The next George Zimmerman case?

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:00 pm

fisticuffs wrote:I don't need any more info to decide if it's murder. Someone was shot to death who was in no way invading a home or posing a threat. Regardless of the shooter's intent they killed an innocent person. Unfortunately the courts may not see it that way thanks to the NRA shoving their laws through the MI legislature. Manslaughter at a minimum.


Have you ever been selected to serve on a jury? If so, how did that mistake happen?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:03 pm

rabble wrote:And two people equals "many."

Okay. You're ready for jury duty.


Give 'em a chance to weigh in... like Fisti just did.

minicat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby minicat » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:44 pm

If only the gun nuts would only shoot other gun nuts, this problem would take care of itself eventually.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:18 pm

minicat wrote:If only the gun nuts would only shoot other gun nuts, this problem would take care of itself eventually.


Somewhere in Dictator Hell, Hitler is sighing "if only the Jews had self-exterminated...."

I've never heard any "gun nuts" ever suggest anything as nutty as what you just said.

Hmmm.. if only those who would infringe civil liberties would infringe the rights of other rights-infringers the problem of having to read their insane posts would take care of itself eventually. Hey! Maybe you ARE onto something! :D

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby penquin » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:21 pm

minicat wrote:If only the gun nuts would only shoot other gun nuts, this problem would take care of itself eventually.


But most of the folks who are darn right nutty about guns are too afraid to even look at a gun, let alone hold and shoot one.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:24 pm

Dangerousman wrote:If he meant he shot intentionally while under the mistaken impression that she was trying to break into his house, then that's tragic but not necessarily criminal.


Well it fucking should be. When you get the right to shoot someone because your "under the impression" then that's just plain fucked up.

If the gun was out and it accidentally went off, then I agree it's another story. If that's the case, first thing to do is revoke his gun license forever.

Ah, once again, there are no witnesses.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14035
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby snoqueen » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:49 pm

When some girl is pounding on your door in the middle of the night, all bloody and possibly confused, I think you have an obligation to figure out a way to help her. What if she was fleeing an attack?

If I didn't want to open the door, I would at least turn on all the front lights, speak to her through a window, and ask if I should call 911 for an ambulance with EMTs. I know without a doubt that would be my first response in such a situation.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:49 pm

Another scenario is to just shoot her. You never know. Right?

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6565
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby gargantua » Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:42 am

Stebben84 wrote:Another scenario is to just shoot her. You never know. Right?


Right. And, as mentioned earlier, another scenario is that the gun went off accidentally. Or the victim said or did something to startle the homeowner that caused him to squeeze the trigger. Or, he thought wow, I finally get my chance to kill somebody and get away with it.

We just don't know. I can't imagine how we'll ever know.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:29 am

Stebben84 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:If he meant he shot intentionally while under the mistaken impression that she was trying to break into his house, then that's tragic but not necessarily criminal.


Well it fucking should be. When you get the right to shoot someone because your "under the impression" then that's just plain fucked up.

If the gun was out and it accidentally went off, then I agree it's another story. If that's the case, first thing to do is revoke his gun license forever.

Ah, once again, there are no witnesses.


I don't agree. You're challenging a fundamental point of every self-defense law in the country and the English Common Law that forms its basis.

Here are a couple of examples for you to consider:

1) (An actual case) Homeowner's kid wants to play a practical joke on his father so he puts on a mask and hides in the closet and jumps suddenly out with a knife. Father instinctively reacts by drawing his gun, shooting and killing his son. You're suggesting that the father should be held criminally responsible for not verifying that the person jumping out with a mask and weapon isn't just a practical joker before shooting?
2) Guy walking through the woods comes across a woman apparently getting raped by a guy holding a knife. She's tied up and screaming for help. Guy clobbers "rapist" only to learn that they were engaging in some mutual role-playing fantasy. You're suggesting that before taking any action he should have politely verified that it wasn't some consenual encounter?

