General Political Thread

[Hixter]

This is a guy who is going to do something stupid with a gun again in the near or maybe slightly distant future.

That's quite an authoritative stance for something that is merely a guess (and possibly wishful thinking.)

[Mr. Heartbreak]

It's actually pretty predictable.

Put yourself in his shoes: if you killed someone, went on trial for murder, and got off, how would you act afterwards? Would you not, at the very least, keep a low profile? Avoid conflict a bit? Maybe try not to break the law?

Not Zimmy. I think most of us hope we never hear or read about him again. Sadly, life does not work that way. Hotheads get in trouble, and it's unlikely he will never get in trouble again. He has a lengthy history, yet no rehabilitation.

[Hixter]

He has a lengthy history

His history of gun-related incidents has exactly one entry: the shooting of Trayvon Martin -- for which he was acquitted.

 

If you're including speeding tickets and arguments with spouses as part of the 'lengthy history,' then pretty much every person in the country has a 'lengthy history.'

[bjorn_skurj]

Hey, why don't we take a break from endlessly debating the motives of a dude none of us have ever even met and read this?

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-weirdest-things-weve-learned-since-911/

[Hixter]

That's 5 minutes of my like that I'll never get back.

[ih8music]

I was wondering about that earlier today, amid the sea of "never forget" reminders about 9/11, what we actually learned from it. I didn't come up with a very satisfying list.

[John Smith]

"Disarming" him would essentially be theft, assault and/or a threatening act. Smart people don't try to take someone's firearm, they remove themselves from the situation.

so my scenario was the dad standing his ground because he was feeling threatened, so disarming him and standing your ground is not applicable, it is theft. I'm 100% done with this topic.

 

BTW i am not some anti gun zealot, I own multiple firearms and use them safely for hunting and target shooting. I have access to over 100 weapons with mine and my brothers collections. So I am coming from a viewpoint of enjoying shooting and think that this guy is an absolutely irresponsible tool.

[Hixter]

so my scenario was the dad standing his ground because he was feeling threatened, so disarming him and standing your ground is not applicable, it is theft. I'm 100% done with this topic.

I don't believe that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws applies if the person is legally entitled to be in the home (homeowner, renter, family member, etc.) Unless Ms. Zimmerman had a restraining order, George Zimmerman was legally allowed to be in the house.

 

It really comes down to the wisdom of grabbing someone's gun. It wouldn't be difficult to convince a jury that someone who grabs your (hidden) gun is planning to use it against you. Try grabbing a cop's gun sometime and see what happens.

[LouieB]

That's quite an authoritative stance for something that is merely a guess (and possibly wishful thinking.)

Sure it is. But isn't that basically what we do here?  Speculate on shit?

 

It's actually pretty predictable.

Put yourself in his shoes: if you killed someone, went on trial for murder, and got off, how would you act afterwards? Would you not, at the very least, keep a low profile? Avoid conflict a bit? Maybe try not to break the law?

Not Zimmy. I think most of us hope we never hear or read about him again. Sadly, life does not work that way. Hotheads get in trouble, and it's unlikely he will never get in trouble again. He has a lengthy history, yet no rehabilitation.

What he says.  George Zimmerman didn't just have ONE incident, he had one major very famous incident.  Everyone one is entitled to make a mistake, or a bad day, but killing someone is a really bad day and a really big mistake, although I would guess HIxter wouldn't characterize that as a mistake (I will let him speak for himself), but most of the rest of us would. 

 

Sure OJ also had a bad day or two getting arrested and prosecuted for a double murder he didn't commit, but somehow he didn't just go about his life in obscurity.  So it goes and so it may go with Zimmerman.  This may be the last we ever hear from him.  It would be perfectly fine with me if the next time we hear about him is his obit 50 or 60 years from now indicating he led a quiet and productive life somewhere out of the public eye.  We shall see..

 

LouieB

[Winston Legthigh]

I don't believe that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws applies if the person is legally entitled to be in the home (homeowner, renter, family member, etc.) Unless Ms. Zimmerman had a restraining order, George Zimmerman was legally allowed to be in the house.

You've got it in reverse. The question of whether the "person is legally entitled to be there" is one of the person who is standing their ground, not the person who is about to get shot.

 

"a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."

[KevinG]

So I'll try to shift the conversation again.

 

Anyone care about Syria?  There was a major shift in how PBO is dealing with Syria and a major difference in the speech he was to give and the speech he gave Tuesday night.  

 

Do you think the Diplomacy angle will work?  Are you glad we are going towards diplomacy rather than bombing Syria?  What do you think about Russia's end game in all this?  What about Putin's op-ed?  

 

Just wondering.  

[Winston Legthigh]

Yes, no more war please. 

[Hixter]

You've got it in reverse. The question of whether the "person is legally entitled to be there" is one of the person who is standing their ground, not the person who is about to get shot.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

[Hixter]

killing someone is a really bad day and a really big mistake, although I would guess HIxter wouldn't characterize that as a mistake

I'm sure it was the worst day of Zimmerman's life, but I wouldn't consider it a mistake to shoot someone who was smashing my face in. The jury agreed.

