Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xantalos]

Who is this Zimmerman fellow?

[Vector]

If her children are in the house, then it makes sense to run back to the house.

[Bauglir]

What Vector said. I'm also not about to accept that we should expect her to carefully reason through the legal implications of her actions, and that actually seems to be kind of the point of SYG. I mean, I actually don't think Stand Your Ground should be in law, but if it's gotta be then this is exactly the sort of situation it should cover.

As for whether or not you should pull a gun and then not try to kill somebody with it... If that's how the law works, I have to say the law is wrong. It's a better deterrent when it is pointed at somebody than when it isn't. You shouldn't get it out if you're unwilling to kill somebody with it, but you shouldn't be obligated to try and kill the instant you draw. The specifics of the situation are important - law enforcement, for instance, needs tougher standards than that. But if we're letting private citizens have guns, then every possible way to use one as a deterrent is superior to any possible use to kill somebody with one.

[Xantalos]

No seriously who is Zimmerman.

[Bauglir]

Behold!

[Xantalos]

Hmm. Did anyone determine whether the dude actually attacked him?

[Frumple]

If her children are in the house, then it makes sense to run back to the house.

... if they were in (immanent) danger, yes (and the article didn't say... I've personally known abusers that never touched a kid, for what little that's worth. And gods know that makes them no less of scum.), but that wouldn't have been covered by SYG stuff. Otherwise th'law holds (so far as I'm aware) that other venues (like calling the cops, ferex) must be attempted before lethal force is pursued (which the court decided was). Blazes if the article provides enough information to know if they were. About all we know -- and even that, not from the article itself -- is that the woman was sentenced for attempted murder. Not stuff related to self-defense, or issues related to warning shots. Maybe the woman chose was the right action to take. Couldn't say, given the information provided.

S'like... yeah, if the kids are in danger, you pull the gun and do what you have to. If they aren't, you don't -- a gun does not come out unless there is immanent and immediate danger, period. I've no clue if the kids were in danger, and apparently (for what it's worth) the court decided they weren't (or at least her lawyer decided not to attempt that angle).

I'm also not about to accept that we should expect her to carefully reason through the legal implications of her actions[...]

Ignorance is kinda' no excuse for breaking the law, et al. If you're a gun owner, you are legally (and, frankly, ethically) obligated to know and hold yourself to the laws related thereof at pretty much all times -- so yeah, reasoning through the legal implications of her actions is part of the (big damn) responsibilities of gun ownership. There's absolutely zero excuse to treat those things cavalierly or without due consideration. Situation can mitigate penalties*, but not the wrongness of the action. I couldn't say, given the information, whether her action was wrong, but the court decided it was and the information I'm currently aware of provides the possibility.

*And part of the problem in this case is the woman ran into the minimum penalty for attempted murder, thus meaning mitigating circumstances couldn't be considered in regards to sentencing. Mandatory sentencing is utter and complete bullshit, yes.

As for whether or not you should pull a gun and then not try to kill somebody with it... If that's how the law works, I have to say the law is wrong. It's a better deterrent when it is pointed at somebody than when it isn't. You shouldn't get it out if you're unwilling to kill somebody with it, but you shouldn't be obligated to try and kill the instant you draw.

You aren't (note warning, etc.). Fairly certain that not providing warning can itself be grounds for legal repercussion in some situations.

[Bauglir]

It's possible that she was wrong, but I think only if she's lying about the relationship being abusive. Ongoing violence characterizing the relationship changes the scenario drastically. As for how you're supposed to handle a gun, I think we're getting off track - I am specifically and only saying that, given two otherwise-identical scenarios where a warning shot was fired and one wasn't, the warning shot is better, and an instructional and legal structure that punishes you for adding an extra step of restraint is a problem. Cavalier behavior, warnings before a draw, etc., are all beside the point.

And, yes, minimum sentences are stupid.

[Frumple]

What I recall of the warning shot thing, the particular issue is it's putting a bullet into the air, quite possibly without due consideration as to where it's going. Stuff like that... causes a number of cases of manslaughter per year. Put in the wall, in the ground... ricochets, penetrations happen. Put it in the air, who the blazes knows where it's going to go? S'bloody dangerous.

... and I'd agree that ongoing violence changes the scenario drastically. I would not, however, say that it reduces the threshold at which using lethal force becomes acceptable. I mean... definitely provide for mitigation re: sentencing, if not conviction. But lethal force is the last resort, no exceptions, yes? And maybe it was, in this case. Don't know.

[Blargityblarg]

The Ethernet cable I had spanning literally the length of the house, from the router way out the back to my computer in my room up the front, has been ground in half by the scissor action between a bookshelf and the doorway it was covering up. This means my main PC has no Internet access for at least a week while I wait for bank payments to clear and the cable to be shipped.

[Bauglir]

But she didn't use lethal force. She used potentially lethal force, yes, but so too is very nearly any kind of violence. Whatever the consequences of putting a bullet in the air are, the consequences of putting a bullet in a person are well-known. At the worst, the result is the same.

EDIT: Huh, this is the Rage thread. We're totally in the wrong place, and should be in our own thread.

[Blargityblarg]

EDIT: Huh, this is the Rage thread. We're totally in the wrong place, and should be in our own thread.

I actually had to make sure it was the rage thread, y'all threw me off.

[Loud Whispers]

I know that this will be controversial and all, but this thread is all about people's personal life and opinions right? So....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: NOT GUITY

Justice, and now everyone can finally shut up about this non-issue.

Hmm. Did anyone determine whether the dude actually attacked him?

Yep.

[Scoops Novel]

You may be right, but i feel like requesting a ban for trolling. Just a reminder to leave it out of this thread.

[Lagslayer]

I think just moving it out of the rage thread would suffice.