escalating the situation that led to the confrontation.

So what? Zimmerman had EVERY RIGHT to "escalate the situation" because it's HIS PRIVATE COMMUNITY and he has every legal right to question the presence of strangers in his community. Waiting for the police is not a legal requirement for an individual to act lawfully to enforce the law when he suspects a crime is being committed in his presence. Martin was the guest in the community, and had a responsibility to act like a guest and defer to the legal residents by remaining polite and reasonable and explaining his presence to the satisfaction of the people who live there. He failed to uphold his duty as a guest and he attacked a lawful resident for questioning his presence. Too bad for him that he attacked the wrong person.

[Seth]

I think they should not have bailed Z. That way he would be parted from his manhood a few weeks. He sleeps with his gun under the pillow.

Can you rephrase that in English?

My point was that he probably spends most of his day with his gun. At least all his free time.

So what? I spend all day every day with my gun(s). I spent last weekend shooting steel targets at ranges out to 1000 yards. I carry one every day and have for more than 25 years in public, and longer than that on my own property. And yet I've never gone spontaneously insane merely because I possessed a gun and started shooting people who don't deserve to get shot.

As far as the current evidence shows, Martin deserved to get shot, and he got shot. That's bad planning on his part, but good planning on Zimmerman's part, because he's still alive when he very likely would have been dead or seriously injured had he not been armed.

I always prefer it when the victim comes out of the violent criminal attack in better shape than the thug who attacked him illegally.

Shooting for a thousand yards is a bit more than what I'd consider self defense

Depends on the situation and it's important to maintain a perishable skill that might be needed one day against, for example, armed Marxist insurrectionists. My general rule is "If they are closer than 600 yards, they are too damned close."

I hit 4 out of five after a windage miscalculation, so I need to start shooting a mile, because 1000 yards is getting a bit boring.

[Tero]

My point was that he probably spends most of his day with his gun. At least all his free time.

On what basis do you say that? Because he's Hispanic?

I implied no such thing, most gun nuts are white. Living in slums might be a reason to own guns.

I support no concealed gun law and no stand your ground law. These people out in public provide no nenefit for me.

In their fenced property or castle they can shoot all they like.

Zimmerman was never safe to anyone else. A walking time bomb.