|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2012 : 19:05:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
So I gotta wait until he hits me and starts beating me to death before I defend myself? |
Just to be clear, by "defend myself" here you mean "shoot the other guy dead," right? If so, then yes, I would say you have to have more reason to kill someone than mere displays of aggression.
He's already shown an irrational reaction.
|
I would say anyone paranoid enough to conclude that a "lunge" from an unarmed opponent constitutes attempted murder is much more irrational, frankly.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/29/2012 19:06:00 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 21:20:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Machi4velli
An important point as to whether and how much blame to attribute to Zimmerman, but I don't know that it is an important point from a legal standpoint. |
If there's a homicide trial, the judge will handle the matters of law. The jury handles the matters of guilt. If the judge allows evidence that the police instructed Zimmerman not to follow Martin, you can damned well bet that's just the kind of detail likely to strongly influence any unprejudiced jury. |
True, but jury would be instructed not to make the decision on that basis, though it could still bias the results. I would hope they would make the decision in the right way. They should not be voting based on whether they think he was wrong, they should be voting on whether they think the state proved he broke the law. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/29/2012 21:32:40 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2012 : 21:40:46 [Permalink]
|
| They only have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, I think that the the dispatcher telling him to not pursue Travon and he chose to disregard what he was told is evidence because it speaks to his frame of mind. I think it would be hard to argue that what amounts to stalking the kid doesn't count as evidence. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 04:26:47 [Permalink]
|
| I do believe a prosecution of Zimmerman for some kind of homicide will be a difficult, but not hopeless, job for any prosecuting attorney. More and more, I'm convinced a prosecution is needed. Some times they've got to try if they think a crime was committed, even if they suspect the guy will walk at the end of the day. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 07:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
So I gotta wait until he hits me and starts beating me to death before I defend myself? |
So the only way for you to defend yourself is deadly force? How many people get beaten to death by unarmed assaulters on basketball courts, anyway? Is one too high a risk, so that every intentional foul in a game should be answered with gunshots?
|
Remember, I'm from the Chicago area. We have a long history of people being beaten to death. Use of deadly force is up to the individual.
| He's already shown an irrational reaction. |
I've said some irrational things in these forums. I shall endeavor to never meet you, Val, since you might consider my irrationality a justification for killing me. Or maybe if we do meet, I should shoot first since your irrationality defense makes you, in my opinion, a wildly dangerous person.
|
In reference to percieved violence. Nice overgeneralization there.
| History of confrontation and the neighbor felt threatened enough to skin a blade. Something left out by the Bradys? Now I have to wait for someone to start beating my kid before I defend him? |
So I don't have to wait for you to make a move before I shoot you? Awesome.
|
And what is he going to do with the bat? You sure he wasn't running his mouth at the kid before this?
| If I see a jogger on a park path, can I legally blow him away if I mistake his iPod for one of those credit-card-sized knives and panic because he's coming right for me!!? |
He say anything threatening to me to make me believe I'm about to be attacked? |
So now I have to wait for someone to say something threatening? Are you claiming that killers always state their intentions before they kill?
|
Your typical critter makes a demand. I will tend to give people wide berths on jogging paths and the like. At the very least, I watch them to see if they change course to intercept me.
| People out here have been shot by police for holding a padlock or cell phone. And these are the alledged "trained" people who should be the only ones with guns according to the Bradys. |
Oddly, "Stand Your Ground" isn't a positive defense for shooting a cop.
|
Ooooo. Missed the point on that one. Shows that the "highly trained" gun toters make the same errors in judgement and kill people who are unarmed.
| Really? Why? He couldn't summon the magic crime stoppers. Dead goblin was being violent. |
Not dead.| No telling if he was going to escalate into the house. |
So the shooter decided to escalate and provoke a reaction by going out through the doors he already locked, after the violent guy had already shown a desire to leave. His threats were clearly toothless and the only violence he carried out was against an inanimate object after his own truck had been assaulted on a public street. The shooter had many choices to make, and made many of them badly. The last one - to pull the trigger - he made on the basis of nothing more than a lean. It wasn't even a "lunge."
