It’s really simple- if the law is on the shooters side, the law is garbage.
Stand your ground?
- Thread starter QuaZ2002
- Start date
- Status
Yep. Was this voted on, or simply passed by the state legislature buoyed by money from guess who?
If a majority of citizens truly believe that this event was justified... wow. You can’t make this crap up.
You don’t put out fires by adding fuel. This line of thinking is dangerous beyond belief.
I pray no one thinks it’s justified.
However, I do believe the shooter was within his rights as the law is written today. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, and that’s where it gets very tricky. I’m pro-gun, but in my head only reasonable law abiding level headed people should be owning and especially be carrying guns. Now, how do we all agree on the definition of “level headed”....there within lies the problem.
I was talking to the girl who does my hair about how to determine. She is on the left side of this issue. When I mentioned that people who are felons shouldn’t own guns, she agreed. When I said that means people with DUIs shouldn’t own guns, she got defensive. The reason she did is because she has a DUI, and remember, she doesn’t even want to own a gun. It was a hard reality that hit her in real time. No one wants to be labeled as not fit to have the rights that others in our country do have.
If this guy flashed his gun at someone in the past when there was not imminent danger, he should have immediately lost his privilege to carry and deemed ‘unfit’.
Last edited:
Good point, people like to think that the laws are good for everyone; well except their situation. People make excuses for their transgressions, because they had a set of circumstances they can explain. I like the idea of judging people by their actions but taking into account the specific situation. What is happening today is if you do X then you are guilty of X; regardless of what the circumstances were.
Gotta agree with most of your premise.
Mandatory sentencing is the result of your “if you do x, then you are guilty of x” scenario.
That has caused a massive increase in incarceration rates, private prisons with vested interests in keeping those numbers high, a huge increase in the criminal justice “system” overall and a tearing apart of lower income communities.
We can’t afford mandatory sentencing.
That is cute mumbo jumbo from a guy that let's his bias influence what he says and does. As long as it pushes his agenda forward. I don't mind that you have certain views but please don't try and pretend you don't have a bias based on your personal opinions.
Thank you. I am probably not explaining my beliefs well. Bottom line is you can't possibly judge everyone on a single premise. I can live with that if that is the way we want our nation to be; the problem is 99% of the people including me always find an out for the person they think is righteous enough to deserve a break. That break can be based on political opinion, affiliation, or social status among other things.
What the hell are you talking about? Of course I am biased toward my personal opinions and perspectives and agendas! When have I EVER suggested otherwise?!
That “cute mumbo jumbo” refers to the empirically based social psychology concepts that SUPPORT your stance and explain the phenomena you were describing, dipshit.
However, the premise that it is OK to randomly assault others has no place in our world. This is not a new thought to most of us. Only the privileged are astounded by widespread push back against their actions.
It is a shame that Billy Bush’s buddy didn’t get treated the same as this cad in the video.
Insult my education all you like, if that is what your ego needs to do to protect itself.
Regardless, the actor/observer bias and the fundamental attribution error do support and explain the phenomena you are describing. Feel free to cite them to strengthen your argument.
You’re welcome.
Regardless, the actor/observer bias and the fundamental attribution error do support and explain the phenomena you are describing. Feel free to cite them to strengthen your argument.
You’re welcome.
I think it’s time to load up and make a run to the dump. Gotta look around for some schmuck to holler at...
J/K.
J/K.
I didn't call someone a dipshit; more than welcome to have a discussion. Just don't think that you can pull the education card without some level of push back. While a higher education is certainly a quality and level of better understanding for some things; it doesn't allow you to have a monopoly on what goes on in the real world. Please apology for being aggressive towards me so we can continue a professional discussion. I feel like you are trying to bully me with your Ph'd; please don't be a bully.
When the shooter pulled his gun he had all the power. ALL THE POWER. He controlled the situation. The deceased was backing away in recognition of this fact. The shooter could have done virtually anything else he wanted to at that point. He could have backed away til he was out of reach. He could have ordered the guy to put his hands up til police arrived. That gun was his safety valve if the guy wanted to charge him. He didn’t try anything to avoid shooting. He just shot the guy with hardly a second thought. He’s got a history of brandishing a weapon at the slightest hint of trouble. He’s a menace to society that finally took the ultimate step and killed someone. Over a parking space in a mostly empty lot.
