Teenager shot/killed while Tweek's hero gets off free

[Thunder]

Your first paragraph is beautiful, but I'm still against this type of law despite what you said.

If we protect you from those situations the law is just. But the law is so poorly done that I can spend all of 2 seconds figuring out how to exploit it. Because the law can be just doesn't mean it always will be just - and if a law can not always be just then it should not be a law.

What I see in SYG is that the killing is up to the discretion of the individual doing the killing and NOT the highest of authorities. Before you kill someone you should definitely worry about jail time. Are you about to die? Chances are you aren't thinking about jail time and will be proven innocent anyway

Self-defense can be such a grey area. Need more investigating rather than hearsay witness testimonies(even those of cops who can lie just as well as zimmerman)

[Sera]

Why what is a bad thing? The stand your ground law? Yeah, I know, I read the quote you posted and even supported it

but I can't help but feel like you're telling me the SYG law getting more attention than treyvon/zimmer is a bad thing

no, SYG is getting attention for the right reasons

Think about what the law says "use of force when they FEEL threatened"

not really a good idea to let intense emotion determine when you use a gun to carry out deadly force

[Indeed]

True, but it's not exactly like you're going to get a written warning when someone decides to escalate force against you, and by the time it happens, it may be too late. Also helps not to be fucking intoxicated while making that decision.

[Tyche]

Just read a story where Zimmerman's attorney said that in this case, the "Stand your ground" law does not apply. They're going to argue self defense.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1q6kWLXwh

The incident occurred Feb. 26, in Sanford, Fla., when watch captain George Zimmerman, 28, pursued, then fatally shot Martin as he was walking at night in a suburban Orlando gated community.

Craig Sonner, an attorney for Zimmerman, also says the law, also known as the castle doctrine, does not apply.

“There was some kind of scuffle that took place,” he told CNN. “There was a gun that was discharged, and now there’s a young man dead. The ultimate issue is whether it was self defense in this case.”

[Chun Liroy]

If they are going with self defense, then I REALLY want to see some medical records.

[Sera]

True, but it's not exactly like you're going to get a written warning when someone decides to escalate force against you, and by the time it happens, it may be too late. Also helps not to be fucking intoxicated while making that decision.

The point i was making was that people tend to make poor decisions in emotionally charged situations. Giving them the "legal right" to shoot someone when their judgment is clouded by intense emotions (& they're possibly wasted) sounds like a pretty bad idea

[Sera]

If they are going with self defense, then I REALLY want to see some medical records.

More importantly, I want to know if any of the neighbors witnessed these injuries that Treyvon allegedly did to Zim. For instance, the lady who came out and saw Zim crouched over the body. Was he injured then? Because I've not heard ONE witness say he was bleeding or otherwise injured when they saw him directly after the shooting.

[Aksannyi]

The point i was making was that people tend to make poor decisions in emotionally charged situations. Giving them the "legal right" to shoot someone when their judgment is clouded by intense emotions (& they're possibly wasted) sounds like a pretty bad idea

Well it should be an automatic, "You shoot someone, first thing you do is pee in a cup and give blood," kind of thing, run a full drug screen on the person. Hell, do that with any action taken in self-defense. I was under the impression that this was standard procedure, but apparently not in some jurisdictions. I mean fuck, I work for a security company and the first thing we do with even the slightest use of force is make the officer pee in a cup.

[Indeed]

The point i was making was that people tend to make poor decisions in emotionally charged situations. Giving them the "legal right" to shoot someone when their judgment is clouded by intense emotions (& they're possibly wasted) sounds like a pretty bad idea

Yes and no, really. Depends on the situation. Police are just people as well, but we (generally) trust them to make those judgments. I think the answer lies in making it mandatory to receive more thorough training in order to legally own a gun. You have to do more training to obtain a driver's license than a gun license, and the primary function of a car is not to be used as a weapon. I think some gun education should be mandatory, including how to appropriately judge when you should be discharging your weapon. I also believe that every year you want to continue owning a gun, people should have to actively qualify. Just because some people are guilty of acting on poor judgment because they don't know what the fuck, doesn't mean we're powerless to reduce instances of that happening.

[Yugl]

The point i was making was that people tend to make poor decisions in emotionally charged situations. Giving them the "legal right" to shoot someone when their judgment is clouded by intense emotions (& they're possibly wasted) sounds like a pretty bad idea

I cannot think of a situation where 1) you would need self-defense, 2) not be emotionally charged, and 3) where society would conventionally find the use of lethal force acceptable. Perhaps with training, sure. Not as a policy designed towards citizens though.

Edit: What Indeed said. Also fixed to make the first sentence clear.

[Sera]

Yes and no, really. Depends on the situation. Police are just people as well, but we (generally) trust them to make those judgments. I think the answer lies in making it mandatory to receive more thorough training in order to legally own a gun. You have to do more training to obtain a driver's license than a gun license, and the primary function of a car is not to be used as a weapon. I think some gun education should be mandatory, including how to appropriately judge when you should be discharging your weapon. I also believe that every year you want to continue owning a gun, people should have to actively qualify. Just because some people are guilty of acting on poor judgment because they don't know what the fuck, doesn't mean we're powerless to reduce instances of that happening.

That's what the article was about. They're saying it's a bad idea because people don't have the training to avoid those kinds of situations or diffuse them the way police and other LE do. They're specifically referring to "laypeople" (so to speak) in that respect. IF people seeking carry licenses were to get more training of that sort or comparable to LE, I'd say this law would be ok-- but we'd have to revisit that after because we don't really know what classes etc they'd have to take yet (since this is a hypothetical scenario.)

Again though, castle laws are legit either way. Someone comes in your house and & threatens, they should expect bullets. Anywhere else though? meh. Dangerous to me to give an untrained civilian that kind of license.

[Indeed]

I must've skipped a page. I agree that untrained people waving their gun boners around every time something mildly arousing happens is dangerous.

[imveryemo]

you guys keep throwing around untrained like people issued CHLs aren't required to take a class, and most further that on their own with combat courses and such. to think that officers get more training in anything but the shooting aspect is laughable, at our academy there's a use of force class, and a use of deadly force class, and that's it for classroom firearm training. we spend lots of time on the range (probably more than most 'civilians' who carry), but that's just because we have to practice drawing from stupid level 3 retention and take 25 yard shots.

[Churchill]

why are police terrible marksman

[Eurell]

you guys keep throwing around untrained like people issued CHLs aren't required to take a class, and most further that on their own with combat courses and such. to think that officers get more training in anything but the shooting aspect is laughable, at our academy there's a use of force class, and a use of deadly force class, and that's it for classroom firearm training. we spend lots of time on the range (probably more than most 'civilians' who carry), but that's just because we have to practice drawing from stupid level 3 retention and take 25 yard shots.

You keep saying most people do this and most people do that. Zimmerman is not most fucking people. He is unarguably someone that does not give a shit about proper procedures (a kid is now dead because of this). So why do you keep assuming he did shit right and took extra classes and trained himself?

[imveryemo]

why are police terrible marksman

because most don't practice on their own, we only get a certain amount of paid range time, and the bar is set so low for passing that you could probably pass with no experience, the draw is the only 'difficult' part, that and shooting weak handed

You keep saying most people do this and most people do that. Zimmerman is not most fucking people. He is unarguably someone that does not give a shit about proper procedures (a kid is now dead because of this). So why do you keep assuming he did shit right and took extra classes and trained himself?

he went through the course to acquire his CHL, and according to the state of florida since 1987 (the year they began issuing permits) is qualified to carry a concealed handgun. regardless of whether or not he attended any further training, he was legal entitled to defend himself against an onslaught that would have undoubtedly led to his demise had he not defended himself

[Chun Liroy]

lol

[imveryemo]

lol

[Indeed]

Undoubtedly.

[imveryemo]

Indeed