I'd prefer not to live someplace where if someone loses his balance after an argument - even one which included malicious property damage - it's considered a good justification for his execution.
|
So tit for tat doesn't escalate? Both had the chance to walk away. He threatened. Ok, but people never go through picture windows to go after the people inside, huh?
| Assuming they show up in time. Homes aren't safe. Bullets go right through them. |
Homes provide more protection than air. So a person should stay inside and shoot through the walls, windows or doors at passing strangers they find threatening, right? It's enough to think you might be merely attacked. No need to wait until you actually are attacked. No need to try to qualify how much of a threat there is. If you feel threatened, then assume that you will be killed if you don't destroy the threat. And it's quite alright to act in ways that ensure the threat becomes larger and more immanent.
If I happen to be sitting in my open front doorway in broad daylight with a loaded handgun in my lap, and 100 feet away a teenager I've never seen before screams for no apparent (to me) reason and then runs in my general direction, I should blow him away and it would be a "good shoot" because I have no need to wait to actually be assaulted, my home is no protection at all, the kid has already displayed irrationality and it doesn't matter if I craft the situation to ensure that I feel threatened.
Those are the lessons I'm getting from you, Val. My right to swing my fist apparently ends at the limits of your eyesight.
|
When you are attacked, it is already too late to retrieve your weapon to defend yourself.
You have to make the decision on what is reasonable and what is threatening. However, the mere acts of screaming and running have to be taken in context. Was the scream a threat? Is the person approaching me directly (attackers don't typically run down a sidewalk and turn up the front walk, they trample the grass)?
Gun in your lap is open carry. Not allowable except in Texas. Usually viewed as a provocation.
So, taking your example and making it more realistic.
I have weapon in shoulder holster and covered by a windbreaker so that it is not visible. Kid screams in the street and runs in the general direction of the house. I wait to see what happens next, if he crosses onto the lawn and makes a bee-line for me while brandishing a weapon, I shoot him. If he makes a bee line for me and the expression isn't one of rage, I ask him what is going on. These are my decisions. Yours may vary. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 07:49:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
They only have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, I think that the the dispatcher telling him to not pursue Travon and he chose to disregard what he was told is evidence because it speaks to his frame of mind. I think it would be hard to argue that what amounts to stalking the kid doesn't count as evidence.
|
Especially since Trayvon also had the right to stand his ground. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 08:20:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Kil
They only have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, I think that the the dispatcher telling him to not pursue Travon and he chose to disregard what he was told is evidence because it speaks to his frame of mind. I think it would be hard to argue that what amounts to stalking the kid doesn't count as evidence.
|
Especially since Trayvon also had the right to stand his ground.
|
That's going down a slippery slope. Next it might be argued that Martin had the right to carry Skiddles and tea, and to wear a hoody. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 09:53:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Remember, I'm from the Chicago area. We have a long history of people being beaten to death. |
And millions who haven't been.| Use of deadly force is up to the individual. |
So anything goes. Got it.| He's already shown an irrational reaction. |
I've said some irrational things in these forums. I shall endeavor to never meet you, Val, since you might consider my irrationality a justification for killing me. Or maybe if we do meet, I should shoot first since your irrationality defense makes you, in my opinion, a wildly dangerous person. |
In reference to percieved violence. Nice overgeneralization there. |
My perception of your irrationality is directly related to gun violence.| And what is he going to do with the bat? |
The toy bat? Maybe he had it for self-defense. What does it matter? You've made it clear that the intentions of the victims of self-defense are irrelevant.| You sure he wasn't running his mouth at the kid before this? |
So running one's mouth is justification for a death sentence without due process?| Your typical critter makes a demand. |
So what, exactly, are the "typical" scenarios in which use of deadly force is justified in defending oneself? Apparently, in Chicago, people are "typically" beaten to death as a result of verbal arguments. What else?| Ooooo. Missed the point on that one. Shows that the "highly trained" gun toters make the same errors in judgement and kill people who are unarmed. |
Since I already knew that, why make that point? I never claimed that "highly trained" people don't make mistakes, with or without guns.| So tit for tat doesn't escalate? Both had the chance to walk away. He threatened. Ok, but people never go through picture windows to go after the people inside, huh? |
And sometimes people have psychotic breaks on a public street. Should I just shoot everyone I see to be "safe?"| When you are attacked, it is already too late to retrieve your weapon to defend yourself. |
So I should kill everyone, or else I risk being attacked and killed.| You have to make the decision on what is reasonable and what is threatening. |
So if I suffer a psychotic break, and decide that everyone presents a threat to me, you'd call my rampage a "good shoot?"| However, the mere acts of screaming and running have to be taken in context. Was the scream a threat? Is the person approaching me directly (attackers don't typically run down a sidewalk and turn up the front walk, they trample the grass)? |
By the time I make those assessments, I might be dead. Shouldn't I shoot first?| Gun in your lap is open carry. Not allowable except in Texas. |
I can't put a gun in my lap inside my own home?!