 

Do you think the Diplomacy angle will work?  Are you glad we are going towards diplomacy rather than bombing Syria?  What do you think about Russia's end game in all this?  What about Putin's op-ed?  

Stalling tactic to make the United States look weak and wobbly; Putin played it perfectly. John Kerry's assurance that any strike would be "unbelievably small" should result in his resignation -- especially when taken with his off-the-cuff remark that gave Putin and Assad an out. If this is the "smart diplomacy" that the Obama campaign promised, then I think they need to look up the meaning of the word "smart."

[Winston Legthigh]

 

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

 

Let's look at the whole thing. 

 

The way you're presenting it makes it seem that the FIL wouldn't be justified in shooting George if George threatened FIL's life. The part of the law you're quoting is after a big OR in 776.012 (1). 

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or ( The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. ( “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[Atticus]

 

Let's look at the whole thing. 

 

The way you're presenting it makes it seem that the FIL wouldn't be justified in shooting George if George threatened FIL's life. The part of the law you're quoting is after a big OR in 776.012 (1). 

 

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that 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; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (  The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or © The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (  “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. © “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

 

I like that the legislature included smilies in such a serious piece of legislation.

[Sir Stewart]

Me too. Makes it fun.

[Atticus]

So I'll try to shift the conversation again.

 

Anyone care about Syria?  There was a major shift in how PBO is dealing with Syria and a major difference in the speech he was to give and the speech he gave Tuesday night.  

 

Do you think the Diplomacy angle will work?  Are you glad we are going towards diplomacy rather than bombing Syria?  What do you think about Russia's end game in all this?  What about Putin's op-ed?  

 

Just wondering.  

 

I care about Syria.

 

I think there was a shift in President Obama's treatment of this issue.  I think a lot of people with knowledge far greater than mine on international issues (including former Secretary of State Clinton) suspect that Obama blew the window to actually effect some positive results in the Syria situation, and did so for political reasons.

 

From what I've read I don't think the diplomatic efforts will be successful.  I think things are too precarious with Russia's involvement for anything we do right now to have any real effect.

 

It's a very sad situation.  So I'm listening to The Shouting Matches play "Gallup, NM," because that makes me very happy.

[KevinG]

 

I care about Syria.

 

I think there was a shift in President Obama's treatment of this issue.  I think a lot of people with knowledge far greater than mine on international issues (including former Secretary of State Clinton) suspect that Obama blew the window to actually effect some positive results in the Syria situation, and did so for political reasons.

 

From what I've read I don't think the diplomatic efforts will be successful.  I think things are too precarious with Russia's involvement for anything we do right now to have any real effect.

 

It's a very sad situation.  So I'm listening to The Shouting Matches play "Gallup, NM," because that makes me very happy.

 

 

I don't trust Russia or Putin, getting all the chemical weapons out of Syria is an impossibility (especially in the middle of a civil war).  But bombing them would be ineffective and received poorly around the world, especially now that there a diplomatic option out there.

 

Why does the US have to be the policeman of the World?  Why can't we follow the Jeffersonian model where out national well being is more important than that of other countries.   

[Good Old Neon]

It is also common for people to make false claims in order to 'punish' their partner by having them arrested under zero-tolerance domestic violence laws. My mother volunteered at a women's shelter for many years and she heard plenty of stories from the residents. She once overheard a woman telling a new resident, "Just slap yourself on the arm with the handle of a wooden spoon four times and it'll look like he grabbed/slapped you and the cops will have to take him to jail."

 

 

It's also common for a victim of domestic abuse to recant their story out of fear, and a habitual need to try to make things better to avoid further violence.

[Atticus]

Why does the US have to be the policeman of the World?  Why can't we follow the Jeffersonian model where out national well being is more important than that of other countries.

 

I'm not well-read on such matters but my guess would be because we owe a buttfuckload of money and because we are dependent on natural resources from countries whose inhabitants abhor our sinful, vacuous entitlement way of life.  

[Winston Legthigh]

Why does the US have to be the policeman of the World?    

 

The military industrial monster has to keep rolling to feed itself. Gotta use those expensive weapons to create the need for newer weapons so that all those budget slots can get filled every year. 

[NoJ]

The military industrial monster has to keep rolling to feed itself. Gotta use those expensive weapons to create the need for newer weapons so that all those budget slots can get filled every year. 

Yeah, that and the self imposed moral right to be global cop.

That being said, I still think we should bomb the hell out of Syria for using chemical weapons. The US and the world should not let that slide.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

So I'll try to shift the conversation again.

 

Anyone care about Syria?  

I thought about this post today when I saw this political cartoon:

[lamradio]

Yeah, that and the self imposed moral right to be global cop.

That being said, I still think we should bomb the hell out of Syria for using chemical weapons. The US and the world should not let that slide.

 

We should have bombed their asses a long time ago.  Not really sure why chemical weapons were the "red line".  What about the red line for killing thousands of innocent civilians over the last two years?  Not red enough I guess.. That line must just have a pinkish hue..