Ranger, you are the only person in this thread who has “pulled the education card.” You are the only person who has referenced my education or my PhD. You are the person who got aggressive toward me in response to my post that was SUPPORTING yours. You are the person making this personal and attempting to be a bully. I called you a dipshit, because you are acting like a dipshit. Grow up.
Yeah, you make a fair point. I don't think the shooter should have shot the deceased. He definitely could have ran away, as you stated or backed up, or withdrew.
But, the deceased also assaulted the shooter, which is why the shooter drew his weapon in the first place.
The whole situation sucks.
I would have convicted Zimmerman.
Regardless though, the "stand your ground" law had nothing to do with his case. It's a shame that people mistakenly think that.
Last edited:
What I find funny is you seem to think it is ok to be aggressive to people you don't like or agree with; just not people you agree or like. My point in this whole discussion and the other thread was more about proving the double standard many with your political opinion or persuasion seem to have. You and those who have the same mind set would be better off trying to be more balanced than having a set of standards you can't hold even your own people too. Whatever though, it is not likely you will get it.
I owe you an apology. I actually tried to delete that gif. I even put "not nice" in the reason for deletion. I really didn't think it was going to post. My bad.
No worries contrary to your belief I don't dislike you. I just think you are wrong on most issues; but I am certain your feel the same way. I just ask that you give people the benefit of the doubt. Disagreeing dosn't mean either of us is wrong.I owe you an apology. I actually tried to delete that gif. I even put "not nice" in the reason for deletion. I really didn't think it was going to post. My bad.
Did I call you a name? Name calling is the first sign of losing an argument. Seriously grow up; you are the one acting like a child. If by grow up you mean put 2 kids through private school, 1 through college, another through college next year, pay a mortgage for 20 plus years, stay married for 20 plus years, never get accused let alone convicted of sexual assault, and I could go on then guess I need to become an adult at some point. Living in a bubble doesn't equate to being a grown up. FYI
Ranger, pay attention: I wasn’t arguing with you! I was agreeing with and supporting you.
When I say grow up and stop acting like a dipshit, I am not saying anything about you or your personal life. I have no idea why you are trying to bring my personal life or yours into a silly little messageboard discussion. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me.
I am saying recognize that you made a mistake and own it.
When I say grow up and stop acting like a dipshit, I am not saying anything about you or your personal life. I have no idea why you are trying to bring my personal life or yours into a silly little messageboard discussion. I don’t know you, and you don’t know me.
I am saying recognize that you made a mistake and own it.
I can’t help it that you misrepresent yourself. If you’re upset w/me look in the mirror for not telling the truth. (Shrugs)
It’s the DA that agrees. The actual prosecutor.
It is the District Attorney who ultimately decides these things. Sometimes public pressure makes them choose to prosecute cases that they know they can’t successfully convict. This is one of those.
Once you make the conscious choice to put your hands on someone with violent intent, you need to understand the concept of consequences. This victim chose poorly, and paid for it with his life.
Big problem in today’s society is lack of consequences for actions.
sorry, I was not clear in my question. If the exact same situation happened , but the shooter was "savagely" pushed down by a man that was a foot shorter an 20 lbs lighter is that a justifiable murder?
The real unknown here RRR is the shooter’s view. He was violently and suddenly assaulted by a big, angry dude 20 years younger than he was. Was he stunned? If he was scared and in genuine fear for his life, legally, he was justified. That is the legal definition of the statute. Your dad is a law enforcement expert, he knows this. I am only talking legally. Ask him if he thinks the DA could get a conviction in Florida in this case.
As I said, I believe there were other options, but after thinking about this a bit, didn’t the victim have other options? If the victim comes out and aggressively verbally lashes the shooter instead of attacking him, is he alive today??
Actions have consequences.
Absolute true facts. There is no question the shooter would be charged in Mass, NY, NJ or any firearm unfriendly state. This happened in Florida.
Yep people today seem to think that they can touch you, get in your face or whatever; your choice, but those all have consequences.
These situations always evoke emotional, moral and legal responses. The only one of those that matter in ultimately deciding the criminal outcome is the legal one.
Facts matter, and while this is a very close judgement call, the victim brought this on himself by starting the physical altercation. If he doesn’t assault the shooter, he is alive today. Period.
The only fuel that was added here was by the victim. He chose to escalate the situation. He paid the price.
If this shooter ever brandished his gun, he should have been charged. Then, he would have lost his right to carry a firearm. Is it confirmed this happened?
- Status