By the way, Arizona is also an open-carry state, so you can strap your six-shooters on and prowl the streets of Tombstone, if you like.| Usually viewed as a provocation. |
So what? It's undeniable that Heckman provoked Carroll, and you seem to be defending that as a "good shoot." Provocation seems to be as irrelevant as intent. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 11:29:00 [Permalink]
|
| The "Stand Your Ground" law creeps me out because I have personally met people who have intentionally angered me in hopes that I would do something irrational so they could have an excuse to harm me. If that law was in place, they could have an easy excuse to kill. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 11:41:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Remember, I'm from the Chicago area. We have a long history of people being beaten to death. |
And millions who haven't been.| Use of deadly force is up to the individual. |
So anything goes. Got it.| He's already shown an irrational reaction. |
I've said some irrational things in these forums. I shall endeavor to never meet you, Val, since you might consider my irrationality a justification for killing me. Or maybe if we do meet, I should shoot first since your irrationality defense makes you, in my opinion, a wildly dangerous person. |
In reference to percieved violence. Nice overgeneralization there. |
My perception of your irrationality is directly related to gun violence.| And what is he going to do with the bat? |
The toy bat? Maybe he had it for self-defense. What does it matter? You've made it clear that the intentions of the victims of self-defense are irrelevant.
|
Assumes intent can be magically known by an outside observer. You know mind reading doesn't work.
| You sure he wasn't running his mouth at the kid before this? |
So running one's mouth is justification for a death sentence without due process?
|
Shows provocation by the other party. There is no cut and dried innocent reason for the carrying of the weapon.
| Your typical critter makes a demand. |
So what, exactly, are the "typical" scenarios in which use of deadly force is justified in defending oneself? Apparently, in Chicago, people are "typically" beaten to death as a result of verbal arguments. What else?
|
Usually shot on the South side. North side has their share of issues as well. Awful lot of handguns for a place that alledgedly banned them 20 years ago.
| Ooooo. Missed the point on that one. Shows that the "highly trained" gun toters make the same errors in judgement and kill people who are unarmed. |
Since I already knew that, why make that point? I never claimed that "highly trained" people don't make mistakes, with or without guns.| So tit for tat doesn't escalate? Both had the chance to walk away. He threatened. Ok, but people never go through picture windows to go after the people inside, huh? |
And sometimes people have psychotic breaks on a public street. Should I just shoot everyone I see to be "safe?"
|
Is that what you consider reasonable? Is that what you believe lawful gun owners consider reasonable?
| When you are attacked, it is already too late to retrieve your weapon to defend yourself. |
So I should kill everyone, or else I risk being attacked and killed.
|
The blanket assumption that you must be attacked first is a little late. There is a middle ground that you seem to be purposefully avoiding.
| You have to make the decision on what is reasonable and what is threatening. |
So if I suffer a psychotic break, and decide that everyone presents a threat to me, you'd call my rampage a "good shoot?"
|
Are you equating gun ownership with psychotic disturbance?
| However, the mere acts of screaming and running have to be taken in context. Was the scream a threat? Is the person approaching me directly (attackers don't typically run down a sidewalk and turn up the front walk, they trample the grass)? |
By the time I make those assessments, I might be dead. Shouldn't I shoot first?
|
Is that what you think a lawabiding gun owner would do? It takes you that long to make those assessments?
| Gun in your lap is open carry. Not allowable except in Texas. |
I can't put a gun in my lap inside my own home?! |
If you are inside your own home, then why are you visible to the street?
By the way, Arizona is also an open-carry state, so you can strap your six-shooters on and prowl the streets of Tombstone, if you like.
|
So Arizona is the second state to have open carry. OK. I accept this correction. How does this bode towards their gun death totals by lawful gun owners?
| Usually viewed as a provocation. |
So what? It's undeniable that Heckman provoked Carroll, and you seem to be defending that as a "good shoot." Provocation seems to be as irrelevant as intent.
|
It was a matter of constant escallation. Carroll then moved towards Heckman in a way which made Heckman believe he was about to be assaulted. Carroll could have difused the situation by leaving. Instead he continued to bait Heckman and when Heckman responded in the way Carroll expected, Carroll then beat up Heckman's vehicle. Since this was not the first time Carroll had re-approached the house to do damage or provoke Heckman, Carroll was shot for his trouble. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 12:20:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
The toy bat? Maybe he had it for self-defense. What does it matter? You've made it clear that the intentions of the victims of self-defense are irrelevant. |
Assumes intent can be magically known by an outside observer. You know mind reading doesn't work. |
No, but I do know that most people who commit assaults do not have murder in mind. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more murder and attempted-murder cases and many fewer assault cases going through the courts.| Shows provocation by the other party. |
If provocation by the killer is irrelevant, then why would provocation by the victim be relevant?| There is no cut and dried innocent reason for the carrying of the weapon. |
So what? Nothing about any of your other excuses has been "cut and dried." Why hold me to a different standard?| Is that what you consider reasonable? Is that what you believe lawful gun owners consider reasonable? |
No, I'm trying to figure out what you think is "reasonable." Since everyone has some non-zero possibility of trying to end your life at any time, being "a threat" is not a binary condition. So where do you draw the line between a "good shoot" and a "bad shoot?"| When you are attacked, it is already too late to retrieve your weapon to defend yourself. |
So I should kill everyone, or else I risk being attacked and killed. |
The blanket assumption that you must be attacked first is a little late. |
I can't even parse this in the context of the previous statements.| There is a middle ground that you seem to be purposefully avoiding. |
What middle ground is that?| Are you equating gun ownership with psychotic disturbance? |
No. You claimed that I had to make the decision to use deadly force or not. What if I am psychotic? Is my own mental state irrelevant to the question of whether a killing is justified?| Is that what you think a lawabiding gun owner would do? |
You're the one claiming that using deadly force against people who simply "lean" in your direction is law-abiding. I want to know how far that goes.| It takes you that long to make those assessments? |
A fast runner can cover 100 feet in just over three seconds. That's not a lot of time.| If you are inside your own home, then why are you visible to the street? |
I've got my front door open.| It was a matter of constant escallation. Carroll then moved towards Heckman in a way which made Heckman believe he was about to be assaulted. Carroll could have difused the situation by leaving. |
Assumes that Carroll did not simply had a momentary loss of balance when he was about to turn around and leave.| Instead he continued to bait Heckman and when Heckman responded in the way Carroll expected, Carroll then beat up Heckman's vehicle. |
Assumes knowledge of Carroll's intent.| Since this was not the first time Carroll had re-approached the house to do damage or provoke Heckman, Carroll was shot for his trouble. |
Assumes knowledge of Carroll's intent. Why do you insist that I can't read people's minds, while suggesting that both you and Heckman can? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 20:17:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
The toy bat? Maybe he had it for self-defense. What does it matter? You've made it clear that the intentions of the victims of self-defense are irrelevant. |
Assumes intent can be magically known by an outside observer. You know mind reading doesn't work. |
No, but I do know that most people who commit assaults do not have murder in mind. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more murder and attempted-murder cases and many fewer assault cases going through the courts.| Shows provocation by the other party. |
If provocation by the killer is irrelevant, then why would provocation by the victim be relevant?| There is no cut and dried innocent reason for the carrying of the weapon. |
So what? Nothing about any of your other excuses has been "cut and dried." Why hold me to a different standard?| Is that what you consider reasonable? Is that what you believe lawful gun owners consider reasonable? |
No, I'm trying to figure out what you think is "reasonable." Since everyone has some non-zero possibility of trying to end your life at any time, being "a threat" is not a binary condition. So where do you draw the line between a "good shoot" and a "bad shoot?"
|
Good shoot, questionable shoot, bad shoot. Trinary.
I look at probabilities and try not to provoke others into a physical altercation. There are non-verbal cues that the person will give off that will indicate that they are preparing to attack you physically. Squaring shoulders, getting lower to the ground, picking up speed, looking to get in the final burst of speed to take you down. Several others. Requires watchfulness and requires that the individual do their own risk assessment.
| When you are attacked, it is already too late to retrieve your weapon to defend yourself. |
So I should kill everyone, or else I risk being attacked and killed. |
The blanket assumption that you must be attacked first is a little late. |
I can't even parse this in the context of the previous statements.
|
Your level of response seems wholly tied to the other person throwing the first punch before you react to the threat. Allowing the individual into arms length gives that attacker the upper hand.
| There is a middle ground that you seem to be purposefully avoiding. |
What middle ground is that?| Are you equating gun ownership with psychotic disturbance? |
No. You claimed that I had to make the decision to use deadly force or not. What if I am psychotic? Is my own mental state irrelevant to the question of whether a killing is justified?
|
As a background check is supposed to catch nuances like that, it would be unlikely that you would have a gun.
The undiagnosed mentally disturbed person who shot up a state senator does so that it can happen. But I also don't see many places call out for knife control or baseball bat control. It just seems that guns are singled out as the evil bugaboo that they are not.
| Is that what you think a lawabiding gun owner would do? |
You're the one claiming that using deadly force against people who simply "lean" in your direction is law-abiding. I want to know how far that goes.
|
Is is also contextual on the pattern of behavior that is displayed whether a "lean" may be interpreted as a prelude to physical attack.
| It takes you that long to make those assessments? |
A fast runner can cover 100 feet in just over three seconds. That's not a lot of time.
| If you are inside your own home, then why are you visible to the street? |
I've got my front door open.
|
If the weapon is seeable from the street, then it is considered open carry, IIRC.
| It was a matter of constant escallation. Carroll then moved towards Heckman in a way which made Heckman believe he was about to be assaulted. Carroll could have difused the situation by leaving. |
Assumes that Carroll did not simply had a momentary loss of balance when he was about to turn around and leave.| Instead he continued to bait Heckman and when Heckman responded in the way Carroll expected, Carroll then beat up Heckman's vehicle. |
Assumes knowledge of Carroll's intent.| Since this was not the first time Carroll had re-approached the house to do damage or provoke Heckman, Carroll was shot for his trouble. |
Assumes knowledge of Carroll's intent. Why do you insist that I can't read people's minds, while suggesting that both you and Heckman can?
|
Based on a pattern of behavior, certian intent can be assumed. Sometimes wrongly, but it can indicate intent. This is what Heckman was faced with and he reacted as he felt appropriate. Given the state of escalation and Carroll's continued baiting/"step up" type of statements, he was trying to physically intimidate a man much older than himself.
Remember when Aldrin decked Sibrel? This is the kind of escallation that I am talking about. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 21:05:42 [Permalink]
|
Val:
Remember when Aldrin decked Sibrel? This is the kind of escallation that I am talking about. |
Yeah. And in Florida, Sibrel could have shot Aldren dead, instead of losing his civil case against him. And it would have been legal under that boneheaded law. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 21:10:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Good shoot, questionable shoot, bad shoot. Trinary. |
Then where do you draw the lines between a "good shoot" and a "questionable shoot," and a "questionable shoot" and a "bad shoot?"| I look at probabilities and try not to provoke others into a physical altercation. There are non-verbal cues that the person will give off that will indicate that they are preparing to attack you physically. Squaring shoulders, getting lower to the ground, picking up speed, looking to get in the final burst of speed to take you down. Several others. Requires watchfulness and requires that the individual do their own risk assessment. |
But this risk assessment results in a determination of whether the death penalty is warranted or not. Do you petition your representatives to make all simple assaults capital crimes? If you think you're capable being judge, jury and executioner in the heat of the moment, do you think an actual judge and a jury of peers who aren't running on adrenaline could do worse?| Your level of response seems wholly tied to the other person throwing the first punch before you react to the threat. Allowing the individual into arms length gives that attacker the upper hand. |
And that last statement makes me think you're saying that I should shoot everyone on sight, just to be sure that nobody ever gets within arm's length of me. I can't know which people are psychos who will suddenly launch into me as soon as my back is turned, after all. You're clearly telling me that I shouldn't wait until someone throws a punch, and that I should react to the merest inkling of a threat with the highest level of response I can muster.
And then, you throw all sorts of qualifiers on it to (apparently) make it seem more reasonable, but with no seeming consistency. For example, what does it matter if someone has "rage" on their face? I've been assaulted by people who were laughing.| As a background check is supposed to catch nuances like that, it would be unlikely that you would have a gun. |
Wait. Now you're appealing to the ability of government agents to do their jobs competently?! Now I'm sure that your position isn't at all self-consistent.| It just seems that guns are singled out as the evil bugaboo that they are not. |
I'm not talking about guns specifically, I'm talking about the use of deadly force in response to a "lean" or a "lunge." We'd be having this same discussion if Heckman had kung-fu'd Carroll's leg. You'd be claiming that it was a "good kick" and I'd be wondering what sort of anarchic world you're hankering for, one in which a sneeze could be considered to be a good justification for using the five point palm-exploding heart technique?| Based on a pattern of behavior, certian intent can be assumed. Sometimes wrongly, but it can indicate intent. This is what Heckman was faced with and he reacted as he felt appropriate. |
Apparently, it is now "appropriate" to intentionally escalate a conflict.  | Given the state of escalation and Carroll's continued baiting/"step up" type of statements, he was trying to physically intimidate a man much older than himself. |
Carroll was in his truck and not an immediate threat until Heckman threw the doorknob. Are you trying to tell me that that action was justified?| Remember when Aldrin decked Sibrel? This is the kind of escallation that I am talking about. |
And it's clear from the video that Aldrin should have been charged with assault. Mere words do not warrant a violent response, Aldrin was obviously irrational. By your logic, Val, Sibrel should have blown Buzz away as soon as the old man clenched his fist, and not waited for his actual attack. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 21:44:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
They only have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Yes, but prove he broke a specific law beyond a reasonable doubt. I definitely agree some dots need to be connected that cannot be fully proven in any prosecution, but we always need to be careful that the state has all burden of proof and jurors don't use inadmissible or tangential information. "I think he was morally wrong," isn't valid for much of anything.
Also, I think that the the dispatcher telling him to not pursue Travon and he chose to disregard what he was told is evidence because it speaks to his frame of mind. I think it would be hard to argue that what amounts to stalking the kid doesn't count as evidence.
|
Disregarding that was not illegal as far as I know (though of course if they found that he pulled the gun too early, you could have false imprisonment or something). Anyway, I don't think this piece of information is very useful, it may be used in combination with some other facts to argue for a particular state of mind, but I certainly don't see this fact being the major piece of an effective argument about a state of mind. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unarmed Trayvon Martin gunned down