This isn't the way the law has ever been. It only requires that one have a reasonable belief-- not necessarily a true belief-- that an unlawful interference is taking place. Reasonable means that a people with normal sensibilities, e.g., the jury, would under the same circumstance share that belief had they been in the actor's shoes.

Tell us what threshold or standards you'd suggest should be in the law if you don't believe it ought to allow for an honest mistake.

minicat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4538
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 2:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby minicat » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:12 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
minicat wrote:If only the gun nuts would only shoot other gun nuts, this problem would take care of itself eventually.


Somewhere in Dictator Hell, Hitler is sighing "if only the Jews had self-exterminated...."



Well, I was just poking at you to see how you would respond, and you called me Hitler.

Fuuuuuuuuck you.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:14 pm

minicat wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
minicat wrote:If only the gun nuts would only shoot other gun nuts, this problem would take care of itself eventually.


Somewhere in Dictator Hell, Hitler is sighing "if only the Jews had self-exterminated...."



Well, I was just poking at you to see how you would respond, and you called me Hitler.

Fuuuuuuuuck you.


You were expecting more?

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:20 pm

Dangerousman wrote:1) (An actual case) Homeowner's kid wants to play a practical joke on his father so he puts on a mask and hides in the closet and jumps suddenly out with a knife. Father instinctively reacts by drawing his gun, shooting and killing his son.


Shooting and killing someone is not necessarily instinctual to all humans.

Dangerousman wrote:You're suggesting that the father should be held criminally responsible for not verifying that the person jumping out with a mask and weapon isn't just a practical joker before shooting?


I guess I didn't go through all the scenarios and this is a case where I don't think it could be a convictable crime. Killing your kid is a horrible price to pay for walking around your house with a gun.

Dangerousman wrote:Guy walking through the woods comes across a woman apparently getting raped by a guy holding a knife. She's tied up and screaming for help. Guy clobbers "rapist" only to learn that they were engaging in some mutual role-playing fantasy. You're suggesting that before taking any action he should have politely verified that it wasn't some consenual encounter?


They weren't killed and since sex in public is illegal, I don't see any punishment needed.

According to the police reports, he shot her through a locked screen door. Let me ask you, at what point is she considered a "threat under his impression" On his lawn? On his porch?

How about this. You're on the street. An unsightly looking character comes running after you yelling, but you can't understand. As they get closer you freak out that they are going to hurt you, pull out your gun and shoot them. Turns out you dropped your wallet and they were trying to catch up to you. Reasonable self defense?

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:23 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
rabble wrote:And two people equals "many."

Okay. You're ready for jury duty.


Give 'em a chance to weigh in... like Fisti just did.


I don't think the intent of the action should get you off entirely. Shooting someone you thought might have been a threat was an action. If there was a threat I'd call it self defense, since there clearly was not I'd call it manslaughter. This guy DID shoot and kill someone who had broken no law and made or intended no threat. Shoot first ask question later I guess just wish there was some consequence for making a bad decision with a gun. The NRA had that removed. If you accidentally kill someone with your car it's manslaughter, if you accidentally kill someone with a gun it is not?

People should be able to protect themselves with a firearm but they should be held responsible when they fuck up. Owning a gun is a great responsibility why do people like you Dman want to take that responsibility out of the equation?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14035
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The next George Zimmerman case?

Postby snoqueen » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:51 pm

I think the gun faction is/are doing themselves a disservice by defending any and all uses of a gun, including this one where a guy shot a girl seeking help from him. Legal it may be, but sooner or later people are going to get fed up with such loose laws. And sooner or later people are going to get fed up with a political faction that stands behind this kind of behavior by gun owners who are no more qualified and trained than than my dog.

The legal grounds may be ever-so-clear but on a human level it is totally fucked, and everyday people can tell the difference. Nobody wants their daughter or son killed like this, and a great many people have daughters and sons.

The gun rights folks are sawing off the very limb they're sitting on, which is about the real definition of personal safety and community safety. You guys have passed the point where you're winning converts by creating an atmosphere of fear and hyperreliance on a particular reading of law, and are going to see a backlash created by your own intransigence.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests